1 86 GEOLOGY AND HISTORY 



ascertaining either descent or original language, and 

 in default of these may be obliged to resort to other 

 grounds of classification. 



Among modern archaeologists it has been a fruit- 

 ful source of controversy whether we should classify 

 men according to their skulls or to their tongues ; in 

 other words, whether physical characters or linguistic 

 should be dominant in our classifications. Neither 

 ground is absolutely certain. We may find long and 

 short skulls in the same grave-mound, and there are 

 intermediate forms which defy certain arrangement. 

 In like manner history assures us that people of one 

 race have often adopted the language of another. 

 True science warns us that we may err unless we give 

 a fair valuation to every available character. The 

 ethnologist of Genesis considers both physical and 

 linguistic characters, but bases his arrangement 

 mainly on the sure ground of descent along with 

 original language. 



It may be said, however, that if taken in the 

 sense obviously intended by the writer, the list will 

 not correspond with the facts. A few data have, 

 however, to be taken into the account in order to give 

 this early writer fair play. 



i. The record has nothing to do with antediluvian 

 peoples or with survivors of the Deluge other than 

 the sons of Noah, if there were any such. Therefore, 

 those ethnologists who are sceptical as to the his- 

 torical Deluge, and who postulate an uninterrupted 

 advance of man through long ages of semi-bestial 



