87

Iran, represent the pre-Aryan period; three males and two females,⁶ dat­ing from 2000-1100 B.C., are all variants of the general Mediterranean type, in Cappadocian and Afghanian directions. An Early Copper Age skull from southern Baluchistan, which may date from the third millennium B.C., is the same.⁶ We may surmise that the ancestors of the bulk of the present plateau population had arrived by the beginning of the third millennium.

In Mesopotamia, the earliest cultural remains have been found in Sumeria. Here there has been recognized a long predynastic period, sub­divided into three phases—al TJbaid, Uruk, and Jemdet Nasr. These three probably occupied the fourth millennium B.C. The last two at least were Copper Age cultures, while the al TJbaid culture proper, as exempli­fied by the eighteenth to fourteenth levels at Warka, may possibly have its roots in a true Neolithic.⁷

One grave at Warka, in level 14, belongs to the latter part of the al 'Ubaid period, probably about 3700 B.C. The skull contained in it is said to be dolichocephalic. Two skeletons from perhaps equally early graves at al TJbaid itself powdered upon exposure, and could not be measured. Hence our knowledge of the people of the fourth millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia, based on indubitably contemporaneous remains, is practically zero.

A series of seventeen crania from al 'Ubaid⁸ (see Appendix I, col. 4), which may be predynastic or early dynastic, belong without exception to a type which has been called Eurafrican, and which has been the most numerous and most characteristic element in the population of Mesopotamia from the time of the marsh dwellers at al 'Ubaid to the present day. These skulls are large, heavy, and purely dolichocephalic. They belong to the larger- and longer-headed Mediterranean division, nearest in vault size and form to the earlier Galley Hill and Combe Capelle. They differ in one important respect, however, from most European skulls of the same general type, in that their nasal bones are extremely prominent and highly placed. These early Sumerians, like the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau, had already acquired the projecting, aquiline noses so characteristic of the modern Near East. Like the plateau dwellers, these early Sumerians were Afghanian in race.

Mesopotamia is not, like Egypt, an isolated valley, for it may be entered

• Vallois, h. V., “Notes sur les Tfctes Osseuses,” in Contencau, g., and Ghirsh- man, a., Fouilles de Tepe Giyan.

• Sewell, R., and Guha, B., Report on the Bones Excavated at Mai, MASI, vol. 35, 1929, app. 5, p. 56.

6. Jordan, j., apaw, Jh. 1932, #2.

7. Keith, Sir Arthur, “Report on the Human Remains, Ur Excavations,” vol. 1: in Hall, h. R. H„ and Woolley, c. L., Al 'Ubaid,

THE RACES OF EUROPE

without great difficulty from the highlands to the east and north, while it forms a natural goal for the inhabitants of the Arabian uplands, made mobile by the fickle rainfall of the pastures. The history of Mesopotamia has consequently been a sequence of infiltrations and invasions from both the highland zone and the deserts, for the country feeds the city with men, and not the reverse.

In studying the racial history of Mesopotamia from the third millennium B.C. onward, we must remember this almost constant influx, and observe how it affected the Sumerians and the Semitic-speaking kingdoms. The series of skeletal remains at our disposal, other than the series from al 'Ubaid, include: (a) a series from Kish, from graves which may be dated at some time close to 2900 B.C.; (b) another from the same site, from fourth dynasty graves, prior to 2500 B.C.; (c) skulls of the third dynasty of Ur, dated about 2300 B.C. (d) Neo-Babylonian crania, from between 800 and 400 b.c. (e) Skulls from Kirkuk dated at the fifth century a.d.⁹

In all, well over a hundred skeletons have been studied. Most of the skulls belong to the “Eurafrican” type already described, but two other types are represented in most of the series. One of these is an ordinary Mediterranean with a smaller skull and a higher cephalic index, which ranges between 70-80 and averages about 75. This Mediterranean type is more fragile, less rugged, shorter faced, and smaller in body size. This is apparently not an original Sumerian type, for it is completely absent in the earliest series from al 'Ubaid and Kish. It first appears well after 3000 and probably after 2700 b.c. in the fourth dynasty graves at Kish (see Appendix I, col. 5), and from then on seems to persist in all of the samples, except for the late Kirkuk series in the north. Like the larger “Eurafrican” this smaller Mediterranean type may still be distinguished in the living population of Iraq. .

The “Armenoid” racial type, which is the third one claimed in Meso­potamia, begins with the earliest Kish graves and continues through the Babylonian period. The identification of this type is not wholly certain, however, for very few actually brachycephalic skulls have been found, and, since facial portions of these are usually damaged, it is impossible to define the type clearly. Most of the so-called Armenoid skulls are meso- cephalic or sub-brachycephalic, but, in a few instances, the cephalic index, runs really high, in an extreme case, to 89. The occiputs of these skulls are said to be flat, the browridges heavy, and the capacities great. Although many of the skulls which have been called Armenoid may rep-

8. (a) Penniman, T. K., in Watelin, L. C., Excavations at Kish, vol. 4. (b) Buxton, L. D., in Langdon, Excavations at Kish, vol. 1; also Buxton, L. D., and Rice, D. t.,jrai, vol. 61. (c) Keith, Sir A, “Report on the Galilee Skull.” (d) Buxton, L. D., vide supra. Buxton and Rice, vide supra, (e) Ehrich, R. F., Appendix to Starr, Richard, F. S., Nuzh vol. 1.

89

resent merely the rounder headed extreme of the total group, it is never­theless probable that a planoccipital brachycephalic strain actually pene­trated Mesopotamia during the third millennium B.C. Although it has since increased in numbers, it still forms but a minority.

Except for these few brachycephals, none of the invasions or cultural movements into Mesopotamia in historic times has changed the popula­tion in any perceptible way. This would indicate that the regions which

FACIAL TYPES IN SUMERIAN ART

Fig. 17 Fig. 18

Fig. 19 Fig. 20

Fig. 17, Frankfort, H., Jacobsen, T., and Preusscr, C., COIC, #13, 1930/31, p. 70, Fig. 27. Fig. 18, King Gudea, after Woolley, C. L., The Development of Sumerian Art. London, 1935, Fig. 62a, p. 115. Fig. 19, from excavations at Khafaje, Expedition of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Museum and of the American School of Oriental Research, under Dr. E. A. Speiser, New Vork Sunday Times, Section 9, June 27, 1937. Fig. 20, same source as Fig. 19.