of greenwood sticks tied together at one end, and is then beaten a little into shape with thick sticks.
It is probable that a lump of ore chanced to be used as one of the enclosing stones of a hearth, and that metal was thus produced.
The North American Indians worked the native copper found near Lake Superior, and the Esquimaux made knives, etc., from the Ovifak masses of meteoric iron. In both these cases, however, the metal was used as a malleable stone.
M. Wibel[1] is of opinion that the ancient bronze was obtained, not by the fusion of copper and of tin, but directly from ore containing the two metals. This is also the opinion of Dr Gowland.[2] On the other hand, I was assured by the late Sir H. H. Vivian (afterwards Lord Swansea), than whom we had no higher authority in this country, that in his judgment it is almost impossible that bronze can ever have been so obtained. I cannot, therefore, but agree with those who maintain that the knowledge of bronze must necessarily have been preceded by the separate use of copper and of tin.
Copper and tin were perhaps discovered in Central Asia. The earliest evidence of their use is in Egypt. Neither of them, however, occurs in that country, though the copper mines of Mount Sinai were worked by King Dyezer of the IIIrd Dynasty, about 4000 B.C.,[3] and small implements of bronze occur in the tombs of Abydos, El Amreh, etc., which are referred to an even earlier period. The earliest piece of bronze at present known is said to be the rod found at Mêdûm in Egypt, and which is dated at 3700 B.C. The earliest metal dagger yet known is a copper weapon with two holes for rivets, found at Nagada in a necropolis dating from the period preceding the 1st Dynasty; but the oldest copper daggers from Cyprus and Syria cannot be very much later in date.
