came to the conclusion that these remains were those of a "New Pace" of
Libyan invaders. This race, they supposed, had entered Egypt after the
close of the flourishing period of the "Old Kingdom" at the end of the
VIth Dynasty, and had occupied part of the Nile valley from that time
till the period of the Xth Dynasty.

This conclusion was proved erroneous by M. de Morgan almost as soon
as made, and the French archæologist's identification of the primitive
remains as pre-dynastic was at once generally accepted. It was obvious
that a hypothesis of the settlement of a stone-using barbaric race in
the midst of Egypt at so late a date as the period immediately preceding
the XIIth Dynasty, a race which mixed in no way with the native
Egyptians themselves, and left no trace of their influence upon the
later Egyptians, was one which demanded greater faith than the simple
explanation of M. de Morgan.

The error of the British explorers was at once admitted by Mr. Quibell,
in his volume on the excavations of 1897 at el-Kab, published in 1898.*
Mr. Quibell at once found full and adequate confirmation of M. de
Morgan's discovery in his diggings at el-Kab. Prof. Petrie admitted
the correctness of M. de Morgan's views in the preface to his volume
Diospolis Parva, published three years later in 1901.** The preface to
the first volume of M. de Morgan's book contained a generous recognition
of the method and general accuracy of Prof. Petrie's excavations, which
contrasted favourably, according to M. de Morgan, with the excavations
of others, generally carried on without scientific control, and with
the sole aim of obtaining antiquities or literary texts.*** That M. de
Morgan's own work was carried out as scientifically and as carefully
is evident from the fact that his conclusions as to the chronological
position of the prehistoric antiquities have been shown to be correct.