ANTHROPOLOGY OF ASIA 4i 



tables III and VI- leaving aside the Dungani, as it is 

 difficult for me to believe that they really have a nasal 

 index of 56*12 almost all the unclassified Xanthoderm 

 groups have the nasal index above 70, and it goes up to 

 94r3, while among the unclassified Leucoderms only a half 

 have the nas. ind. higher than 70, reaching up hardly to 

 a maximum of 76. The way in which I have arranged 

 the averages collected from the literature, facilitates com- 

 parison between the two species that people almost the 

 whole of the Asiatic continent, and show us also the 

 differential characters, as for example those of the 

 Georgian variety, which is prominent among the leuco- 

 dermic varieties, being the lowest in stature and the most 

 leptorrhine. 1 



The isolation of this variety is a new result in the 

 anthropological camp, but I hope that it will be welcome, 

 thanks to the determination made by me. It must be 

 added that it finds a parallel in the linguistic science, 

 which distinguishes a group of Caucasic languages detach- 

 ing them from the Aryan (Indo-Germanic) stock and 

 among such Caucasic dialects is found precisely the 

 Georgian.' 2 Evidently it is not intended to say that the 

 anthropologic area 'we do not know yet how wide it is) 

 and the linguistic one are coincident. Less still are we 

 able to discover how far these two areas extended in pre- 

 historic times, if in fact the Hittite language should be 

 Caucasic, as Hiising believes, 3 and if even the Chaldsens 

 are to be counted among the Caucasic linguistically. 



1 The results of the study that was being made on the prisoners of war from 

 the Caucasus by Prof. Poch at the initiative fortunately seconded by the autho- 

 rity of the Academy of Science and of the Anthropological Society of Vienna, 

 are not yet published in detail 



2 FINCK (F. N,), Die Sprachstamme des Erdkreises, Leipzig, 1909, p. 36. 



s BUSING (G.), Volkerachichten in Iran, " Mitteil. Anthrop. Gesellsch." VVien, 

 46. 1916, p. 224. According to Hrozny the Hittite language of the inscription of 

 Boghaz Keui must be Indo-European, on the other hand, Pi of. A. H. Sayce writes 

 me (Nor. 30, 1919) that it is uot, but contains only a large, borrowed, 



