CHAPTER IV

. THE ALPINE RACE

134 : 1. There seem to have been at least three distinct types of Alpines, one with a broad head and developed occiput typical of western Europe, a second with a flat occiput and a high crown, represented by such peoples as the Armenoids of Asia Minor, and a third, of which little notice has been taken, except by such men as Zaborowski (2) and Fleure and James, pp. 137 _seq._ This third type is encountered here and there in nests which “stretch at least from southern Italy to Ireland, by way of the Straits of Gibraltar and across France by the dolmen line.” Fleure and James may be quoted for the following discussion. “Questions naturally arise as to the homologies of this type, and its distribution beyond the line here mentioned. If we had the type in Britain, by itself, we should be inclined to connect it with the general population of Central Europe, the dark, broad-headed Alpine type. We should, however, retain a little hesitation about this, as our type is sometimes of extraordinary strength of build and, while often fairly short, it is occasionally outstandingly tall; moreover, the hair is frequently quite black, and this is not on the whole an Alpine character. But, when we note the coastal distribution of this type, our hesitation is much increased, for the Alpine type has spread typically along the mountain flanks and its characteristic rarity in Britain is evidence of how little it has followed the sea.

“We cannot but wonder also whether what Deniker calls the Atlanto-Mediterranean type is not a result of averaging these dark broad-heads with the true Mediterranean type.

“Seeking further distributional evidence, we find that the dark broad-heads are highly characteristic of Dalmatia and may be an old-established stock, but it would appear that this region is famous for the height of the heads there, and our type is not specially high-headed. Broad-head brunets do, however, occur farther east in Asia Minor, the Ægean, and Crete, for example. Many are certainly hypsicephalic, but in others it seems that the brow and head are moderate and the forehead rather rectangular, as in our type....

“It is interesting that there should be evidence of our dark broad-heads beyond the Irish end of the line now discussed, the line of intercourse which Déchellette thinks must be older than the Bronze Age. The chief evidences for the type beyond Ireland are:

“1. Ripley (p. 309) shows that a dark, broad-headed element is present in Shetland, West Caithness, and East Sutherland. This is sometimes called the Old Black Breed.

“2. Arbo finds the coast and external openings of the more southerly Norwegian fjords have a broad-headed population, whereas the inner ends of the fjords and the interior are more dolichocephalic. The broad-heads stretch from Trondhjemsfjord southward, and from their exclusively coastwise distribution he supposes them to have come across from the British Isles.

“The population is darker than the rest of Norway and its area of distribution, as Dr. Stuart Mackintosh has kindly pointed out to us, is, like that of the same type in the British Isles, characterized by a pelagic climate.”

Von Luschan has fully discussed the Armenoid type in his _Early Inhabitants of Western Asia_, and with E. Petersen, in _Reisen in Lykien, Milyas, und Kibyratis_. A special study was made by Chantre in his _Recherches anthropologiques dans l’Asie occidentale_.

The first type, then, the western European, has a short, thick stature, round head, and rather light pigmentation; the second, Armenoid, a rather tall stature, square, high head, flat occiput, and dark pigmentation. The third, the Old Black Breed, is rather small and dark.

In addition to these we have a fourth type, which has been called the Bronze Age race, or, better, the Beaker Maker type (Borreby). This has been discussed by Greenwell and Rolleston, Beddoe, and Keith, especially as to their possible survivors at the present day; by Abercromby, in _Bronze Age Pottery_; by Crawford, _The Distribution of Early Bronze Age Settlements in Britain_; and by Peake, in a discussion of the last work in the same number of the _Geographical Journal_. Fleure and James describe it also. See the note to p. 138 : 1 of this book.

Further anthropological studies may simplify the problem somewhat, but the author is now inclined to believe that the above-mentioned third brachycephalic type, the “Old Black Breed,” represents the survivors of the earliest waves of the round-head invasion—in Britain antedating the arrival of the Neolithic Mediterraneans, while the first type mentioned above represents the descendants of the last great Alpine expansion. This type in southern Germany has been so thoroughly Nordicized in pigmentation that these blond South Germans are sometimes discussed as though they were a distinct Alpine subspecies. The type is scantily represented in England, and when found may be partly attributed to ecclesiastics and other retainers brought over by the Normans.

The second of the above types, the Armenoids, are virtually absent from Europe, and seem to be characteristic of eastern Anatolia and the immediately adjacent regions.

The author regards the fourth, Borreby or Beaker Maker type of tall, round heads as distinct from the three preceding types. The distribution of their remains would indicate they entered Britain from the northeast. We have no clew as to their origin. A similar type is found in the so-called Dinaric race of Deniker (which Fleure and James mention in connection with the third type but hesitate to class with it), which extends from the Tyrol along the mountainous east coast of the Adriatic into Albania. Further study of the Tripolje culture (see note to p. 143 : 15) and the mixture of population north of the Carpathians, where the early Nordics and early Alpines came in contact, may throw light on this question, as well as upon the problem of the acquisition of Aryan languages by the Alpines.

All these four round skulled types seem to have been of West Asiatic origin, but their relationship to each other and to the true Mongols of central Asia is as yet undetermined. One thing is certain, that the Alpine Slavs north and east of the Carpathians, and, to a less degree, the inhabitants of Hungary and Bulgaria, have in their midst a very considerable Mongoloid element, which has entered Europe since the beginning of our era.

134 : 12 _seq._ For further characters of the Alpines see Ripley, pp. 123–128, 416 _seq._, and p. 139 of this book.

135 : 1. Haddon, _Races of Man_, pp. 15–16; Deniker, _Races of Man_, pp. 325–326.

135 : 14 _seq._ Zaborowski, _Les peuples aryens_, p. 110.

135 : 17. See the authorities given in Ripley; for the Würtembergers, pp. 233–234; for Bavaria and Austria, p. 228; for Switzerland, pp. 282–286; and for the Tyrolese, p. 102.

135 : 22. Beddoe, 4, chap. VI, is particularly good on the physical anthropology of the Swiss, while His and Rütimeyer, _Crania Helvetica_, are classic authorities.

135 : 23. _The Historical Geography of Europe_, by Freeman; and Beddoe, 4, pp. 75 _seq._

135 : 25 _seq._ Beddoe, 4, p. 81, says: “As Switzerland, especially its central region, was for ages the great recruiting ground of mercenary soldiers, it is probable that the tall, blond, long-headed element would emigrate at a more rapid rate than the brown, short-headed one. In this way may also be accounted for the apparent decline in the stature of the modern Swiss, who certainly do not, as a rule, now justify the descriptions given of their huge physical development in earlier days, the days of halberds, morgensterns and two-handed swords.” These mercenaries were Teutonic, but their Celtic predecessors were addicted to the same habit as G. Dottin has shown on p. 257 of his _Manuel Celtique_: “When the Celts could not battle on their own account or against their neighbors, they offered their services for the price of silver to foreign kings. There is hardly a country that was not overrun with Celtic mercenaries, nor struggles in which they had not taken part. As far back as 368 B. C. an army sent by Denys, the Ancient, to Corinth to aid the Spartiates, was in part formed of Celtic foot soldiers.”

“Pas d’argent, pas de Suisses,” as the old saying has it.

See also Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chap. LV, where are described the Teutonic Varangians in Constantinople, who became the body-guard of the Greek Emperor.

136 : 5. Osborn, 1, pp. 458 and 479 _seq._ See p. 116 of this book.

136 : 7. G. Elliot Smith, 1, p. 179; Haddon, 3; Peake, 2, pp. 160–163; Deniker, 2, p. 313; Zaborowski, 1, pp. 172 _seq._; Hervé, 1, IV, p. 393, and V, p. 18; and the authorities quoted in Osborn.

136 : 14. Russian brachycephaly. See Ripley, pp. 358 _seq._, and the authorities quoted.

136 : 16. See p. 143 : 13 of this book, and notes.

136 : 19–26. Brachycephalic colonies in Scandinavia. See p. 211 : 6 and notes.

136 : 29. Ripley, p. 472.

137 : 2. See the notes to p. 128 : 13.

137 : 8. See pp. 138 : 1, and 163 : 26 of this book.

137 : 21. See the notes to p. 128 : 16.

137 : 29 _seq._ Beddoe, 4, pp. 231–232.

138 : 1 _seq._ Beddoe, 4, pp. 15, 17, 231–233; Davis and Thurnam; Keane, 1, p. 150; Rice Holmes, 1, pp. 194, 441; Ripley, pp. 308–309. Holmes suggests that the Beaker Makers may have come from Denmark. Compare this theory with that expressed by Fleure and James, pp. 128 _seq._ and 135; and by Abercromby, Crawford and Peake as given there. The Beaker Makers are quite fully discussed on pp. 86–88, 117, 128 _seq._, and 135–137, in the article by Fleure and James. See also Greenwell, _British Barrows_, pp. 627–718, and J. P. Harrison, _On the Survival of Certain Racial Features in the Population of the British Isles_. Fleure and James describe the type as follows on p. 136: “With the beakers have long been associated the broad-headed, strong-browed type, long known to archæologists as the Bronze Age race, but better called the ‘Beaker Makers,’ or Borreby type, for we now think that these people reached Britain without a knowledge of bronze.... The general description of them is that they must have been taller than the Neolithic British, averaging 5 feet 7 inches, rather strongly built, with long forearms and inclined to roughness of feature. The head was broad (skull index over 80, often 82 or more) and the supraciliary arches strong, but very distinctly separated in most cases by a median depression, and thus strongly contrasted with the continuous supraciliary ridges of _e. g._, Neanderthal man ... Keith ... thinks it [the type] was usually brown to fair in colouring at all periods, and this seems to be a very general opinion.”

138 : 3. Beddoe, 4, p. 16: “On the whole, however, we cannot be far wrong in describing the British skulls of the bronze period as distinctly brachycephalic; and this seems to have been the case in Scotland as well as in England (see D. Wilson, _Archæological and Prehistoric Annals_, pp. 168–171). Whencesoever they came, the men of the British bronze race were richly endowed, physically. They were, as a rule, tall and stalwart, their brains were large and their features, if somewhat harsh and coarse, must have been manly and even commanding. The chieftain of Gristhorpe, whose remains are in the Museum of York, must have looked a true king of men with his athletic frame, his broad forehead, beetling brows, strong jaws and aquiline profile.”

138 : 14. Rice Holmes, 1, p. 425.

138 : 17. Dinaric Race. Deniker, 1, pp. 113–133; also 2, p. 333. For allusions to this and descriptions see Ripley, pp. 350, 412, 597, 601–602.

138 : 18. Remains of Alpines. Fleure and James, pp. 117, no. 3, and pp. 137–142.

138 : 22. See the notes to p. 122 : 3. Also Jean Bruhnes in _Le Correspondant_ for September, 1917, p. 774.

139 : 3. See p. 121 : 16.

139 : 6 _seq._ Sergi, _Africa_, p. 65; Studer and Bannwarth, Crania _Helvetica Antiqua_, pp. 13 _seq._; His and Rütimeyer, _Crania Helvetica_, p. 41.

139 : 16. See p. 144 of this book.

139 : 22 _seq._ See p. 130.

140 : 1 _seq._ See DeLapouge, _passim_; Ripley, p. 352; Johannes Ranke, Der Mensch, vol. II, pp. 296 _seq._; part II of Topinard’s _L’anthropologie générale_, and the note to p. 131 : 26.

140 : 4 _seq._ Alpines in the Cantabrian Alps. See Ripley, p. 272, and Oloriz, _Distribución geográfica del Indice cephalica_.

140 : 9. Basques and the Basque language. See the notes to p. 234 : 24 _seq._

140 : 15. Aquitanian. See p. 248 : 14. Ligurian. See the notes to p. 235 : 17.

140 : 17. Round skulls on North African coast. See pp. 127–128.

140 : 22 _seq._ See the authorities quoted in Ripley, chap. VII. For the Walloons see Rice Holmes, 2, pp. 323–325, 334; Deniker, 2, p. 335; D’Arbois de Jubainville, 2, pp. 87–95; G. Kurth, _La frontière linguistique en Belgique_; L. Funel, _Les parlers populaires du département des Alpes-Maritimes_, pp. 298–303.

The dialects or patois spoken to-day in France all fall under one of these two languages. They can be classified as follows:

LANGUE D’OC

PATOIS SPOKEN IN THE DEPARTMENTS OF

Languedocian Gard, Hérault, Pyrénées-Orientales, Aude, Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne, Tarn, Aveyron, Lot, Tarn-et-Garonne.

Provençal Drôme, Vaucluse, Bouches-du-Rhône, Hautes- and Basses-Alpes, Var.

Dauphinois Isère.

Lyonnais Rhône, Ain, Saône-et-Loire.

Auvergnat Allier, Loire, Haute-Loire, Ardèche, Lozère, Puy-de-Dôme, Cantal.

Limousin Corrèze, Haute-Vienne, Creuse, Indre, Cher, Vienne, Dordogne, Charente, Charente-Inférieure, Indre-et-Loire.

Gascon Gironde, Landes, Hautes-Pyrénées, Basses-Pyrénées, Gers.

LANGUE D’OÏL

Norman Normandie, Bretagne, Perche, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Saintonge.

Picard (modern French) Picardie, Île-de-France, Artois, Flandre, Hainault, Basse Maine, Thiérache, Rethelois.

Burgundian Nivernais, Berry, Orléanais, lower Bourbonnais, part of Ile-de-France, Champagne, Lorraine, Franche-Comté.

140 : 28 _seq._ For the distribution of the Alpines see Ripley, p. 157.

141 : 6. Austria and the Slavs. See Ripley’s authorities mentioned on pp. 352 _seq._

141 : 9. See p. 143 of this book.

141 : 13. See the notes to chap. IX.

141 : 23–142: 4. Introduction of the Slavs into eastern Germany. See Jordanes, _History of the Goths_, V, 34, 35, and XXIII, 119; Freeman, _Historical Geography of Europe_, pp. 113 _seq._

141 : 25. Wends, _Antes and Sclaveni_. See the notes to p. 143 : 13 _seq._

142 : 4. Haddon, 3, p. 43.

142 : 9. Ripley, p. 355 and the authorities quoted. The word Slave originally signified _illustrious_ or _renowned_ in Slavic language, but in Europe was a word of disdain for the backward Slavs. See T. Peisker, _The Expansion of the Slavs_, Hist., vol. II, p. 421, n. 2.

142 : 13. See pp. 143–144 of this book.

142 : 23. Russian populations. Ripley, based on Anutschin, Taranetzki, Niederle, Zakrewski, Talko-Hyrncewicz, Olechnowicz, Matiezka, Kharuzin, Retzius, Bonsdorff, etc. Consult his chap. XIII, especially pp. 343–346 and 352. Olechnowicz and Talko-Hyrncewicz both remark on the dolichocephaly and blondness of the upper classes of Poland.

143 : 1. Keane, 2, pp. 345–346; Beddoe, 1, p. 35; Freeman, 1, pp. 107, 113–116, 155–158.

143 : 3. Avars. See the authorities just given; also Eginhard, _The Life of Charlemagne_; Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chaps. XLII, XLV and XLVI.

143 : 4. Hungarians. That the Hungarians as such were known earlier than this date appears from a passage in Jordanes, written about 550 A. D. See the _History of the Goths_, V, 37, where he says: “Farther away and above the sea of Pontus are the abodes of the Bulgares, well known from the disaster our neglect has brought upon us. From this region, the Huns, like a fruitful root of bravest races, sprouted into two hordes of people. Some of these are called Altziagiri, others, Sabiri; and they have different dwelling places. The Altziagiri are near Cherson, where the avaricious traders bring in the goods of Asia. In summer they range the plains, their broad domains, wherever the pasturage for their cattle invites them, and betake themselves in winter beyond the sea of Pontus. Now the Hunuguri are known to us from the fact that they trade in marten skins. But they have been cowed by their bolder neighbors.” Also on the Hunuguri see Zeuss, p. 712.

143 : 5 _seq._ The invasion of the Avars and the Magyars. See Freeman, 1, pp. 107, 113, 115–116; Beddoe, 1, p. 35; and Ripley, p. 432.

143 : 13 _seq._ Haddon, 3, chap. III, _Europe_, especially p. 40; and A. Lefèvre, _Germains et Slavs_, p. 156. Minns, in an article on the Slavs, says: “Pliny (N. H., IV, 97) is the first to give the Slavs a name which can leave us in no doubt. He speaks of the Venedi (_cf._ Tacitus, _Germania_, 46, Veneti); Ptolemy (_Geog._, III, 5, 7, 8) calls them Venedæ and puts them along the Vistula and by the Venedic Gulf, by which he seems to mean the Gulf of Danzig; he also speaks of the Venedic mountains to the south of the sources of the Vistula, that is, probably the northern Carpathians. The name Venedæ is clearly Wend, the name that the Germans have always applied to the Slavs. Its meaning is unknown. It has been the cause of much confusion because of the Armorican Veneti, the Paphlagonian Enetæ, and above all the Enetæ-Venetæ at the head of the Adriatic.... Other names in Ptolemy which almost certainly denote Slavic tribes are the Veltæ on the Baltic. The name Slav first occurs in Pseudo-Cæsarius (Dialogues, II, 110; Migne, P. G., XXXVIII, 985, early 6th century), but the earliest definite account of them under that name is given by Jordanes (Getica [_History of the Goths_], V, 34, 35), about 550 A. D.: ‘Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus, to the Dnâster, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have swamps and forests for their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of these peoples dwelling in the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Dnâster to the Dnâper, rivers that are many days’ journey apart.’” See also Zaborowski, 1, pp. 272 _seq._

The name _Wends_, as has been said, was used by the Germans to designate the Slavs. It is now used for the Germanized Polaks, and especially for the Lusatian Wends or Sorbs. It is first found in English used by Alfred. Canon I. Taylor, in _Words and Places_, p. 42, says: “The Sclavonians call themselves either _Slowjane_, ‘the intelligible men,’ or else _Srb_ which means ‘kinsmen,’ while the Germans call them _Wends_.”

Haddon, 3, p. 47, says: “The Slavs, who belong to the Alpine race, seem to have had their area of characterization in Poland and the country between the Carpathians and the Dnieper; they may be identified with the Venedi.”

In the author’s opinion these people have, so far as is known, nothing whatever to do with the tribe of Veneti at the head of the Adriatic, nor with the Veneti in western Europe in what is now Brittany. Of the former Ripley, p. 258, says that they have been generally accepted as of Illyrian derivation and cites D’Arbois de Jubainville, Von Duhn, Pigorini, Sergi, Pullé, Moschen and Tedeschi as authorities.

The Veneti in Italy are tall, broad-headed and some are blond, having mixed with the Teutons. They possessed some eastern habits, such as their marriage customs, as set forth in Herodotus. They were flourishing, wealthy and peaceful. Later they were driven to what is now Venice.

The Veneti in Gaul were a powerful maritime people, who carried on a sea trade with Britain. Strangely, perhaps, the ancient name of northern Wales was Venedotia. The name Veneto, however, has nothing to do with that of Vandal. For some theories as to the relationships of some of these Veneti, see Zaborowski, 3.

143 : 15. Gallicia and the Tripolje Culture. _Cf._ pp. 113–114. Gallicia is not far from the known location of the Brünn-Prêdmost race, which was _dolichocephalic with a long face_. This early appearance of a dolichocephalic race at the point where the dolichocephalic Nordics later came in contact with the Alpines is very significant.

The locality is in the neighborhood of the Tripolje area in southern Russia, for which see Minns, _Scythians and Greeks_, pp. 130–142, and Peake, 2, p. 164.

Minns says: “The first finds of Neolithic settlements in Russia were made near the village of Tripolje, on the Dnêpr, forty miles below Kiev, and this name has since been extended to the culture of a large area in southern Russia. The remains consist of so-called ‘areas’ with buildings which had wattled, clay-covered walls which were fired when dry to give them greater hardness. Pottery is present in great abundance and variety of forms. These bear painted decorations which are very artistic. There are a few figurines. The buildings were not dwellings but probably chapels. The homes were probably pit dwellings. Bodies of the dead were incinerated and deposited in urns.

“The theory has been abandoned that this was an autochthonous development, typical of the Indo-Europeans [Nordics] before they differentiated (_cf._ Chvojka, the first discoverer). Although similar to Ægean art this was earlier (see Von Stern, _Prehistoric Greek Culture in the South of Russia_). It came suddenly to an end and had no successor in that region. The people were agriculturalists long before the Scythians, but the next people who lived there were thorough nomads. Niederle (_Slav. Ant._, I) dates them 2000 B. C. The Tripolje people either moved south or were overwhelmed by new comers.” As Peake says, 2, pp. 164–165, here was a very likely point of contact between the Nordic and Alpine stocks, a mixture which, in the opinion of the author, may ultimately throw some light on the origin of the Dinaric and Beaker Maker types. Through this region both Alpines and Nordics must have passed many times in their wanderings. Here perhaps the Alpines became

## partly Nordicized, especially as to their language.

143 : 21. Sarmatians. There has been considerable confusion over these people, owing to the various ways in which the name has been spelled by early and later writers, and to the fact that they dwelt in the region where both Alpines and Nordics must have existed side by side. The name Sarmatians has been applied at one time to Nordics, at another to Alpines or even Mongolians, depending on the dates when they were discussed and the bias of various writers. We have no generic name for the Alpine peoples who must have been in this region in early times, except that of Sarmatians or Scythians. As the Scythians are apparently strongly Nordic in character, the name Sarmatians seemed more fitting to apply to the Alpine tribes who were certainly there. Not all authorities are agreed as to their affiliations, however, as has been said.

Jordanes declares that the Sarmatians and the Sauromatæ were the same people. Stephanus Byzantius states that the Syrmatæ were identical with the Sauromatæ. They are first mentioned by Polybius as being in Europe in 179 B. C. (XXV, II; XXVI, VI, 12). But in Asia we hear of them as early as 325 B. C., according to Minns, p. 38, who says that they gradually shifted westward, until in 50 A. D. they were in the Danube valley. Jordanes later speaks of the Carpathian mountains as the Sarmatian range. Mierow, in the notes to his translation of Jordanes, makes the Sarmatians a great Slavic people dwelling from the Vistula to the Don, in what is now Poland and Russia. (See also Hodgkin, _Italy_, vol. I, part I, p. 71.) According to Jordanes, the Sarmatians were beyond Dacia (the ancient Gothic land) and to the north (XII, 74). It is with these statements in mind that the author has designated them as Alpines.

Minns describes the Sarmatians as nomads of the Caspian steppes who wore armor like the Hiung-nu. About 325 B. C. there was a decline of the Scyths and they appear. During the second and third centuries A. D. was the time when they spread over the vast regions from Hungary to the Caspian. Minns, however, is firm in the belief that they were Iranians [Nordics], like the Alans, Ossetes, Jasy, etc. In the second half of the fourth century B. C. they were still east of the Don or just crossing; for the next century and a half we have very scanty knowledge of what was happening in the steppes. Procopius, III, II, also makes them Goths. (See the note to p. 66 : 16.) Feist, 5, p. 391, quotes Tacitus as to their being horse-loving nomads of south Russia. See also D’Arbois de Jubainville, 4, t. I, and Gibbon, chaps. XVIII, XXV, etc., for further discussions.

144 : 11 _seq._ See the authorities quoted, in Ripley, pp. 361–362. The Bashkirs, however, are partly Finn, partly Tatar as well.

144 : 26–145: 1. Ripley, pp. 416 _seq._ and 434.

145 : 3. Ripley, p. 434.

145 : 7. Freeman, 1, pp. 113–115; Haddon, 3, p. 45.

145 : 10. Ripley, p. 421. These are the Volga Finns. Old Bulgaria, according to Pruner-Bey, 2, t. I, pp. 399–433, P. F. Kanitz and others, seems to have been between the Ural mountains and the Volga. The old Bulgarians were a Finnic tribe (just which is a matter of much dispute). They crossed the Danube toward the end of the seventh century. See Freeman, 1, pp. 17, 155.

145 : 11 _seq._ Ripley, p. 426, based on Bassanovič, p. 30.

145 : 16. Ripley, p. 421.

145 : 19. Of the numerous tribes who, since the Christian Era, have entered Europe and Anatolia from western Asia some were undoubtedly pure Mongoloids, like the Huns of Attila, or the hordes of Genghis Khan. Others were probably under Mongoloid leaders, and included a large proportion of West Asiatic Alpines (_i. e._, Turcomans), while still others may have been substantially Alpines. The Mongols in their sweep into Europe would naturally gather up and carry with them many of the tribes of western Asia, or perhaps more often would drive the latter ahead of them.

146 : 3 _seq._ Ripley, p. 139; Taylor, 1, p. 119; Peake, 2, p. 162.

146 : 8. Ripley, p. 136. These primitive nests occur also in Norway.

146 : 12. See the note to p. 131 : 26.

146 : 19–147 : 6. See pp. 122 and 138 of this book.

147 : 7 _seq._ Accad and Sumer. Prince, and Zaborowski (after de Sarzec) give the earliest date of Accad as about 3800 B. C., but Prince thinks this date too old by 700–1000 years. See also Zaborowski, 1, pp. 118–125. H. R. Hall, in _The Ancient History of the Near East_, reviews the entire work in this field in his first chapter. According to him, dates in Babylonia can be traced as far back as those of Egypt, without coming to a time when there was no writing or metal, while Egyptian records begin in a Neolithic culture. The earliest dates so far established are in the fourth millennium B. C., but already a high degree of civilization had been reached there or elsewhere by people who brought it to Babylonia. Hall, p. 176, says: “The most ancient remains that we find in the city mounds are Sumerian. The site of the ancient Shurripak, at Fârah in Southern Babylonia, has lately been excavated. The culture revealed by this excavation is Sumerian, and metal-using, even at the lowest levels. The Sumerians apparently knew the use of copper at the beginning of their occupation of Babylonia, and no doubt brought this knowledge with them.” See chap. V of Hall’s book, and the two great works of King, the _Chronicles Concerning the Early Babylonian Kings_, and _The History of Sumer and Akkad_, as well as Rogers’s _History of Babylonia and Assyria_. In his preface to the first mentioned of his two works King states that the new researches are resulting in a tendency to reduce the dates of these ancient empires very considerably, especially for the dynasties. Thus for Su-abu, the founder of the first dynasty, a date not earlier than 2100 B. C. is now given, and for Hammurabi one not earlier than the twentieth century B. C. Accad is by many authors, including Breasted, considered to have been Semitic from the beginning, and to have been established about 2800 B. C. But Zaborowski claims that it was not originally Semitic, but Semitized at a very early date. He makes both city-kingdoms originally Turanian [by which he means Alpine and pre-Aryan] with an agglutinative language related to the Altaic. See also Zaborowski, 2. He dates the cuneiform inscriptions between 3700 and 4000 B. C., after de Sarzec and de Morgan. Hall draws attention to the remarkable resemblance of the Sumerians to the Dravidians, and is inclined to believe that they may have come from India. Both G. Elliot Smith and Breasted claim the Babylonians derived their culture from Egypt, but the weight of evidence is gradually accumulating against them. See Hall, chap. V. The relations of the two regions and Egyptian dates are treated in Reisner’s _Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr_; and Eduard Meyer, _Geschichte des Altertums_, should also be consulted. Against these Egyptologists are most of the later writers, such as Hall and King and many others. The location of Babylonia is a fact distinctly in favor of its earlier beginnings. There is no denying the very remote origin of Egyptian culture, which in its isolation for so many centuries had ample time to develop its own peculiar features and to become sufficiently strong to later extend a very wide influence. There is an interesting study of the fauna of Egypt by Lortet and Gaillard, which proves that much of it was originally African, not Asiatic, as those who wish to prove the opposite theory, that Egyptian culture was derived from the east in very remote times, have endeavored to establish. There is no doubt that the Egyptians were sufficiently plastic and adaptable in the earlier centuries of their development, wherever they may have come from, to make use of what the continent of Africa contributed in the way of resources. (See also Gaillard, _Les Tatonnements des Égyptiens_, etc., and H. H. Johnston, _On North African Animals_.) To claim that the civilization of Sumer was derived directly from Elam, which in turn obtained its earliest culture from Egypt, is, in the opinion of the author, to reverse the truth. Some authorities believe that Elam was the origin from which came the civilization found by Pumpelly in Turkestan, and believed by him to have been not earlier than the end of the third millennium B. C. (For a further reference to this see the note to p. 119 : 15 of this book, on Balkh.)

See Hall as to the relationship of the Accadians and Sumerians with Elam. Zaborowski says they were all of the same Alpine stock, that is, the very early Sumerians and Accadians and Elamites. See 2, p. 411. For Susa, Elam and Media, see _Les peuples Aryens_, pp. 125–138, and Hall, chap. V. For the Persians, Zaborowski, 1, pp. 134 _seq._ Ripley, pp. 417, 449–450, discusses some of the eastern tribes, among them the Tadjiks, whom general opinion makes round skulled. These, according to Zaborowski, are the living prototypes of the Susians, Elamites and Medes. Many writers consider the Medes to have been Nordics and related to the Persians. The author, however, follows Zaborowski in classing them as the early brachycephalic population of Elam or its highlands or plateau, which was conquered by the Persians. On the Medes and Media see the notes to p. 254 : 13.

##