184 THEO. G. PINCHES, ESQ. 



FURTHER REPLY BY THE AUTHOR. 



In Major Conder's valuable remarks I see that he has men- 

 tioned the date, 2500 B.C., which I have fixed as that of Gndea, 

 as it is a date which seems to me to be most reasonable ; but I 

 am bound to confess that I may be wrong 1 . Perhaps it may be as 

 much too late as that of the French Assyriologists is too early. 

 It may, indeed, be as early as 4000 B.C., but until we get more 

 certain information I think it is better to keep to the lower figure 

 — 2500 B.C., or a few hundred years earlier, and I am glad that 

 Major Conder is in agreement with me in this. His note about 

 Carchemish is very interesting; for Kimas may really be, as he 

 suggests, connected with the second element of the word, namely, 

 chemish. The Assyrians call the city Gar-gamis or Kar-gamis. 

 The termination is (= ish) is suggestive, and recalls various other 

 parallels, such as Sa-imerisu, the Assyrian name of the kingdom 

 of Damascus, probably from a native form Saimeris (Shaimerish) ; 

 the Rev. H. G. Tomkins's suggestion as to Lachish would 

 bring that name, with Lagas, into the same category ; and the 

 well-known name of a part of Babylonia, Kar-dunias (Kar- 

 duniash), seems to exhibit the same termination, which, under 

 the form of as, was a common one in the Kassite language. 

 Upon this question, however, a great deal might be said. 



I am very glad to see Mr. Tomkins's other remarks ; he is 

 a scholar who has taken much interest in the geographical side 

 of the question, and one cannot criticise his statements offhand ; 

 nor, indeed, should I feel inclined to do so, because they require 

 consideration. 



The oblique-eyed head on PI. II is a noteworthy illustration of 

 Major Conder's remarks as to the racial type being Mongolian, 

 and bears out in a remarkable way the researches of the Rev. 

 C. J. Ball and Prof, de Lacouperie. 



