it is true, later than the time of the IVth Dynasty. But this protest
received little notice, owing to the fact that it remained buried in
a Swedish periodical, while Prof. Montelius's original article was
translated into French, and so became well-known.

For the time Prof. Montelius's conclusions were generally accepted, and
when the discoveries of the prehistoric antiquities were made by M. de
Morgan, it seemed more probable than ever that Egypt had gone through a
regular progressive development from the Age of Stone through those of
copper and bronze to that of iron, which was reached about 1100 or 1000
B.C. The evidence of the iron fragment from the Great Pyramid was put on
one side, in spite of the circumstantial account of its discovery
which had been given by its finders. Even Prof. Pétrie, who in 1881
had accepted the pyramid fragment as undoubtedly contemporary with that
building, and had gone so far as to adduce additional evidence for its
authenticity, gave way, and accepted Montelius's view, which held its
own until in 1902 it was directly controverted by a discovery of Prof.
Pétrie at Abydos. This discovery consisted of an undoubted fragment of
iron found in conjunction with bronze tools of VIth Dynasty date; and it
settled the matter.* The VIth Dynasty date of this piece of iron, which
was more probably worked than not (since it was buried with tools), was
held to be undoubted by its discoverer and by everybody else, and, if
this were undoubted, the IVth Dynasty date of the Great Pyramid fragment
was also fully established. The discoverers of the earlier fragment had
no doubt whatever as to its being contemporary with the pyramid, and
were supported in this by Prof. Pétrie in 1881. Therefore it is now
known to be the fact that iron was used by the Egyptians as early as
3500 B.C.**

* See H. R. Hall's note on "The Early Use of Iron in Egypt,"