Manchester Memoirs, Vol. Ixvi. (1922), No. 4 15 



fore, it took the most highly civilised nation of that time so 

 many centuries to reach the idea of using stone, if also this 

 practice was given up in later times, and reversion made to 

 the use of mud-bricks, what warrant is there for believing that 

 men, in other parts of the earth, have spontaneously come to 

 use stone ? 



It may be claimed, as often happens, that the first use of 

 stone was of unworked stone. Such an assertion begs the 

 whole question at issue. It is certainly true that the pre- 

 dynastic Egyptians sometimes used ^labs of stone to support 

 the walls of their tombs in the sand. They were also using 

 all sorts of other substances for the same purposes. But the 

 pro-dynastic Egyptians never made a stone structure that I 

 know of. In countries such as England the first use of stone 

 is in the form of definite structures, that obviously are built 

 according to some plan. Only stone is used, and no signs 

 exist of experimentation, as in Egypt. It is in these circum- 

 stances that I claim to assert that the first use of stone wasi 

 that of unworked stone, is to beg the whole question, and to 

 reduce the study of archaeology to chaos. So long as such 

 statements can be made unchallenged, there is but little hope 

 of advance. It can be shown, in all parts of the world, that 

 the earliest civilisations greatly excelled their successors in 

 their command over the arts and crafts. It is practically 

 invariably found that these early civilisations were charac- 

 terised by the use of stone for purposes of construction, and 

 that stone was worked in various ways, often as carved images. 

 These advanced civilisations sent out influences to the 

 surrounding countries, and it is found that, though the 

 working of stone dies out, the use of stone sometimes con- 

 tinues, but unworked stone. I have already established this 

 sequence in the East Indian Archipelago. It is equally clear 

 in North America, in Polynesia, and in Africa. (See (7). 

 There is thus no warrant for the statement as regards Europe. 

 On the contrary, every use of unworked stone for monuments) 

 must be regarded as a case of culture-degradation. Now that 

 the realisation of the truth of Elliot Smith's theory of the 

 Egyptian origin of the Long Barrow and the Dolmen of 

 Western Europe is being widely recognised (3^ 5), it will soon 

 be possible to approach the study of European pre-history in 

 the proper manner. The Long Barrow, of unworked stone, is 

 a degradation product of the Egyptian mastaba, which was of 

 worked stone ; the sequence therefore agrees with those of 

 other parts of the world. Therefore it can be claimed, that 

 the early civilisations of Western Europe were derived from 



