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.