237 : 21. Gibbon, chap. LVII, on the “Seljukian Turks.” On the Osmanli Turks see Ripley, pp. 415 seq. On Turks in general see Von Luschan.
237 : 25. See the notes to p. 173 : 11 and to pp. 253–261.
238 : 12. G. Elliot Smith, Ancient Egyptians, pp. 134 seq.; Zaborowski, 1, and the table of languages in the note to p. 242 : 5. Practically any book dealing with Aryans gives this information.
238 : 24. Ripley, p. 415; Von Luschan.
239 : 1. See the notes to pp. 158 and 253.
239 : 2. Hittites and the Hittite Empire. See S. J. Garstang, The Land of the Hittites; L. Messerschmidt, Die Hetiter (Der Alte Orient, IV, 1); Feist, 5, pp. 406 seq., and the Hittite Inscriptions, Cornell Expedition of 1911. The history of the Hittite Empire has been brought to light by the research and investigations of Professor Sayce. See his Hittites. There are a number of short general descriptions in practically all of the histories of ancient peoples, and in those of the Near East. See for instance, Bury, History of Greece, pp. 45, 64; Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, pp. 200, 334 seq.; Myres, Dawn of History, pp. 118 seq., 152 seq. and 199 seq.; Myers, Ancient History, pp. 91–93; Feist, Kultur, pp. 406 seq.; Von Luschan, pp. 242–243; and Zaborowski, 1, pp. 121, 134, 138 and 160, deal more with the physical characters of the Hittites.
According to some of the most recent authorities, the Hittites were an extraordinarily powerful nation and held Syria from about 3700 B. C. to 700 B. C., when the Assyrians overcame them. They had some contact with Babylon and probably their development was influenced thereby. They seem to have been the Kheta or Khatti of the Ancient Egyptians. “About 1280 B. C.,” according to Von Luschan, “when Khattusil made his peace with Rameses II, there existed a large empire, not much smaller than Germany, reaching from the Ægean Sea to Mesopotamia and from Kadesh on the Orontes to the Black Sea. We do not know at present if this Hittite Empire ever had a really homogeneous population, but we have a good many Hittite reliefs and all these, without one single exception, show us the high and short heads, or the characteristic noses of our modern brachycephalic groups, (Armenoids).”
As to their language, J. D. Prince, correspondence, says that it was not Aryan, in spite of all conjectures to the contrary. “Friedrich Delitzsch analyzed some of the only syllabized material we have of this language, and I analyzed it still further in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. XXII, ‘Hittite Material in the Cuneiform Inscriptions,’ reaching the conclusion as to the Non-Aryan character of this idiom. The so-called ‘Hittite Inscriptions’ are in hieroglyphs and give us no clue as to the pronunciation and hence none to the character of the language.” Von Luschan, p. 242, says: “Orientalists are unanimous in assuming that the Hittite language was not Semitic.” A very recent communication from Fr. Cumont, in L’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres for April 20, 1917, says that the tongue is proved to have been Aryan.
As to their physical characters, all are agreed that the Hittites had short, brachycephalic heads, and thick, prominent noses. Myres, p. 44, remarks that the earliest portraits, which he dates about 1285 B. C., have been thought by some to be Mongoloid, but the evidence is still scanty and inconclusive. Surely if the older likenesses were Mongoloid, they bear no resemblance to the later types. On the monuments bearded figures are frequent and the type is Armenoid. See Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East, p. 334, for a criticism of the Mongol theory.
239 : 10. Sumer. J. D. Prince, in his article on the Sumerians in the Encyclopædia Britannica, classes the Sumerian language as agglutinative. The language of Susiana is also known as Anzanite, Susian or Elamite. The Anzanite may have been a dialect of Susian. Schiel’s work with de Morgan’s mission shows that Elamite was agglutinative and that inflections found in derived words are due to the influence of another language. The locality of Anzan is not known exactly, but is believed to have been in the plain south or southeast of Susa. See also Zaborowski, 1, pp. 149–150, and Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East. Hall agrees with Prince that Sumerian is agglutinative (p. 171). He also states that Elamite was agglutinative, but not otherwise like Sumerian. See his chap. V for the relationships of Sumerians and Elamites.