A. H. Keane

General Considerations—Constituent Elements—Past and Present Range—Cradle-land: Africa north of Sudan—Quaternary "Sahara"—Early European and Mauretanian types—The Guanches, Types and Affinities—Origin of the European Brachycephals—Summary of Orthodox View—Linguistic Evidence—The Basques—The Iberians—The Ligurians in Rhineland and Italy. Sicilian Origins—Sicani; Siculi—Sard and Corsican Origins—Ethnological Relations in Italy—Sergi's Mediterranean Domain—Range of the Mediterraneans—The Pelasgians—Theory of pre-Hellenic Pelasgians—Pelasgians and Mykenean civilisation—Aegean Culture—Other Views—Range of the Hamites in Africa—The Eastern Hamites—The Western "Moors"—General Hamitic Type—Foreign Elements in Mauretania—Arab and Berber Contrasts—The Tibus—The Egyptian Hamites—Origins—Theory of Asiatic Origins—Proto-Egyptian type—Armenoid type—Asiatic influence on Egyptian Culture—Negroid mixture—The Fulah—Other Eastern Hamites—Bejas—Somals—Somal Genealogies—The Galla—The Masai.

Conspectus.

Present Range. All the extra-tropical habitable lands, except Chinese empire, Japan, and the Arctic zone; intertropical America, Arabia, India, and Indonesia; sporadically everywhere.

Three main types:—1. Southern dolichocephals, Mediterranean; 2. Northern Dolichocephals, Nordic; 3. Brachycephals, Alpine.

Hair: 1. Very dark brown or black, wiry, curly or ringletty. 2. Very light brown, flaxen, or red, rather long, straight or wavy, smooth and glossy. 3. Light chestnut or reddish brown, wavy, rather short and dull. All oval in section; beard of all full, bushy, straight, or wavy, often lighter than hair of head, sometimes very long. Colour: 1. Very variable—white, light olive, all shades of brown and even blackish (Eastern Hamites and others). 2. Florid. 3. Pale white, swarthy or very light brown. Skull: 1 and 2 long (72 to 79); 3 round (85 to 87 and upwards); all orthognathous. Cheek-bone of all small, never projecting laterally, sometimes rather high (some Berbers and Scotch). Nose, mostly large, narrow, straight, arched or hooked, sometimes rather broad, heavy, concave and short. Eyes: 1. Black or deep brown, but also blue. 2. Mainly blue. 3. Brown, hazel-grey and black.

Stature: 1. Under-sized (mean 1.630 m. 5 ft. 4 in.), but variable (some Hamites, Hindus, and others medium or tall). 2. Tall (mean 1.728 m. 5 ft. 8 or 9 in.). 3. Medium (mean 5 ft. 6 in.), but also very tall (Indonesians 1.750 m. to 1.830 m. 5 ft. 9 to 6 ft.). Lips, mostly rather full and well-shaped, but sometimes thin, or upper lip very long (many Irish), and under lip pendulous (many Jews). Arms, rather short as compared with Negro. Legs, shapely, with calves usually well developed. Feet: 1 and 3 small with high instep; 2 rather large.

Temperament: 1 and 3. Brilliant, quick-witted, excitable and impulsive; sociable and courteous, but fickle, untrustworthy, and even treacherous (Iberian, South Italian); often atrociously cruel (many Slavs, Persians, Semites, Indonesians and even South Europeans); aesthetic sense highly, ethic slightly developed. All brave, imaginative, musical, and richly endowed intellectually. 2. Earnest, energetic, and enterprising; steadfast, solid, and stolid; outwardly reserved, thoughtful, and deeply religious; humane, firm, but not normally cruel.

Speech, mostly of the inflecting order with strong tendency towards analytical forms; very few stock languages (Aryan, Ibero-Hamito-Semitic), except in the Caucasus, where stock languages of highly agglutinating types are numerous, and in Indonesia, where one agglutinating stock language prevails.

Religion, mainly Monotheistic, with or without priesthood and sacrifice (Jewish, Christian, Muhammadan); polytheistic and animistic in parts of Caucasus, India, Indonesia, and Africa. Gross superstitions still prevalent in many places.

Culture, generally high—all arts, industries, science, philosophy and letters in a flourishing state now almost everywhere except in Africa and Indonesia, and still progressive. In some regions civilisation dates from an early period (Egypt, South Arabia, Babylonia; the Minoan, Hellenic, Hittite, and Italic cultures). Indonesians and many Hamites still rude, with primitive usages, few arts, no science or letters, and cannibalism prevalent in some places (Gallaland).

Mediterranean type: most Iberians, Corsicans, Sards, Sicilians, Italians; some Greeks; Berbers and other Hamites; Arabs and other Semites; some Hindus; Dravidians, Todas, Ainus, Indonesians, some Polynesians.

Nordic type: Scandinavians, North-west Germans, Dutch, Flemings, most English, Scotch, some Irish, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Australasians, English and Dutch of S. Africa; Thrako-Hellenes, true Kurds, most West Persians, Afghans, Dards and Siah-post Kafirs.

Alpine type: most French, South Germans, Swiss and Tyrolese; Russians, Poles, Chekhs, Yugo-Slavs; some Albanians and Rumanians; Armenians, Tajiks (East Persians), Galchas.

It is a remarkable fact that the Caucasic division of the human family, of which nearly all students of the subject are members, with which we are in any case, so to say, on the most intimate terms, and with the constituent elements of which we might consequently be supposed to be best acquainted, is the most debatable field in the whole range of anthropological studies. Why this should be so is not at first sight quite apparent, though the phenomenon may perhaps be partly explained by the consideration that the component parts are really of a more complex character, and thus present more intricate problems for solution, than those of any other division. But to some extent this would also seem to be one of those cases in which we fail to see the wood for the trees. To put it plainly, few will venture to deny that the inherent difficulties of the subject have in recent times been rather increased than diminished by the bold and often mutually destructive theories, and, in some instances one might add, the really wild speculations put forward in the earnest desire to remove the endless obscurities in which the more fundamental questions are undoubtedly still involved. Controversial matter which seemed thrashed out has been reopened, several fresh factors have been brought into play, and the warfare connected with such burning topics as Aryan origins, Ibero-Pelasgic relations, European round-heads and long-heads, has acquired renewed intensity amid the rival theories of eminent champions of new ideas.

The question is not made any simpler by the frequent attacks that have been directed from more than one quarter against the long-established Caucasic terminology, and well-supported objections are raised to the use of such time-honoured names as "Hamitic," "Semitic," and even "Caucasic" itself. But no really satisfactory substitute for "Caucasic" has yet been suggested, and it is doubtful if any name could be found sufficiently comprehensive to include all the races, long-headed and short-headed, fair and dark, tall and short, that we are at present content to group under this non-committal heading. Undoubtedly the term "Caucasic" cannot be defended on ethnical grounds. "Nowhere else in the world probably is so heterogeneous a lot of people, languages and religions gathered together in one place as along the chain of the Caucasus mountains[1000]." But we are no more called upon to believe that the "Caucasic" peoples originated in the Caucasus, than that the Semites are all descendants of Shem or Hamites of Ham. "Caucasic" has one claim that can never be disputed, that of priority, and it would be well if innovators in these matters were to take to heart the sober language of Ehrenreich, who reminds us that the accepted names are, what they ought to be, "purely conventional," and "historically justified," and "should be held as valid until something better can be found to take their place[1001]." It was considerations such as these, weighing so strongly in favour of current usage, that induced me stare per vias antiquas in the Ethnology, and consequently also in the present work. Hence, here as there, the Caucasic Division retains its title, together with those of its main subdivisions—Hamitic, Semitic, Keltic, Slavic, Hellenic, Teutonic, Iranic, Galchic and so on.

The chief exception is "Aryan," a linguistic expression forced by the philologists into the domain of Ethnology, where it has no place or meaning. There was of course a time when a community, or group of communities, existed probably in the steppe region between the Carpathians and the Hindu-Kush[1002], by whom the Aryan mother-tongue was evolved, and who still for a time presented a certain uniformity in their physical characters, were, in fact, of Aryan speech and type. But while their Aryan speech persists in endlessly modified forms, they have themselves long disappeared as a distinct race, merged in the countless other races on whom they, perhaps as conquerors, imposed their Aryan language. Hence we can and must speak of Aryan tongues, and of an Aryan linguistic family, which continues to flourish and spread over the globe. But of an Aryan race there can be no further question since the absorption of the original stock in a hundred other races in remote prehistoric times. Where comprehensive references have to be made, I therefore substitute for Aryans and Aryan race the expression peoples of Aryan speech, at least wherever the unqualified term Aryan might lead to misunderstandings.

This way of looking at the question, which has now become more thorny than ever, has the signal advantage of being indifferent to any preconceived theories regarding the physical characters of that long vanished proto-Aryan race. How great this advantage is may be judged from the mere statement that, while German anthropologists are still almost to a man loyal to the traditional view that the first Aryans were best represented by the tall, long-headed, tawny-haired, blue-eyed Teutonic barbarians of Tacitus—who, Virchow tells us, have completely disappeared from sight in the present population—the Italian school, or at least its chief exponent, Sergi, was equally convinced that the picture was a myth, that such Aryans never existed, that "the true primitive Aryans were not long, but round-headed, not fair but dark, not tall but short, and are in fact to-day best represented by the round-headed Kelts, Slavs, and South Germans[1003]."

The fact is that the Aryan prototype has vanished as completely as has the Aryan mother-tongue, and can be conjecturally restored only by processes analogous to those by which Schleicher and other philologists have endeavoured with dubious success to restore the organic Aryan speech as constituted before the dispersion.

But here arises the more important question, by what right are so many and such diverse peoples grouped together and ticketed "Caucasians"? Are they to be really taken as objectively one, or are they merely artificial groupings, arbitrarily arranged abstractions? Certainly this Caucasic division consists apparently of the most heterogeneous elements, more so than perhaps any other. Hence it seems to require a strong mental effort to sweep into a single category, however elastic, so many different peoples—Europeans, North Africans, West Asiatics, Iranians and others all the way to the Indo-Gangetic plains and uplands, whose complexion presents every shade of colour, except yellow, from white to the deepest brown or even black.

But they are grouped together in a single division, because of certain common characteristics, and because, as pointed out by Ehrenreich, who himself emphasises these objections, their substantial uniformity speaks to the eye that sees below the surface. At the first glance, except perhaps in a few extreme cases for which it would be futile to create independent categories, we recognise a common racial stamp in the facial expression, the structure of the hair, partly also the bodily proportions, in all of which points they agree more with each other than with the other main divisions. Even in the case of certain black or very dark races, such as the Beja, Somali, and a few other Eastern Hamites, we are reminded instinctively more of Europeans or Berbers than of negroes, thanks to their more regular features and brighter expression. "Those who will accept nothing unless it can be measured, weighed, and numbered, may think perhaps that according to modern notions this appeal to the outward expression is unscientific. Nevertheless nobody can deny the evidence of the obvious physical differences between Caucasians, African Negroes, Mongols, Australians and so on. After all, physical anthropology itself dates only from the moment when we became conscious of these differences, even before we were able to give them exact expression by measurements. It was precisely the general picture that spoke powerfully and directly to the eye[1004]." The argument need not here be pursued farther, as it will receive abundant illustration in the details to follow.

Since the discovery of the New and the Austral Worlds, the Caucasic division as represented by the chief European nations has received an enormous expansion. Here of course it is necessary to distinguish between political and ethnical conquests, as, for instance, those of India, held by military tenure, and of Australia by actual settlement. Politically the whole world has become Caucasic with the exception of half-a-dozen states such as China, Turkey, Japan, Siam, Marocco, still enjoying a real or fictitious autonomy. But, from the ethnical standpoint, those regions in which the Caucasic peoples can establish themselves and perpetuate their race as colonists are alone to be regarded as fresh accessions to the original and later (historical) Caucasic domains. Such fresh accessions are however of vast extent, including the greater part of Siberia and adjoining regions, where Slav branches of the Aryan-speaking peoples are now founding permanent new homes; the whole of Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, which have become the inheritance of the Caucasic inhabitants of the British Isles; large tracts in South Africa, already occupied by settlers chiefly from Holland and Great Britain; lastly the New World, where most of the northern continent is settled by full-blood Europeans, mainly British, French and German, while in the rest (Central and South America) the Caucasic immigrants (chiefly from the Iberian peninsula) have formed new ethnical groups by fusion with the aborigines. These new accessions, all acquired within the last 400 years, may be roughly estimated at about 28 million square miles, which with some 12 millions held throughout the historic period (Africa north of Sudan, most of Europe, South-West and parts of Central and South Asia, Indonesia) gives an extent of 40 million square miles to the present Caucasic domain, either actually occupied or in process of settlement. As the whole of the dry land scarcely exceeds 52 millions, this leaves not more than about 12 millions for the now reduced domains of all the other divisions, and even of this a great part (e.g. Tibetan table-land, Gobi, tundras, Greenland) is barely or not at all inhabitable. This, it may be incidentally remarked, is perhaps the best reply to those who have in late years given expression to gloomy forebodings regarding the ultimate fate of the Caucasic races. The "yellow scare" may be dismissed with the reflection that the Caucasian populations, who have inherited or acquired nearly four-fifths of the earth's surface besides the absolute dominion of the high seas, is not destined to be submerged by any conceivable combination of all the other elements, still less by the Mongol alone[1005].

Where have we to seek the primeval home of this most vigorous and dominant branch of the human family? Since no direct evidence can be cited, the answer necessarily takes the form of a hypothesis, and must rely mainly on the indirect evidence supplied by our vague knowledge of geographical conditions in pleistocene times, on past and present zoological distributions, with here and there, the assistance of a hint gleaned from archaeological discoveries. We may deal first with the arguments brought forward in favour of Africa north of Sudan. Here were found in quaternary times all the physical elements which zoologists demand for great specialisations—ample space, a favourable climate and abundance of food, besides continuous land connection at two or three points across the Mediterranean, by which the pliocene and early pleistocene faunas moved freely between the two continents.

Many of the speculations on the subject failed to convince, largely because the writers took, so to say, the ground from under their own feet, by submerging most of the land under a vast "Quaternary Sahara Sea," which had no existence, and which, moreover, reduced the whole of North Africa to a Mauretanian island, a mere "appendix of Europe," as it is in one place expressly called. Then this inconvenient inland basin was got rid of, not by an outflow—being on the same level as the Atlantic, of which it was, in fact figured as an inlet—but by "evaporation," which process is however somehow confined to this inlet, and does not affect either the Mediterranean or the Atlantic itself. Nor is it explained how the oceanic waters were prevented from rushing in according "as the Sahara sea evaporated to become a desert." The attempt to evolve a "Eurafrican race" in such an impossible area necessarily broke down, other endless perplexities being involved in the initial geological misconception.

Not only was the Sahara dry land in pleistocene times, but it stood then at a considerably higher altitude than at present, although its mean elevation is still estimated by Chavanne at 1500 feet above sea-level. "Quaternary deposits cover wide areas, and were at one time supposed to be of marine origin. It was even held that the great sand dunes must have been formed under the sea; but at this date it is scarcely necessary to discuss such a view. The advocates of a Quaternary Sahara Sea argued chiefly from the discovery of marine shells at several points in the middle of the Sahara. But TournouËr has shown that to call in the aid of a great ocean in order to explain the presence of one or two shells is a needless expenditure of energy[1006]."

At an altitude of probably over 2000 feet the Sahara must have enjoyed an almost ideal climate during late pliocene and pleistocene times, when Europe was exposed to more than one glacial invasion, and to a large extent covered at long intervals by a succession of solid ice-caps. We now know that these stony and sandy wastes were traversed in all directions by great rivers, such as the Massarawa trending south to the Niger, or the Igharghar[1007] flowing north to the Mediterranean, and that these now dry beds may still be traced for hundreds of miles by chains of pools or lakelets, by long eroded valleys and by other indications of the action of running waters.

Nor could there be any lack of vegetable or animal life in a favoured region, which was thus abundantly supplied with natural irrigation arteries, while the tropical heats were tempered by great elevation and at times by the refreshing breezes from sub-arctic Europe.

From these well-watered and fertile lands, some of which continued even in Roman times to be the granary of the empire, came that succession of southern animals—hippopotamus, hyaena, rhinoceros, elephant, cave-lion—which made Europe seem like a "zoological appendix of Africa." In association with this fauna may have come man himself, for although North Africa has not yet yielded evidence of a widespread culture comparable to that of the Palaeolithic Age in Europe, yet the negroid characters of the Grimaldi skeletons have been held to prove an early connection between the opposite shores of the Mediterranean. The hypothesis of African origin is supported by archaeological evidence of the presence of early man all over North Africa from the shores of the Mediterranean through Egypt to Somaliland. Thus one of J. de Morgan's momentous conclusions was that the existence of civilised men in Egypt might be reckoned by thousands, and of the aborigines by myriads of years. These aborigines he identified with the men of the Old Stone Age, of whom he believed four stations to have been discovered—Dahshur, Abydos, Tukh, and Thebes[1008].

Of Tunisia ArsÈne Dumont declared that "the immense period of time during which man made use of stone implements is nowhere so strikingly shown." Here some of the flints were found in abundance under a thick bed of quaternary limestone deposited by the waters of a stream that has disappeared. Hence "the origin of man in Mauretania must be set back to a remote age which deranges all chronology and confounds the very fables of the mythologies[1009]."

The skeleton found in 1914 by Hans Reck at Oldoway (then German East Africa) was claimed to be of Pleistocene Age, but according to A. Keith "the evidence ... cannot be accepted as having finally proved this degree of antiquity[1010]."

The doctrine of the specialisation of the dolichocephalic European types in Africa, before their migrations northwards, lies at the base of Sergi's views regarding the African origin of those types. Arguing against the Asiatic origin of the Hamites, as held by Prichard, Virchow, Sayce and others, he points out that this race, scarcely if at all represented in Asia, has an immense range in Africa, where its several sub-varieties must have been evolved before their dispersion over a great part of that continent and of Europe. Then, regarding Hamites and Semites as essentially one, he concludes that Africa is the cradle whence this primitive stock "spread northwards to Europe, where it still persists, especially in the Mediterranean and its three principal peninsulas, and eastwards to West Asia[1011]."

The theory of an African cradle for the dolichocephalic Mediterranean type does not lack supporters, but when, relying on the undeniable presence of brachycephals, some writers would derive the Alpine type from the same area, the larger aspect of continental migrations appears to be overlooked (see pp. 451-2 below). To constitute a distinct race, says Zaborowski, a wide geographical area is needed, such as is presented by both shores of the Mediterranean "with the whole of North Africa including the Sahara, which was till lately still thickly peopled[1012]." Then to the question by whom has this North African and Mediterranean region been inhabited since quaternary times, he answers "by the ancestors of our Libyans, Egyptians, Pelasgians, Iberians"; and after rejecting the Asiatic theory, he elsewhere arrives at "the grand generalisation that the whole of North Africa, connected by land with Europe in the Quaternary epoch, formed part of the geographical area of the ancient white race, of which the Egyptians, so far from being the parent stem, would appear to be merely a branch[1013]."

Coming to details, Bertholon[1014], from the human remains found by Carton at Bulla-Regia, determined for Tunisia and surrounding lands two main long-headed types, one like the Neandertal (occurring both in Khumeria, and in the stations abounding in palaeoliths), the other like the later Cro-Magnon dolmen-builders, whom De Quatrefages had already identified with the tall, long-headed, fair, and even blue-eyed Berbers still met in various parts of Mauretania, and formerly represented in the Canary Islands[1015]. Bertholon agrees with Collignon that the Mauretanian megalith-builders are of the same race as those of Europe, and besides the two long-headed races describes (1) a short round-headed type in Gerba Island and East Tunisia[1016] representing the Libyans proper, and (2) a blond type of the Sahel, Khumeria, and other parts, whom he identifies with the Mazices of Herodotus, with the "Afri," whose name has been extended to the whole continent, and the blond Getulians of the Aures Mountains.

It has been objected that, as established by de Lapouge and Ripley, there are three distinct ethnical zones in Europe:—(1) Nordic: the tall, fair, long-headed northern type, commonly identified by the Germans with the race represented by the osseous remains from the "ReihengrÄber," i.e. the "Germanic," which the French call Kymric or Aryan, for which de Lapouge reserves LinnÉ's Homo europaeus, and to which Ripley applies the term "Teutonic," because the whole combination of characters "accords exactly with the descriptions handed down to us by the ancients. Such were the Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, together with the Danes, Norsemen, Saxons.... History is thus corroborated by natural science." (2) Mediterranean: the southern zone of short, dark, long-heads, i.e. the primitive element in Iberia, Italy, South France, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and Greece, called Iberians by the English, and identified by many with the Ligurians, Pelasgians, and allied peoples, grouped together by Ripley as Mediterraneans[1017]. (3) Alpine: the central zone of short, medium-sized round-heads with light or chestnut hair, and gray or hazel eye, de Lapouge's and Ripley's Homo alpinus, the Kelts or Kelto-Slavs of the French, the Ligurians or Arvernians of Beddoe and other English writers. Here belong the tall Armenoids, the Armenians being descendants of the Hittites.

The question is, Can all these have come from North Africa? We have seen that this region has yielded the remains of one round-headed and two long-headed prehistoric types. Henri Malbot pointed out that, as far back as we can go, we meet the two quite distinct long-headed Berber types, and he holds that this racial duality is proved by the megalithic tombs (dolmens) of Roknia between Jemmapes and Guelma, possibly some 4000 or 5000 years old. The remains here found by L. L. C. Faidherbe belong to two different races, both dolichocephalic, but one tall, with prominent zygomatic arches and very strong nasal spine (it reads almost like the description of a brawny Caledonian), the other short, with well-balanced skull and small nasal spine[1018]. The earliest (Egyptian) records refer to brown and blond populations living in North Africa some 5000 years ago, and it has been claimed that the raw materials, so to say, were here to hand both of the fair northern and dark southern European long-heads.

These different races were represented even amongst the extinct Guanches of the Canary Islands, as shown by a study of the 52 heads procured in 1894 by H. Meyer from caves in the archipelago[1019]. Three distinct types are determined: (1) Guanche, akin to the Cro-Magnon, tall (5 ft. 8 in. to 6 ft. 2 in.), robust, dolicho (78), low, broad face; large eyes, rather short nose; fair, reddish or light chestnut hair; skin and eyes light; ranged throughout the islands, but centred chiefly in Tenerife; (2) "Semitic," short (5 ft. 4 or 5 in.), slim, narrow mesocephalic head (81), narrow, long face, black hair, light brown skin, dark eyes; range, Grand Canary, Palma, and Hierro; (3) Armenoid, akin to von Luschan's pre-Semitic of Asia Minor; shorter than 1 and 2; very short, broad, and high skull (hyperbrachy, 84); hair, skin and eyes very probably of the West Asiatic brunette type; range, mainly in Gomera, but met everywhere. Many of the skulls had been trepanned, and these are brought into direct association with the full-blood Berbers of the Aures Mts. in Algeria, who still practise trepanning for wounds, headaches, and other reasons. This type is scarcely to be distinguished from Lapouge's short brown Homo alpinus, which dates from the Stone Ages, and is found in densest masses in the Central Alpine regions, but the true Armenoids are differentiated by their taller stature[1020].

How numerous were the inhabitants of France at that time may be inferred from the long list of no less than 4000 neolithic stations given for that region by Ph. Salmon. Of the 688 skulls from those stations measured by him, 57.7 per cent. are classed as dolicho, 21.2 as brachycephalic, and 21.1 as intermediate. This distinguished palethnologist regards the intermediates as the result of crossings between the two others, and of these he thinks the first arrivals were the round-heads, who ranged over a vast area between Brittany, the Channel, the Pyrenees, and the Mediterranean, 60 per cent. of the graves hitherto studied containing skulls of this type[1021]. Belgium also, where a mixture of long- and round-heads is found amongst the men of Furfooz, must be included in this neolithic brachy domain, which can be traced as far westward as the British Isles[1022]. Attempts have been made, as indicated above, to derive these brachycephals, as well as the dolichocephals, from North Africa, in accordance with the view that the latter region was the true centre of evolution and of dispersion for all the main branches of the Caucasic family, but this theory has few supporters at the present time. Sergi recognised the Asiatic origin of the neolithic round-heads and regarded them as "peaceful infiltrations[1023]," forerunners of the great invasions of the later Metal Ages. Verneau points out[1024] that when all the neolithic stations in which brachycephalic skulls have been discovered are plotted out on a map of Europe it is easy to recognise a current running almost directly from east to west. Moreover towards the west this current divides, being clearly separated by zones of dolichocephaly.

Evidence of the presence in early times of tall blond peoples in Africa, side by side with a short dark population, and of brachycephals together with dolichocephals, proves that even in the Stone Age ethnic mixtures had already taken place, and racial purity—if indeed it ever existed—must be sought for in still remoter periods.

With Sergi's view which traces the neolithic inhabitants of the northern shores of the Mediterranean (Iberians, Ligurians, Messapians, Siculi and other Itali, Pelasgians), to North Africa, most anthropologists agree[1025]. Also that all or most of these were primarily of a dark (brown), short, dolicho type, which still persists both in South Europe and North Africa, and in fact is the race which Ripley properly calls "Mediterranean," although in the west they almost certainly ranged into Brittany and the British Isles. But there are some who hold that the migration was in the opposite direction, and derive the North African branch from Europe, rather than the European branches from Africa. "Anthropologists who have specially studied the question of the Berbers or Kabyles have concluded that they are descendants of prehistoric European invaders who occupied the tracts that suited them best[1026]." In France the neolithic "Mediterranean type" has been regarded as lineally descended from palaeolithic predecessors in situ[1027]. Some would even go further still, and claim Europe as the place of origin not only of the Mediterranean but also of the Alpine and Northern branches. "The so-called three races of Europe are in the main the result of variation from a common European stock, a variation due to isolation and natural selection[1028]."

Without making any claim to finality the following perhaps best represents orthodox opinion at the present time. It may be assumed that man evolved somewhere in Southern Asia in pliocene times, and that the early groups possessed a tendency to variability which was directed to some extent by geographical conditions and became fixed by isolation. The tall fair blue-eyed dolichocephals (Northern Race) and the short dark dolichocephals (Mediterranean Race) may be regarded as two varieties of a common stock, the former having their area of characterisation in the steppes north of the plateaus of Eur-Asia, and migrating eastwards and westwards as the country dried after the last glacial phase. The southern branch, entering East Africa from Southern Asia, spread all over North Africa; those in the east were the archaic Egyptians; to the west were the Libyans whose descendants are the Berbers; those who crossed the Mediterranean formed the European branches of the Mediterranean race. With regard to the third type, while the central plateaus of Asia were the centre of dispersal for the true Mongols the western plateaus were the area of characterisation of a non-Mongolian brachycephalic race, which includes short and tall varieties. This is the Alpine race, which extends from the Hindu Kush to Brittany, and formerly spread further westwards into the British Isles[1029].

The problem of European origins has often in the past been obscured rather than enlightened by an appeal to linguistics, but linguistic factors cannot altogether be ignored. No doubt the earliest populations of the Mediterranean shores during the Stone Age spoke non-Aryan languages, but it is only here and there that traces—mostly indecipherable—can be discovered. On the African side we have the Berber language still in its full vigour; and apparently little changed for thousands of years. But in Europe the primitive tongues have everywhere been swept away by the Aryan (Hellenic, Italic, Keltic) except in the region of the Pyrenees. In Italy Etruscan is the only language which can with safety be called non-Aryan[1030], though the place of Ligurian is still under dispute[1031]. Of Pelasgian, nothing survives except the statement of Herodotus, a dangerous guide in this matter, that it was a barbaric tongue like the peoples themselves[1032], but Ridgeway considers it Indo-European[1033]. Further east, in Asia Minor, neither Karian inscriptions and glosses nor occasional Lydian[1034] and Mysian glosses afford any safe basis for establishing relationships[1035]; the fuller evidence of Lycian leaves its position indeterminate[1036] and the Cretan script is still undeciphered[1037].

But in Iberia besides the Iberian inscriptions, which, so far, remain indecipherable[1038], there survives the Basque of the western Pyrenees, which beyond question represents a form of speech which was current in the peninsula in pre-Aryan times, and on the assumption of a common origin of the populations on both sides of the Strait of Gibraltar might be expected to show traces of kinship with Berber. In a posthumous work on this subject[1039], the eminent philologist G. von der Gabelenz goes much further than mere traces, and claims to establish not only phonetic and verbal resemblances, but structural correspondences, so that his editor Graf von der Schulenberg was satisfied as to the relationship of the two languages[1040]. This conclusion has not, however, met with general acceptance[1041] and the affinities of Basque with Finno-Ugrian cannot be overlooked[1042]. A study of the physical features of the modern Basques adds complexity to the problem. Most observers are agreed that a distinct Basque type exists, and this physical and linguistic singularity has led to various more or less fanciful theories "connecting the Basques with every outlandish language and bankrupt people under the sun[1043]," while G. HervÉ[1044] would regard them as forming by themselves a separate ethnic group, "a fourth European race." On the other hand Feist[1045] has grounds for claiming that the Basques are not, in anthropological respects, essentially different from their Spanish or French neighbours (p. 357) and Jullian[1046] denies them more than a superficial unity. These apparently conflicting opinions are reconciled by the conclusions of R. Collignon[1047], himself one of the best authorities on the subject. "The physical traits characteristic of the Basques attach them unquestionably ('indiscutablement') to the great Hamitic branch of the white races, that is to say, to the ancient Egyptians and to the various groups commonly comprised under the collective name of Berbers. Their brachycephaly, slight as it is, cannot outweigh the aggregate of the other characters which they present.... It is therefore in this direction and not amongst Finns or Esthonians that is to be sought the parent stem of this paradoxical race. It is North African or European, assuredly not Asiatic." Collignon's explanation of the Basque type is that it is a sub-species of the Mediterranean stock evolved by long-continued and complete isolation, and in-and-in breeding, primarily engendered by peculiarity of language. The effects of heredity, aided perhaps by artificial selection, have generated local peculiarities and have developed them to an extreme[1048].

"The Iberian question," says Rice Holmes, "is the most complicated and difficult of all the problems of Gallic ethnology[1049]." From the testimony of Greek and Roman authors, he draws the following conclusions. "The name Iberian was probably applied, in the first instance, only to the people who dwelt between the Ebro and the Pyrenees. The Iberians once occupied the seaboard of Gaul between the RhÔne and the Pyrenees; but Ligurians encroached upon this part of their territory. They also probably occupied the whole eastern region of the Spanish peninsula. But," he adds, "we must bear in mind that the data are both insufficient and uncertain" (p. 288). Later (p. 301), reviewing the evidence collected by philologists and by craniologists, he continues, "it seems to me probable that the Iberians comprised both people who spoke, or whose ancestors had spoken, Basque, and people who spoke the language or languages[1050] of the 'Iberian' inscriptions; that to observers who had not learned to measure skulls and knew nothing of scientific methods, they appeared to be homogeneous; that the prevailing type was that which is now called Iberian and is seen at its purest in Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily; but that a certain proportion of the whole population may have been characterised by physical features more or less closely resembling those which the modern Basques—French and Spanish—possess in common, and which, as MM. Broca and Collignon tell us, distinguish them from all other European peoples. Finally it seems probable that the true Iberians were the people who spoke the languages of the inscriptions, and that Basque was spoken by a people who occupied Spain and Southern Gaul before the Iberians arrived. But unless and until the key to those appalling inscriptions is found, the problem will never be solved."

The Ligurian question is still more complex than the Iberian. For while no facts can be brought forward in direct contradiction of the assumption that the Iberians were a short dark dolichocephalic population occupying the Iberian peninsula in the Stone Age, and speaking a non-Indo-European language, no such generalisations with regard to race, physical type, culture, geographical distribution or language are accepted for the Ligurians. Some, with Sergi[1051], consider the Ligurians merely as another branch of the Mediterranean race. Others, with Zaborowski[1052], tracing their presence among the modern inhabitants of Liguria, regard them as representing the small, dark, brachycephalic race at its purest. While many who recognise the Ligurians as belonging to the Mediterranean physical type deny their affinity with the Iberians. Meyer[1053] considers such a relationship "not improbable," but DÉchelette[1054] shows that it is absolutely untenable on archaeological grounds. The geographical range is equally uncertain. C. Jullian[1055] distributes Ligurians not only over the whole of Gaul, but also throughout Western Europe, and attributes to them all the glories of neolithic civilisation; A. Bertrand[1056] thinks that they played even in Gaul merely a secondary rÔle; DÉchelette[1057], on archaeological evidence, proves that the Ligurian period was par excellence the Age of Bronze, and Ridgeway[1058] identifies it with the Terramare civilisation. Finally, if we follow Sergi, the Ligurians must have spoken a non-Indo-European language; but the most eminent authorities are in the main agreed that such traces of Ligurian as remain show affinities with Indo-European[1059]. With regard to their physical type Sergi puts forward the view that the true Ligurians were like the Iberians, a section of the long-headed Mediterranean (Afro-European) stock. From prehistoric stations in the valley of the Po he collected 59 skulls, all of this type, and all Ligurian; history and tradition being of accord that before the arrival of the Kelts this region belonged to the Ligurian domain. "If it be true that prehistoric Italy was occupied by the Mediterranean race and by two branches—Ligurian and Pelasgian—of that race, the ancient inhabitants of the Po valley, now exhumed in those 59 skulls, were Ligurian[1060]."

These Ligurians have been traced from their homes on the Mediterranean into Central Europe. From a study of the neolithic finds made in Germany, in the district between Neustadt and Worms, C. Mehlis[1061] infers that here the first settlers were Ligurians, who had penetrated up the Rhone and SaÔne into Rhineland. In the Kircherian Museum in Rome he was surprised to find a marked analogy between objects from the Riviera and from the Rhine; skulls (both dolicho), vases, stone implements, mill-stones, etc., all alike. Such Ligurian objects, found everywhere in North Italy, occur in the Rhine lands chiefly along the left bank of the main stream between Basel and Mainz, and farther north in the Rheingau at Wiesbaden, and in the Lahn valley.

The Ligurians may of course have reached the Riviera round the coast from Illiberis and Iberia; but the same race is found as the aboriginal element also at the "heel of the boot," and in fact throughout the whole of Italy and all the adjacent islands. This point is now firmly established, and not only Sergi, but several other leading Italian authorities hold that the early inhabitants of the peninsula and islands were Ligurians and Pelasgians, whom they look upon as of the same stock, all of whom came from North Africa, and that, despite subsequent invasions and crossings, this Mediterranean stock still persists, especially in the southern provinces and in the islands—Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Hence it seems more reasonable to bring this aboriginal element straight from Africa by the stepping stones of Pantellaria, Malta, and Gozzo (formerly more extensive than at present, and still strewn with megalithic remains comparable to those of both continents), than by the roundabout route of Iberia and Southern Gaul[1062]. This is a simple solution of the problem, but it is a question if it is justifiable to extend the name Ligurian to all that branch of the Mediterranean race which undoubtedly forms the substratum of population in Italy and parts of Gaul, ignoring the presence or absence of "Ligurian" culture or traces of Ligurian language. DÉchelette[1063], relying chiefly upon archaeological and cultural evidence, sums up as follows: we must consider the Ligurians as Indo-European tribes, whose area of domination had its centre, during the Bronze Age, in North Italy, and the left bank of the Rhone. They were enterprising and energetic in agriculture and in commerce. Together with neighbouring peoples of Illyrian stock they engaged in an indirect but nevertheless regular trade with the northern regions where amber was collected. Among the Ligurians, as among the Illyrians and Hyperboreans, a form of heliolatry was prevalent, popularising the old solar myths in which the swan appears to have played an important rÔle. Rice Holmes[1064] defines more closely their geographical range. "Ligurians undoubtedly lived in South-eastern Gaul, where they were found at least as far north as Bellegarde in the department of the Ain; and, mingled more or less with Iberians, in the departments of the Gard, HÉrault, Aude and PyrÉnÉes-Orientales. Most probably they had once occupied the whole eastern region as far north as the Marne, but had been submerged by Celts: and perhaps they had also pushed westward as far as Aquitania." He continues, "Were it possible to regard the theory of MM. d'Arbois de Jubainville and Jullian as more than an interesting hypothesis, we should have to conclude that the Ligurians were simply the long-headed and short-headed peoples who, reinforced perhaps from time to time by hordes of immigrants, had inhabited the whole of Gaul since the Neolithic Age, and of whom the former, or many of them, were descended from palaeolithic hunters; in other words that they were the same people who, after they had been conquered by, or had coalesced with, the Celtic invaders, called themselves Celtae: but to say which of them were first known as Ligurians or introduced the Ligurian language would be utterly hopeless. Finally the little evidence we possess tends to show that the people called Ligurians, when they became known to the Greek writers who described them, were a medley of different races."

For Sicily, with which may practically be included the south of Italy, we have the conclusions of G. Patroni based on years of intelligent and patient labours[1065]. To Africa this archaeologist traces the palaeolithic men of the west coast of Sicily and of the caves near Syracuse explored by Von Adrian[1066]. "We are forced to conclude that man arrived in Sicily from Africa at a time when the isthmus connecting the island with that Continent still stood above sea-level. He made his appearance about the same time as the elephant, whose remains are associated with human bones especially in the west. He followed the sea coasts, the shells of which offered him sufficient food[1067]." He was followed by the neolithic man, whose presence has been revealed by the researches of Paolo Orsi at the station of Stentinello on the coast north of Syracuse.

To Orsi is also due the discovery of what he calls the "Aeneolithic Epoch[1068]," represented by the bronzes of the Girgenti district. Orsi assigns this culture to the Siculi, and divides it into three periods, while regarding the neolithic men of Stentinello as pre-Siculi. But Patroni holds that the aeneolithic peoples have a right to the historic name of Sicani, and that the true Siculi were those that arrived from Italy in Orsi's second period. It seems no longer possible to determine the true relations of these two peoples, who stand out as distinct throughout early historic times. They are by many[1069] regarded as of one race, although both (S??a???, S??e???) are already mentioned in the Odyssey. But the evidence tends to show that the Sicani represent the oldest element which came direct from Africa in the Stone Age, while the Siculi were a branch of the Ligurians driven in the Metal Age from Italy to the island, which was already occupied by the Sicani, as related by Dionysius Halicarnassus[1070]. In fact this migration of the Siculi may be regarded as almost an historical event, which according to Thucydides took place "about 300 years before the Hellenes came to Sicily[1071]." The Siculi bore this national name on the mainland, so that the modern expression "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" (the late Kingdom of Naples) has its justification in the earliest traditions of the people. Later, both races were merged in one, and the present Sicilian nation was gradually constituted by further accessions of Phoenician (Carthaginian), Greek, Roman, Vandal, Arab, Norman, French and Spanish elements.

Very remarkable is the contrast presented by the conditions prevailing in this ethnical microcosm and those of Sardinia, inhabited since the Stone Ages by one of the most homogeneous groups in the world. From the statistics embodied in R. Livi's Antropologia Militare[1072] the Sards would almost seem to be cast all in one mould, the great bulk of the natives having the shortest stature, the brownest eyes and hair, the longest heads, the swarthiest complexion of all the Italian populations. "They consequently form quite a distinct variety amongst the Italian races, which is natural enough when we remember the seclusion in which this island has remained for so many ages[1073]." They seem to have been preserved as if in some natural museum to show us what the Ligurian branch of the Mediterranean stock may have been in neolithic times. Yet they were probably preceded by the microcephalous dwarfish race described by Sergi as one of the early Mediterranean stocks. Their presence in Sardinia has now been determined by A. Niceforo and E. A. Onnis, who find that of about 130 skulls from old graves thirty have a capacity of only 1150 c.c. or under, while several living persons range in height from 4 ft. 2 in. to 4 ft. 11 in. Niceforo agrees with Sergi in bringing this dwarfish race also from North Africa[1074].

With remarkable cranial uniformity, similar phenomena are presented by the Corsicans who show "the same exaggerated length of face and narrowness of the forehead. The cephalic index drops from 87 and above in the Alps to about 75 all along the line. Coincidently the colour of hair and eyes becomes very dark, almost black. The figure is less amply proportioned, the people become light and rather agile. It is certain that the stature at the same time falls to an exceedingly low level: fully 9 inches below the average for Teutonic Europe," although "the people of Northern Africa, pure Mediterranean Europeans, are of medium size[1075]."

In the Italian peninsula Sergi holds not only that the aborigines were exclusively of Ligurian, i.e. Mediterranean stock, but that this stock still persists in the whole of the region south of the Tiber, although here and there mixed with "Aryan" elements. North of that river these elements increase gradually up to the Italian Alps, and at present are dominant in the valley of the Po[1076]. In this way he would explain the rising percentage of round-heads in that direction, the Ligurians being for him, as stated, long-headed, the "Aryans" round-headed.

Similarly Beddoe, commenting on Livi's statistics, showing predominance of tall stature, round heads, and fair complexion in North Italy, infers "that a type, the one we usually call the Mediterranean, does really predominate in the south, and exists in a state of comparative purity in Sardinia and Calabria; while in the north the broad-headed Alpine type is powerful, but is almost everywhere more or less modified by, or interspersed with other types—Germanic, Slavic, or of doubtful origin—to which the variations of stature and complexion may probably be, at least in part, attributed[1077]."

Similar relations prevail in the Balkan peninsula, where the Mediterranean stock is represented by the "Pelasgic[1078]" substratum. Invented, as has been said, for the purpose of confounding future ethnologists, these Pelasgians certainly present an extremely difficult racial problem, the solution of which has hitherto resisted the combined attacks of ancient and modern students. When Dionysius tells us bluntly that they were Greeks[1079], we fancy the question is settled off-hand, until we find Herodotus describing them a few hundred years earlier as aliens, rude in speech and usages, distinctly not Greeks, and in his time here and there (Thrace, Hellespont) still speaking apparently non-Hellenic dialects[1080]. Then Homer several centuries still earlier, with his epithet of d???, occurring both in the Iliad and the Odyssey[1081], exalts them almost above the level of the Greeks themselves. It would seem, therefore, almost impossible to discover a key to the puzzle, one which will also fit in both with Sergi's Mediterranean theory, and with the results of recent archaeological researches in the Aegean lands. The following hypothesis is supported by a certain amount of evidence. If the pre-Mykenaean culture revealed by Schliemann and others in the Troad, Mykenae, Argos, Tiryns, by Evans and others in Crete, by Cesnola in Cyprus, be ascribed to a pre-Hellenic rather than to a proto-Hellenic people, then the classical references will explain themselves, while this pre-Hellenic race will be readily identified with the Pelasgians, as this term is understood by Sergi.

It is, I suppose, universally allowed that Greece really was peopled before the arrival of the Hellenes, which term is here to be taken as comprising all the invading tribes from the north, of which the Achaeans were perhaps the earliest. On their arrival the Hellenes therefore found the land not only inhabited, but inhabited by a cultured people more civilised than themselves, who could thus be identified with Sergi's Pelasgian branch of the Mediterranean or Afro-European stock, whom the proto-Hellenes naturally regarded as their superiors, and whom their first singers also naturally called d??? ?e?as???[1082]. But in the course of a few centuries[1083] these Pelasgians became Hellenised, all but a few scattered groups, which lagging behind in the general social progress are now also looked upon as barbarians, speaking barbaric tongues, and are so described by contemporary historians. Then these few remnants of a glorious but forgotten past are also merged in the Hellenic stream, and can no longer be distinguished from other Greeks by contemporary writers. Hence for Dionysius the Pelasgians are simply Greeks, which in a sense may be true enough. All the heterogeneous elements have been fused in a single Hellenic nationality, built upon a rough Pelasgic substratum, and adorned with all the graces of Hellenic culture.

Now to make good this hypothesis, it is necessary to show, first, that the Pelasgians were not an obscure tribe, a small people confined to some remote corner of Hellas, but a widespread nation diffused over all the land; secondly, that this nation, as far as can now be determined, presented mental and other characters answering to those of Sergi's Mediterraneans, and also such as might be looked for in a race capable of developing the splendid Aegean culture of pre-Hellenic times.

On the first point it has been claimed that the Pelasgians were so widely distributed[1084] that the difficulty rather is to discover a district where their presence was unknown. They fill the background of Hellenic origins, and even spread beyond the Hellenic horizon, to such an extent that there seems little room for any other people between the Adriatic and the Hellespont. Thus Ridgeway[1085] has brought together a good many passages which clearly establish their universal range, as well as their occupation especially of those places where have been found objects of Mykenaean and pre-Mykenaean culture, such as engraved gems, pottery, implements, buildings, inscriptions in pictographic and syllabic scripts. In Crete they had the "great city of Knossos" in Homer's time[1086]; not only was Mykenae theirs, but the whole of Peloponnesus took the name of Pelasgia; the kings of Tiryns were Pelasgians, and Aeschylus calls Argos a Pelasgian city; an old wall at Athens was attributed to them, and the people of Attica had from all time been Pelasgians[1087]. Orchomenus in Boeotia was founded by a colony from Pelasgiotis in Thessaly; Lesbos also was called Pelasgia, and Homer knew of Pelasgians in the Troad. Their settlements are further traced to Egypt, to Rhodes, Cyprus, Epirus—where Dodona was their ancient shrine—and lastly to various parts of Italy.

Moreover, the Pelasgians were traditionally the civilising element, who taught people to make bread, to yoke the ox to the plough, and to measure land. It would appear from these and other allusions that there were memories of still earlier aborigines, amongst whom the Pelasgians appear as a cultured people, introducing perhaps the arts and industries of the pre-Mykenaean Age. But the assumption, based on no known data, is unnecessary, and it seems more reasonable to look on this culture as locally developed, to some extent under eastern (Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite?) influences[1088]. Here it is important to note that the Pelasgians were credited with a knowledge of letters[1089], and all this has been advanced as sufficient confirmation of our second postulate. Nevertheless it must be acknowledged that the difficulties are not all overcome by this hypothesis, and the further question of language divides even its stanchest supporters into opposing groups, for while Sergi's Mediterraneans necessarily speak a non-Indo-European language[1090], Ridgeway's Pelasgians speak Aeolic Greek[1091].

The range and importance of the Pelasgians are most strictly limited by J. L. Myres[1092], who thinks that the Alpine type may even be primitive in the Morea, Mediterranean man being an intruder from the south merely fringing the coast and never penetrating inland. The researches of von Luschan in Lycia support this view[1093], and Ripley's map of the present inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula shows the "Greek contingent closely confined to the sea-coast[1094]." Ripley, however, though carefully avoiding any dragging of "Pelasgians" into the question, assumes a primitive substratum of Mediterranean type all over Greece. "The testimony of these ancient Greek crania is perfectly harmonious. All authorities agree that the ancient Hellenes were decidedly long-headed, betraying in this respect their affinity to the Mediterranean Race.... Whether from Attica, from Schliemann's successive cities excavated upon the site of Troy, or from the coast of Asia Minor[1095]; at all times from 400 B.C. to the third century of our era, it would seem proved that the Greeks were of this dolichocephalic type.... Every characteristic of their modern descendants and every analogy with the neighbouring populations, leads us to the conclusion that the classical Hellenes were distinctly of the Mediterranean racial type, little different from the Phoenicians, the Romans or the Iberians[1096]." Nevertheless DÖrpfeld[1097] claims that there were, from the first, two races in Greece, a Southern, or Aegean, and a Northern, who were the Aryan Achaeans of history, and recent archaeological discoveries certainly support this view.

Another attempt to solve the Pelasgian problem is that of E. Meyer[1098]. After enumerating the various areas said to have been occupied by the Pelasgians "ein grosses Urvolk" who ranged from Asia Minor to Italy, he pricks the bubble by saying that in reality there were no Pelasgians save in Thessaly, in the fruitful plain of Peneus, hence called "Pelasgic Argos[1099]," and later Pelasgiotis. They, like the Dorians, invaded Crete from Thessaly and at the beginning of the first millennium were defeated and enslaved by the incoming Thessalians. These are the only true Pelasgians. The other so-called Pelasgians are the descendants of an eponymous Pelasgos who in genealogical poetry becomes the ancestor of mankind. Since the Arcadians were regarded as the earliest of the indigenous peoples, Pelasgos was made the ancestor of the Arcadians. The name "Pelasgic Argos" was transferred from Thessaly to the Peloponnesian city. Attic Pelasgians were derived from a mistake of Hecataeus[1100]. So the legend grew. The only real Pelasgian problem, concludes Meyer, is whether the Thessalian Pelasgians were a Greek or pre-Greek people, and he is inclined to favour the latter view. The identity of "the most mysterious people of antiquity" is further obscured by philology, for, as P. Giles points out, their name appears merely to mean "the people of the sea," so that "they do not seem to be in all cases the same stock[1101]."

Whether we call them Pelasgians or no, there would seem to be little doubt that the splendours of Aegean civilisation which have been and still are being gradually revealed by the researches of British, Italian, American and German archaeologists are to be attributed to an indigenous people of Mediterranean type, occupying an area of which Crete was the centre, from the Stone Age, right through the Bronze Age, down to the Northern invasions of the second millennium and the introduction of iron. In range this culture included Greece with its islands, Cyprus, and Western Anatolia, and its influence extended westwards to Sicily, Italy, Sardinia and Spain, and eastwards to Syria and Egypt. Its chief characteristics are (1) an indigenous script both pictographic and linear, with possible affinities in Hittite, Cypriote and South-west Anatolian scripts, but hitherto indecipherable; (2) a characteristic art attempting "to express an ideal in forms more and more closely approaching to realities[1102]," exhibited in frescoes, pottery, reliefs, sculptures, jewelry etc.; (3) a distinctive architectural style, and (4) type of tomb, which have no parallels elsewhere. Excavations at Cnossos go far towards establishing a chronology for the Aegean area. At the base is an immensely thick neolithic deposit, above which come pottery and other objects of Minoan Period I. 1, which are correlated by Petrie with objects found at Abydos, referred by him to the 1st Dynasty (4000 B.C.). Minoan Period II. 2 corresponds with the Egyptian XII Dynasty (2500 B.C.), characteristic Cretan pottery of this period being found in the Fayum. Minoan Period III. 1 and 2 synchronises with Dynasty XVIII (1600 to 1400 B.C.). Iron begins to be used for weapons after Period III. 3, and is commonly attributed to incursions from the north, the Dorian invasion of the Greek authors, about 1000 B.C. which led to the destruction of the palace of Cnossos and the substitution of "Geometric" for "Mykenaean" art.

Turning to the African branch of the Mediterranean type, we find it forming not merely the substratum, but the great bulk of the inhabitants throughout all recorded time from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, and from the Mediterranean to Sudan, although since Muhammadan times largely intermingled with the kindred Semitic stock (mainly Arabs) in the north and west, and in the east (Abyssinia) with the same stock since prehistoric times. All are comprised by Sergi[1103] in two main divisions:—

1. Eastern Hamites, answering to the Ethiopic Branch of some writers, of somewhat variable type, comprising the Old and Modern Egyptians now mixed with Semitic (Arab) elements; the Nubians, the Bejas, the Abyssinians, collective name of all the peoples between Khor Barka and Shoa (with, in some places, a considerable infusion of Himyaritic or early Semitic blood from South Arabia); the Gallas (Gallas proper, Somals, and Afars or DanÁkils); the Masai and Ba-Hima.

2. Northern Hamites, the Libyan Race or Berber (Western) Branch of some writers, comprising the Mediterranean Berbers of Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; the Atlantic Berbers (Shluhs and others) of Morocco; the West Saharan Berbers commonly called Tuaregs; the Tibus of the East Sahara; the Fulahs, dispersed amongst the Sudanese Negroes; the Guanches of the Canary Islands.

Of the Eastern Hamites he remarks generally that they do not form a homogeneous division, but rather a number of different peoples either crowded together in separate areas, or dispersed in the territories of other peoples. They agree more in their inner than in their outer characters, without constituting a single ethnical type. The cranial forms are variable, though converging, and evidently to be regarded as very old varieties of an original stock. The features are also variable, converging and characteristic, with straight or arched (aquiloid) nose quite different from the Negro; lips rather thick, but never everted as in the Negro; hair usually frizzled, not wavy; beard thin; skin very variable, brown, red-brown, black-brown, ruddy black, chocolate and coffee-brown, reddish or yellowish, these variations being due to crossings and the outward physical conditions.

In this assumption Sergi is supported by the analogous case of the western Berbers between the Senegal and Morocco, to whom Collignon and Deniker[1104] restrict the term "Moor," as an ethnical name. The chief groups, which range from the Atlantic coast east to the camping grounds of the true Tuaregs[1105], are the Trarsas and Braknas of the Senegal river, and farther north the DwaÏsh (Idoesh), Uled-Bella, Uled-Embark, and Uled-en-NasÚr. From a study of four of these Moors, who visited Paris in 1895, it appears that they are not an Arabo-Berber cross, as commonly supposed, but true Hamites, with a distinct Negro strain, shown especially in their frizzly hair, bronze colour, short broad nose, and thickish lips, their general appearance showing an astonishing likeness to the Bejas, Afars, Somals, Abyssinians, and other Eastern Hamites. This is not due to direct descent, and it is more reasonable to suppose "that at the two extremities of the continent the same causes have produced the same effects, and that from the infusion of a certain proportion of black blood in the Egyptian [eastern] and Berber branches of the Hamites, there have sprung closely analogous mixed groups[1106]." From the true Negro they are also distinguished by their grave and dignified bearing, and still more by their far greater intelligence.

Both divisions of the Hamites, continues Sergi, agree substantially in their bony structure, and thus form a single anthropological group with variable skull—pentagonoid, ovoid, ellipsoid, sphenoid, etc., as expressed in his terminology—but constant, that is, each variety recurring in all the branches; face also variable (tetragonal, ellipsoid, etc.), but similarly identical in all the branches; profile non-prognathous; eyes dark, straight, not prominent; nose straight or arched; hair smooth, curly, long, black or chestnut; beard full, also scant; lips thin or slightly tumid, never protruding; skin of various brown shades; stature medium or tall.

Such is the great anthropological division, which was diffused continuously over the greater part of Africa, and round the northern shores of the Mediterranean. According to Stuhlmann[1107] it had its origin in South Arabia, if not further east, and entered Africa in the region of Erythrea. He regards the Red Sea as offering no obstacle to migrations, but suggests a possible land connection between the opposite shores.

Nothing is more astonishing than the strange persistence not merely of the Berber type, but of the Berber temperament and nationality since the Stone Ages, despite the successive invasions of foreign peoples during the historic period. First came the Sidonian Phoenicians, founders of Carthage and Utica probably about 1500 B.C. The Greek occupation of Cyrenaica (628 B.C.) was followed by the advent of the Romans on the ruins of the Carthaginian empire. The Romans have certainly left distinct traces of their presence, and some of the Aures highlanders still proudly call themselves RumanÍya. These ShawÍas ("Pastors") form a numerous group, all claiming Roman descent, and even still keeping certain Roman and Christian feasts, such as Bu Ini, i.e. Christmas; Innar or January (New Year's Day); Spring (Easter), etc. A few Latin words also survive such as urtho = hortus; kerrÚsh = quercus (evergreen oak); milli = milliarium (milestone).

After the temporary Vandal occupation came the great Arab invasions of the seventh and later centuries, and even these had been preceded by the kindred Ruadites, who had in pre-Moslem times already reached Mauretania from Arabia. With the Jews, some of whom had also reached Tripolitana before the New Era, a steady infiltration of Negroes from Sudan, and the recent French, Spanish, Italian, and Maltese settlers, we have all the elements that go to make up the cosmopolitan population of Mauretania.

But amid them all the Berbers and the Arabs stand out as the immensely predominant factors, still distinct despite a probably common origin in the far distant past and later interminglings. The Arab remains above all a nomad herdsman, dwelling in tents, without house or hamlet, a good stock-breeder, but a bad husbandman, and that only on compulsion. "The ploughshare and shame enter hand in hand into the family," says the national proverb. To find space for his flocks and herds he continues the destructive work of Carthaginian and Roman, who ages ago cleared vast wooded tracts for their fleets and commercial navies, and thus rendered large areas barren and desolate.

The Berber on the contrary loves the sheltering woodlands; he is essentially a highlander who carefully tills the forest glades, settles in permanent homes, and often develops flourishing industries. Arab society is feudal and theocratic, ruled by a despotic Sheikh, while the Berber with his Jemaa, or "Witenagemot," and his Kanun or unwritten code, feels himself a freeman; and it may well have been this democratic spirit, inherited by his European descendants, that enabled the western nations to take the lead in the onward movement of humanity. The Arab again is a fanatic, ever to be feared, because he blindly obeys the will of Allah proclaimed by his prophets, marabouts, and mahdis[1108]. But the Berber, a born sceptic, looks askance at theological dogmas; an unconscious philosopher, he is far less of a fatalist than his Semitic neighbour, who associates with Allah countless demons and jins in the government of the world.

In their physical characters the two races also present some striking contrasts, the Arab having the regular oval brain-cap and face of the true Semite, whereas the Berber head is more angular, less finely moulded, with more prominent cheekbones, shorter and less aquiline nose, which combined with a slight degree of sub-nasal prognathism, imparts to the features coarser and less harmonious outlines. He is at the same time distinctly taller and more muscular, with less uniformity in the colour of the eye and the hair, as might be expected from the numerous elements entering into the constitution of present Berber populations.

In the social conflict between the Arab and Berber races, the curious spectacle is presented of two nearly equal elements (same origin, same religion, same government, same or analogous tribal groupings, at about the same cultural development) refusing to amalgamate to any great extent, although living in the closest proximity for over a thousand years. In this struggle the Arab seems so far to have had the advantage. Instances of Berberised Arabs occur, but are extremely rare, whereas the Berbers have not only everywhere accepted the Koran, but whole tribes have become assimilated in speech, costume, and usages to the Semitic intruders. It might therefore seem as if the Arab must ultimately prevail. But we are assured by the French observers that in Algeria and Tunisia appearances are fallacious, however the case may stand in Morocco and the Sahara. "The Arab," writes Malbot, to whom I am indebted for some of these details, "an alien in Mauretania, transported to a soil which does not always suit him, so far from thriving tends to disappear, whereas the Berber, especially under the shield of France, becomes more and more aggressive, and yearly increases in numbers. At present he forms at least three-fifths of the population in Algeria, and in Morocco the proportion is greater. He is the race of the future as of the past[1109]."

This however would seem to apply only to the races, not to their languages, for we are elsewhere told that Arabic is encroaching steadily on the somewhat ruder Berber dialects[1110]. Considering the enormous space over which they are diffused, and the thousands of years that some of the groups have ceased to be in contact, these dialects show remarkably slight divergence from the long extinct speech from which all have sprung. Whatever it be called—Kabyle, Zenatia, Shawia, Tamashek, Shluh—the Berber language is still essentially one, and the likeness between the forms current in Morocco, Algeria, the Sahara, and the remote Siwah Oasis on the confines of Egypt, is much closer, for instance, than between Norse and English in the sub-Aryan Teutonic group[1111].

But when we cross the conventional frontier between the contiguous Tuareg and Tibu domains in the central Sahara the divergence is so great that philologists are still doubtful whether the two languages are even remotely or are at all connected. Ever since the abandonment of the generalisation of Lepsius that Hamitic and Negro were the sole stock languages, the complexity of African linguistic problems has been growing more and more apparent, and Tibu is only one among many puzzles, concerning which there is great discordance of opinion even among the most recent and competent authorities[1112].

The Tibu themselves, apparently direct descendants of the ancient Garamantes, have their primeval home in the Tibesti range, i.e. the "Rocky Mountains," whence they take their name[1113]. There are two distinct sections, the Northern Tedas, a name recalling the Tedamansii, a branch of the Garamantes located by Ptolemy somewhere between Tripolitana and Phazania (Fezzan), and the Southern Dazas, through whom the Tibu merge gradually in the negroid populations of central Sudan. This intermingling with the blacks dates from remote times, whence Ptolemy's remark that the Garamantes seemed rather more "Ethiopians" than Libyans[1114]. But there can be no doubt that the full-blood Tibu, as represented by the northern section, are mainly Mediterranean, and although the type of the men is somewhat coarser than that of their Tuareg neighbours, that of the women is almost the finest in Africa. "Their women are charming while still in the bloom of youth, unrivalled amongst their sisters of North Africa for their physical beauty; pliant and graceful figures[1115]."

It is interesting to notice amongst these somewhat secluded Saharan nomads the slow growth of culture, and the curious survival of usages which have their explanation in primitive social conditions. "The Tibu is always distrustful; hence, meeting a fellow-countryman in the desert he is careful not to draw near without due precaution. At sight of each other both generally stop suddenly; then crouching and throwing the litham over the lower part of the face in Tuareg fashion, they grasp the inseparable spear in their right and the shanger-mangor, or bill-hook, in their left. After these preliminaries they begin to interchange compliments, inquiring after each other's health and family connections, receiving every answer with expressions of thanksgiving to Allah. These formalities usually last some minutes[1116]." Obviously all this means nothing more than a doffing of the hat or a shake-hands amongst more advanced peoples; but it points to times when every stranger was a hostis, who later became the hospes (host, guest).

It will be noticed that the Tibu domain, with the now absolutely impassable Libyan desert[1117], almost completely separates the Mediterranean branch from the Hamites proper. Continuity, however, is accorded, both on the north along the shores of the Mediterranean to the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt), and on the south through Darfur and Kordofan to the White Nile, and thence down the main stream to Upper Egypt, and through Abyssinia, Galla and Somali lands to the Indian Ocean. Between the Nile and the east coast the domain of the Hamites stretches from the equator northwards to Egypt and the Mediterranean.

It appears therefore that Egypt, occupied for many thousands of years by an admittedly Hamitic people, might have been reached either from the west by the Mediterranean route, or down the Nile, or, lastly, it maybe suggested that the Hamites were specialised in the Nile valley itself. The point is not easy to decide, because, when appeal is made to the evidence of the Stone Ages, we find nothing to choose between such widely separated regions as Somaliland, Upper Egypt, and Mauretania, all of which have yielded superabundant proofs of the presence of man for incalculable ages, estimated by some palethnologists at several hundred thousand years. In Egypt the palaeoliths indicate not only extreme antiquity, but also that the course of civilisation was uninterrupted by any such crises as have afforded means of chronological classification in Western Europe. The differences in technique are local and geographical, not historic. The Neolithic period tells the same tale, and the use of copper at the beginning of the historic period only slowly replaced the flint industry, which continued during the earlier dynasties down to the period of the Middle Empire and attained a degree of perfection nowhere surpassed. Prehistoric pottery strengthens the evidence of a slow, gradual development, the newer forms nowhere jostling out the old, but co-existing side by side[1118].

It might seem therefore that the question of Egyptian origins was settled by the mere statement of the case, and that there could be no hesitation in saying that the Egyptian Hamites were evolved on Egyptian soil, consequently are the true autochthones in the Nile valley. Yet there is no ethnological question more hotly discussed than this of Egyptian origins and culture, for the two seem inseparable. There are broadly speaking two schools: the African, whose fundamental views are thus briefly set forth, and the Asiatic, which brings the Egyptians with all their works from the neighbouring continent. But, seeing that the Egyptians are now admitted to be Hamites, that there are no Hamites to speak of (let it be frankly said, none at all) in Asia, and that they have for untold ages occupied large tracts of Africa, there are several members of the Asiatic school who allow that, not the people themselves, but their culture only came from western Asia (Mesopotamia). If so, this culture would presumably have its roots in the delta, which is first reached by the Isthmus of Suez from Asia, and spread thence, say, from Memphis up the Nile to Thebes and Upper Egypt, and here arises a difficulty. For at that time there was no delta[1119], or at least it was only in process of formation, a kind of debatable region between land and water, inhabitable mainly by crocodiles, and utterly unsuited to become the seat of a culture whose characteristic features are huge stone monuments, amongst the largest ever erected by man, and consequently needing solid foundations on terra firma. It further appears that although Memphis is very old, Thebes is much older, in other words, that Egyptian culture began in Upper Egypt, and spread not up but down the Nile. On the other hand the Egyptians themselves looked upon the delta as the cradle of their civilisation, although no traces of material culture have survived, or could be expected to survive, in such a soil[1120]. Moreover it is not necessary to introduce Asiatic invaders by way of Lower Egypt. F. Stuhlmann postulates a land connection between Africa and Arabia, but even without this assumption he regards the Red Sea as affording no hindrance to early infiltrations[1121]. Flinders Petrie, while rejecting any considerable water transport for the uncultured prehistoric Egyptians (whom he derives from Libya), detects a succession of subsequent invasions from Asia, the dynastic race crossing the Red Sea to the neighbourhood of Koptos, and Syrian invasions leading to the civilisation of the Twelfth Dynasty, besides the later Hyksos invasions of Semito-Babylonian stock[1122].

The theory of Asiatic origins is clearly summed up by H. H. Johnston[1123]. He regards the earliest inhabitants of Egypt as a dwarfish Negro-like race, not unlike the Congo Pygmies of to-day (p. 375), with possibly some trace of Bushman (p. 378), but this population was displaced more than 15,000 years ago by Mediterranean man, who may have penetrated as far as Abyssinia, and may have been linguistically parent of the Fulah[1124]. The Fulah type was displaced by the invasions of the Hamites and the Libyans or Berbers. "The Hamites were no doubt of common origin, linguistically and racially, with the Semites, and perhaps originated in that great breeding ground of conquering peoples, South-west Asia. They preceded the Semites, and (we may suppose) after a long stay and concentration in Mesopotamia invaded and colonised Arabia, Southern Palestine, Egypt, Abyssinia, Somaliland and North Africa to its Atlantic shores. The Dynastic Egyptians were also Hamites in a sense, both linguistically and physically; but they seem to have attained to a high civilisation in Western Arabia, to have crossed the Red Sea in vessels, and to have made their first base on the Egyptian coast near Berenice in the natural harbour formed by Ras Benas. From here a long, broad wadi or valley—then no doubt fertile—led them to the Nile in the Thebaid, the first seat of their kingly power[1125]. The ancestors of the Dynastic Egyptians may have originated the great dams and irrigation works in Western Arabia; and such long struggles with increasing drought may have first broken them in to the arts of quarrying stone blocks and building with stone. Over population and increasing drought may have caused them to migrate across the Red Sea in search of another home; or their migration may have been partly impelled by the Semitic hordes from the north, whom we can imagine at this period—some 9000 to 10,000 years ago—pressing southwards into Arabia and conquering or fusing with the preceding Hamites; just as these latter, no doubt, at an earlier day, had wrested Arabia from the domain of the Negroid and Dravidian" (p. 382).

That the founding of the First Dynasty was coincident with a physical change in the population, is proved by the thousands of skeletons and mummies examined by Elliot Smith[1126], who regards the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as "probably the nearest approximation to that anthropological abstraction, a pure race, that we know of (p. 83)." He describes the type as follows (Chap. IV.).

The Proto-Egyptian (i.e. Pre-dynastic) was a man of small stature, his mean height, estimated at a little under 5 ft. 5 in., in the flesh for men, and almost 5 ft. in the case of women, being just about the average for mankind in general, whereas the modern Egyptian fellah averages about 5 ft. 6 in. He was of very slender build with indications of poor muscular development. In fact there is a suggestion of effeminate grace and frailty about his bones, which is lacking in the more rugged outlines of the skeletons of his more virile successors. The hair of the Proto-Egyptian was precisely similar to that of the brunet South European or Iberian people of the present day. It was a very dark brown or black colour, wavy or almost straight and sometimes curly, never "woolly." There can be no doubt whatever that this dark hair was associated with dark eyes and a bronzed complexion. Elliot Smith emphatically endorses Sergi's identification of the ancient Egyptian as belonging to his Mediterranean Race. "So striking is the family likeness between the Early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that a description of the bones of an early Briton might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland." But he points out also that there is an equally close relationship linking the Proto-Egyptians with the populations to the east, from the Red Sea as far as India, including Semites as well as Hamites. Rejecting the terms "Mediterranean" or "Hamite" as inadequate he would classify his Mediterranean-Hamite-Semite group as the "Brown Race[1127]."

A most fortunate combination of circumstances afforded Elliot Smith an opportunity for determining the ethnic affinities of the Egyptian people.

The Hearst Expedition of the University of California, under the direction of G. A. Reisner, was occupied from 1901 onwards with excavations at Naga-ed-DÊr in the Thebaid, where a cemetery, excavated by A. M. Lythgoe, contained well-preserved bodies and skeletons of the earliest known Pre-dynastic period. Close by was a series of graves of the First and Second Dynasties; a few hundred yards away tombs of the Second to the Fifth Dynasties (examined by A. C. Mace), with a large number of tombs ranging from the time of the Sixth Dynasty to the Twelfth. "Thus there was provided a chronologically unbroken series of human remains representing every epoch in the history of Upper Egypt from prehistoric times, roughly estimated at 4000 B.C., up till the close of the Middle Empire, more than two thousand years later." To complete the story Coptic (Christian Egyptian) graves of the fifth and sixth centuries were discovered on the same site.

"The study of this extraordinarily complete series of human remains, providing in a manner such as no other site has ever done the materials for the reconstruction of the racial history of one spot during more than forty-five centuries, made it abundantly clear that the people whose remains were buried just before the introduction of IslÂm into Egypt were of the same flesh and blood as their forerunners in the same locality before the dawn of history. And nine years' experience in the Anatomical Department of the School of Medicine in Cairo," continues Elliot Smith, "has left me in no doubt that the bulk of the present population in Egypt conforms to precisely the same racial type, which has thus been dominant in the northern portion of the Valley of the Nile for sixty centuries[1128]."

As early as the Second Dynasty certain alien traits began to appear, which became comparatively common in the Sixth to Twelfth series. The non-Egyptian characters are observable in remains from numerous sites excavated by Flinders Petrie in Lower and Middle Egypt, and are particularly marked in the cemetery round the Giza Pyramids (excavated by the Hearst Expedition, 1903), containing remains of more than five hundred individuals, who had lived at the time of the Pyramid-builders; they are therefore referred to by Elliot Smith as "Giza traits," and attributed to Armenoid influence. Soon after the amalgamation of the Egyptian kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt by Menes (Mena), consequent perhaps upon the discovery of copper and the invention of metal implements[1129], expeditions were sent beyond the frontiers of the United Kingdom to obtain copper ore, wood and other objects. Even in the times of the First Dynasty the Egyptians began the exploitation of the mines in the Sinai Peninsula for copper ore. It is claimed by Meyer[1130] that Palestine and the Phoenician coast were Egyptian dependencies, and there is ample evidence that there was intimate intercourse between Egypt and Palestine as far north as the Lebanons before the end of the Third Dynasty. From this time forward the physical characters of the people of Lower Egypt show the results of foreign admixture, and present marked features of contrast to the pure type of Upper Egypt. The curious blending of characters suggests that the process of racial admixture took place in Syria rather than in Egypt itself[1131]. The alien type is best shown in the Giza necropolis, and its representatives may be regarded as the builders and guardians of the Pyramids. The stature is about the same as that of the Proto-Egyptians, possibly rather lower, but they were built on far sturdier lines, their bones being more massive, with well-developed muscular ridges and impressions, and none of the effeminacy or infantilism of the prehistoric skeletons. The brain-case has greater capacity with no trace of the meagre ill-filled character exhibited by the latter. Characteristic peculiarities were the "Grecian profile" and a jaw closely resembling those of the round-headed Alpine races.

These "Giza traits" were not a local development, for they have been noted in all parts of Palestine and Asia Minor, and abundantly in Persia and Afghanistan. They occur in the Punjab but are absent from India, having an area of greatest concentration in the neighbourhood of the Pamirs; while in a westerly direction, besides being sporadically scattered over North Africa, they are recognised again in the extinct Guanches of the Canary Islands. From these considerations Elliot Smith shapes the following "working hypothesis."

"The Egyptians, Arabs and Sumerians may have been kinsmen of the Brown Race, each diversely specialized by long residence in its own domain; and in Pre-dynastic times, before the wider usefulness of copper as a military instrument of tremendous power was realized, the Middle Pre-dynastic phase of culture became diffused far and wide throughout Arabia and Sumer. Then came the awakening to the knowledge of the supremacy which the possession of metal weapons conferred upon those who wielded them in combat against those not so armed. Upper Egypt vanquished Lower Egypt in virtue of this knowledge and the possession of such weapons. The United Kingdom pushed its way into Syria to obtain wood and ore, and incidentally taught the Arabs the value of metal weapons. The Arabs thereby obtained the supremacy over the Armenoids of Northern Syria, and the hybrid race of Semites formed from this blend were able to descend the Euphrates and vanquish the more cultured Sumerians, because the latter were without metal implements of war. The non-Semitic Armenoids of Asia Minor carried the new knowledge into Europe[1132]."

This hypothesis might explain some of the difficult problems connecting Egypt and Babylonia[1133]. The non-Asiatic origin of the Egyptian people appears to be indicated by recent excavations, but, as mentioned above, there are still many who hold that Egyptian culture and civilisation were derived mainly, if not wholly, from Asiatic (probably Sumerian) sources. The Semitic elements existing in the ancient Egyptian language, certain resemblances between names of Sumerian and Egyptian gods, and the similarity of hieroglyphic characters to the Sumerian system of writing have been cited as proofs of the dependence of the one culture upon the other; while the introduction of the knowledge of metals, metal-working and the crafts of brick-making and tomb construction have, together with the bulbous mace-head, cylinder-seal and domesticated animals and plants[1134], been traced to Babylonia.

But the excavations of Reisner at Naga-ed-DÊr and those of Naville at Abydos (1909-10) appear to place the indigenous development of Egyptian culture beyond question. Reisner's conclusions[1135] are that there was no sudden break of continuity between the neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. No essential change took place in the Egyptian conception of life after death, or in the rites and practices accompanying interment. The most noticeable changes, in the character of the pottery and household vessels, in the materials for tools and weapons and the introduction of writing, were all gradually introduced, and one period fades into another without any strongly marked line of division between them. Egypt no doubt had trading relations with surrounding countries. Egyptians and Babylonians must have met in the markets of Syria, and in the tents of Bedouin chiefs. Still, as Meyer points out, far from Egypt taking over a ready-made civilisation from Babylonia, Egypt, as regards cultural influence, was the giver not the receiver[1136].

One more alien element in Egypt remains to be discussed. Most writers on Egyptian ethnology detect a Negro or at least Negroid element in the Caucasoid population, and although usually assigning priority to the Negro, assume the co-existence of the two races from time immemorial to the present day. Measurements on more than 1000 individuals were made by C. S. Myers, and these are his conclusions. "There is no anthropometric (despite the historic) evidence that the population of Egypt, past or present, is composed of several different races. Our new anthropometric data favour the view which regards the Egyptians always as a homogeneous people, who have varied now towards Caucasian, now towards negroid characters (according to environment), showing such close anthropometric affinity to Libyan, Arabian and like neighbouring peoples, showing such variability and possibly such power of absorption, that from the anthropometric standpoint no evidence is obtainable that the modern Egyptians have been appreciably affected by other than sporadic Sudanese admixture[1137]."

It was seen above (Chap. III.) that non-Negro elements are found throughout the Sudan from Senegal nearly to Darfur, nowhere forming the whole of the population, but nearly always the dominant native race. These are the Fulah (Fula, Fulbe or Fulani), whose ethnic affinities have given rise to an enormous amount of speculation. Their linguistic peculiarity had led many ethnologists to regard them as the descendants of the first white colonists of North Africa, "Caucasoid invaders," 15,000 years ago, prior to Hamitic intrusions from the east[1138]. Thus would be explained the fact that their language betrays absolutely no structural affinity with Semitic or Libyo-Hamitic groups, or with any other speech families outside Africa, though offering faint resemblances in structure with the Lesghian[1139] speech of the Caucasus and the Dravidian tongues of Baluchistan and India. Physically there seems to be nothing to differentiate them from other blends[1140] of Hamite-Negro. The physical type of the pure-bred Fulah H. H. Johnston describes as follows: "Tall of stature (but not gigantic, like the Nilote and South-east Sudanese), olive-skinned or even a pale yellow; well-proportioned, with delicate hands and feet, without steatopygy, with long, oval face, big nose (in men), straight nose in women (nose finely cut, like that of the Caucasian), eyes large and "melting," with an Egyptian look about them, head-hair long, black, kinky or ringlety, never quite straight[1141]." They were at first a quiet people, herdsmen and shepherds with a high and intricate type of pagan religion which still survives in parts of Nigeria. But large numbers of them became converted to Islam from the twelfth century onwards and gained some knowledge of the world outside Africa by their pilgrimages to Mecca. At the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries an uprise of Muhammadan fanaticism and a proud consciousness of their racial superiority to the mere Negro armed them as an aristocracy to wrest political control of all Nigeria from the hands of Negro rulers or the decaying power of Tuareg and Songhai. This race was all unconsciously carrying on the Caucasian invasion and penetration of Africa.

A less controversial problem is presented by the Eastern Hamites, who form a continuous chain of dark Caucasic peoples from the Mediterranean to the equator, and whose ethnical unity is now established by Sergi on anatomical grounds[1142]. Bordering on Upper Egypt, and extending thence to the foot of the Abyssinian plateau, is the Beja section, whose chief divisions—Ababdeh, Hadendoa, Bisharin, Beni Amer—have from the earliest times occupied the whole region between the Nile and the Red Sea.

C. G. Seligman has analysed the physical and cultural characters of the Beja tribes (Bisharin, Hadendoa and Beni Amer), the Barabra, nomad Arabs (such as the Kababish and Kawahla), Nilotes (Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer) and half-Hamites (Ba-Hima, Masai), in an attempt by eliminating the Negro and Semitic elements to deduce the main features which may be held to indicate Hamitic influence. He regards the Beni Amer as approximating most closely to the original Beja type which he thus describes. "Summarizing their physical characteristics it may be said that they are moderately short, slightly built men, with reddish-brown or brown skins in which a greater or less tinge of black is present, while in some cases the skin is definitely darker and presents some shade of brown-black. The hair is usually curly, in some instances it certainly might be described as wavy, but the method of hair dressing adopted tends to make difficult an exact description of its condition. Often, as is everywhere common amongst wearers of turbans, the head is shaved.... The face is usually long and oval, or approaching the oval in shape, the jaw is often lightly built, which with the presence of a rather pointed chin may tend to make the upper part of the face appear disproportionately broad. The nose is well shaped and thoroughly Caucasian in type and form[1143]." Among the Hadendoa the "Armenoid" or so-called "Jewish" nose is not uncommon. Seligman draws attention to the close resemblance between the Beja type and that of the ancient Egyptians.

Through the Afars (DanÁkil) of the arid coastlands between Abyssinia and the sea, the Bejas are connected with the numerous Hamitic populations of the Somali and Galla lands. For the term "Somal," which is quite recent and of course unknown to the natives, H. M. Abud[1144] suggests an interesting and plausible explanation. Being a hospitable people, and milk their staple food, "the first word a stranger would hear on visiting their kraals would be 'SÓ mÁl,' i.e. 'Go and bring milk.'" Strangers may have named them from this circumstance, and other tribal names may certainly be traced to more improbable sources.

The natives hold that two races inhabit the land: (1) Asha, true Somals, of whom there are two great divisions, DÁrÓd and IshÁk, both claiming descent from certain noble Arab families, though no longer of Arab speech; (2) HÁwÍya, who are not counted by the others as true Somals, but only "pagans," and also comprise two main branches, Aysa and Gadabursi. In the national genealogies collected by Abud and Cox, many of the mythical heroes are buried at or near Meit, which may thus be termed the cradle of the Somal race. From this point they spread in all directions, the DÁrÓds pushing south and driving the Galla beyond the Webbe Shebel, and till lately raiding them as far as the Tana river. It should be noticed that these genealogical tables are far from complete, for they exclude most of the southern sections, notably the RahanwÍn who have a very wide range on both sides of the Jub.

In the statements made by the natives about true Somals and "pagans," race and religion are confused, and the distinction between Asha and HÁwÍya is merely one between Moslem and infidel. The latter are probably of much purer stock than the former, whose very genealogies testify to interminglings of the Moslem Arab intruders with the heathen aborigines.

Despite their dark colour C. Keller[1145] has no difficulty in regarding the Somali as members of the "Caucasic Race." The Semitic type crops out decidedly in several groups, and they are generally speaking of fine physique, well grown, with proud bearing and often with classic profile, though the type is very variable owing to Arab and Negro grafts on the Hamitic stock. The hair is never woolly, but, like that of the Beja, ringlety and less thick than the Abyssinian and Galla, sometimes even quite straight. The forehead is finely rounded and prominent, eye moderately large and rather deep-set, nose straight, but also snub and aquiline, mouth regular, lips not too thick, head sub-dolichocephalic.

Great attention has been paid to all these Eastern Hamitic peoples by Ph. Paulitschke[1146], who regards the Galla as both intellectually and morally superior to the Somals and Afars, the chief reason being that the baneful influences exercised by the Arabs and Abyssinians affect to a far greater extent the two latter than the former group.

The Galla appear to have reached the African coast before the DanÁkil and Somali, but were driven south-east by pressure from the latter, leaving Galla remnants as serfs among the southern Somali, while the presence of servile negroid tribes among the Galla gives proof of an earlier population which they partially displaced. Subsequent pressure from the Masai on the south forced the Galla into contact with the DanÁkil, and a branch penetrating inland established themselves on the north and east of Victoria Nyanza, where they are known to-day as the Ba-Hima, Wa-Tusi, Wa-Ruanda and kindred tribes, which have been described on p. 91.

The Masai, the terror of their neighbours, are a mixture of Galla and Nilotic Negro, producing what has been described as the finest type in Africa. The build is slender and the height often over six feet, the face is well formed, with straight nose and finely cut nostrils, the hair is usually frizzly, and the skin dark or reddish brown. They are purely pastoral, possessing enormous herds of cattle in which they take great pride, but they are chiefly remarkable for their military organisation which was hardly surpassed by that of the Zulu. They have everywhere found in the agricultural peoples an easy prey, and until the reduction of their wealth by rinderpest (since 1891) and the restraining influence of the white man, the Masai were regarded as an ever-dreaded scourge by all the less warlike inhabitants of Eastern Africa[1147].

Amongst the Abyssinian Hamites we find the strangest interminglings of primitive and more advanced religious ideas. On a seething mass of African heathendom, already in pre-historic times affected by early Semitic ideas introduced by the Himyarites from South Arabia, was somewhat suddenly imposed an undeveloped form of Christianity by the preaching of Frumentius in the fourth century, with results that cannot be called satisfactory. While the heterogeneous ethnical elements have been merged in a composite Abyssinian nationality, the discordant religious ideas have never yet been fused in a consistent uniform system. Hence "Abyssinian Christianity" is a sort of by-word even amongst the Eastern Churches, while the social institutions are marked by elementary notions of justice and paradoxical "shamanistic" practices, interspersed with a few sublime moral precepts. Many things came as a surprise to the members of the Rennell Rodd Mission[1148], who could not understand such a strange mixture of savagery and lofty notions in a Christian community which, for instance, accounted accidental death as wilful murder. The case is mentioned of a man falling from a tree on a friend below and killing him. "He was adjudged to perish at the hands of the bereaved family, in the same manner as the corpse. But the family refused to sacrifice a second member, so the culprit escaped." Dreams also are resorted to, as in the days of the Pharaohs, for detecting crime. A priest is sent for, and if his prayers and curses fail, a small boy is drugged and told to dream. "Whatever person he dreams of is fixed on as the criminal; no further proof is needed.... If the boy does not dream of the person whom the priest has determined on as the criminal, he is kept under drugs until he does what is required of him."

To outsiders society seems to be a strange jumble of an iron despotism, which forbids the selling of a horse for over £10 under severe penalties, and a personal freedom or licence, which allows the labourer to claim his wages after a week's work and forthwith decamp to spend them, returning next day or next month as the humour takes him. Yet somehow things hold together, and a few Semitic immigrants from South Arabia have for over 2000 years contrived to maintain some kind of control over the Hamitic aborigines who have always formed the bulk of the population in Abyssinia[1149].