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.
CHAPTER V. THE MEDITERRANEAN RACE
148 : 1. The Mediterranean Race. Sergi, 4; Ripley; and Elliot Smith, 1.
148 : 14. Deniker, 2, pp. 408 seq.; Ripley, pp. 450–451.
148 : 15. See the notes to pp. 257–261.
148 : 18. Dravidians. Bishop R. Caldwell, Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages; G. A. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, vol. IV, Munda and Dravidian Languages; Friedrich Müller, Reise der österreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857–1859, etc., pp. 73 seq.; Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, vol. III, pp. 106 seq. See also Haddon, 3, p. 18.
148 : 22 seq. Deniker, 2, p. 397; Haddon, 1, 3, but Haddon has pointed out that the Andamanese are not racially of the same stock as the Sakai, Veddahs, etc.