[1] Brugsch, however, confines himself mainly to kings whose names are confirmed by monuments, and takes no account of the numerous names of unknown kings in royal genealogies, of which no confirmation has yet been found, so that practically his estimate is not inconsistent with that of Mariette

[2] Sayce, in his Fresh Light from Ancient Monuments, says, "Both in his cylinder and in the annalistic tablet, Cyrus, hitherto supposed to be a Persian and Zoroastrian Monotheist, appears as an Elamite and a polytheist." It is pretty certain, however, that although descended from Elamite kings, these were kings of Persian race, who, after the destruction of the old monarchy by Asshurbanipal, had established a new dynasty at the city of Anshad or Susa. Cyrus always traces his descent from AchÆmenes, the chief of the leading Persian clan of PasargadÆ, and he was buried there in a tomb visited by Alexander.

But as regards religion, it is clear that Cyrus professed himself, and was taken by his contemporaries to be, a devoted servant of Merodach, Nebo, and the other Babylonian deities, to whom he prays for protection and thanks for victories, without any mention of the Zoroastrian supreme God, Ahura-Mazda. Zoroastrian Monotheism only came in with Darius Hystaspes, the founder of the purely Persian second dynasty, after that of Cyrus became extinct with his son Cambyses

[3] The facts of this section are taken mainly from two articles by Professor Sayce in the Contemporary Review, entitled "Ancient Arabia" and "Results of Oriental ArchÆology."

[4] Or, as some translators read, "Who knowest that I knew not," i.e. that I sinned in ignorance

[5] This normal alloy does not seem to have been in general use in Egypt before the eighteenth dynasty, and the bronze of earlier periods contains less tin. But evidently a very hard alloy of copper must have been used from the earliest times, to chisel out statues of granite and diorite, and although tin was too scarce for common use, the tools for such purposes must have contained a considerable percentage of it

[6] Stone implements were used for common purposes, especially for sickles to cut heads of corn, down to a comparatively late period, but as Spurrell observes in Petrie's, Illahun Kahun and Gurob, "these implements do not represent work of the stone age properly considered." They are not so much survivals of neolithic forms, as imitations, in the cheaper material of flint, of metallic forms for rough work and common use. The use of a flint knife for making the first incision on the corpse in preparing it for a mummy, is the only fact which looks like a survival from neolithic into historical times

[7] The following arguments so closely resemble those of Professor Huxley in a recent Article in the Nineteenth Century, that it may be well to state that they were written before I had seen that article. I insert them not as attempting to vie with the greatest living master of English prose, but as showing that the same conclusions inevitably force themselves on all who understand the first rudiments of Modern Science

[8] Since this was written the scientific world has been startled by the discovery announced by Professor Ameghino in the lower tertiary, supposed to be Eocene, of Patagonia, of numerous small monkeys of the American type of cebidÆ, affording evidence of the existence of anthropoid primates at this extremely early date.—Lydekker in Natural Science for April 1892. He adds, "Perhaps still more noteworthy are the signs of affinity exhibited by these early primates to the extinct South American protopytheridÆ. The latter are clearly related to the aberrant ungulate typotherium of the South American tertiaries, which appears to be allied on the one hand to the extinct toxodon, and on the other to the rodents. If substantiated, such an unexpected relationship as that of the American primates to the toxodonts will materially modify some of our present views as to the mutual relationships of mammals." And I may add, throw a flood of light on the question of the "Missing Link," and the development of man and the quadrumana from a common ancestral type

[9] The following is the latest pronouncement on the subject from a well-known American geologist:—

"Students of the Ice Age will read with interest a paper by Mr. N. S. Shaler on the antiquity of the last glacial period, submitted to the Boston Society of Natural History, and printed in the latest instalment of the Society's Proceedings. Mr. Shaler differs decidedly from those geologists who suppose that the end of the glacial period is probably not very remote from our own day. One of the strongest of his arguments is derived from the distribution of the vegetation, which in America has regained possession, by migration, of the glaciated district. We must conceive, he points out, that as the ice retreated and gradually disappeared from the surface, a considerable time elapsed before existing forests attained their organization. He assumes as certain that the black walnut and the pignut hickory, between Western Minnesota and the Atlantic coast, have advanced, on the average, a distance of 400 miles north of the ancient ice front to which their ancestors were driven by the presence of the glacial sheet. For several reasons he believes that the northward progress of these forms must have been due mainly, not to the action of streams or tornadoes, but to the natural spread of the seed from the extremities of boughs, and to the carriage of the seed by rodents. But allowing for every conceivable method of transportation, he argues that a period of ten or even twenty thousand years is wholly inadequate to account for the present distribution of these large-seeded trees. If they occurred only sporadically in the northernmost part of the field they occupy, their implantation might be regarded as due to chance action. The fact, however, that they extend from the Atlantic to Minnesota indicates that the advance was accomplished by causes of a general and continuous nature."

[10] In a recent paper read to the Anthropological Society by Professor Prestwich, in Feb. 1892, he confirms the above statement, and says that 1452 specimens have now been found at heights of from 400 to 800 feet, and extending over an area of twenty miles in length; while similar implements have been found on the South Downs near Eastbourne 350 feet above the sea level; and at heights of 596 and 760 feet on the hills near Dunstable. He says, "Looking at the very distinctive features of those plateau implements, such as their rudeness of make, choice of material, depth of wear and staining, peculiarity of form—taken in conjunction with the extreme rarity of valley forms—they constitute characters so essentially different from those of the latter implements, that by these characters alone they might be attributed to a more primitive race of men; and as this view accords with the geological evidence, which shows that the drift-beds on the chalk plateau with implements are older than the valley drifts, I do not see how we are to avoid the conclusion, that not only was the plateau race not contemporary with the valley men, but also that the former belonged to a period considerably anterior to the latter—either an early glacial or a pre-glacial period."

[11] The latest researches seem to show that these slight variations in latitude do not exceed 2" or 3", and are periodical, with a period of no longer than 300 to 310 days

[12] Journal of Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1892, p. 262

[13] Having applied to Professor Flower, as the highest authority, to inform me of the actual position of the evidence as to the Dryopithecus, he was good enough to reply to me as follows—

"Dryopithecus (Middle Miocene of France) is an undoubted anthropoid, allied to gorilla and chimpanzee, but the recent discovery of a more complete jaw than that first found shows that it is rather a lower form than the two just mentioned, instead of higher as once thought. See Gaudry, Mem. Soc. Geol. France—PalÆontologie, 1890.

"The animal called Pliopithecus, from the same formation, is now generally considered to be not distinguishable from the genus Hylobates (Gibbon).

"So there is no doubt about the existence of anthropoid apes in the Miocene of Europe, but not of a higher type than the present African or Asiatic species. Yours truly,

"W. Flower."

[14] Professor Wright in Century, April 1891

[15] Quatrefages and Hamy, Crania Ethnica

[16] Topinard, one of the latest and best authorities, says in his book on Anthropology: "We have seen the marked difference between woolly and straight hair, between the prognathous and the orthognathous, the jet black of the Yoloff and the pale complexion of the Scandinavian, between the ultra-dolichocephalic Esquimaux or New Caledonian, and the ultra-brachycephalic Mongolian. But the line of separation between the European and the Bosjesman, as regards these two characters, is, in a morphological point of view, still wider, as much so as between each of the anthropoid apes, or between the dog and the wolf, the goat and the sheep."

[17] If Ameghino's discoveries of an anthropoid type in the Lower Eocene of Patagonia should be confirmed, it would incline the balance of evidence in favour of South America, or rather of the temperate zone of the southern hemisphere, as the most probable scene of the evolution of the quadrumana, including the human variety, from ancestral forms allied to the marsupials of the Secondary period