JULV 14, 1910] 



NATURE 



33 



quotations and miscomprehensions that we have ever 

 seen. The "'great cone' at Sinai in the Elamite 

 kingdom" (which is as if one were to say "at Mont 

 Blanc in Russia") is the representation of a moun- 

 tain-peak on the well-known stela of the Babylonian 

 king Naram-Sin, which represents that monarcli 

 conquering his enemies in a mountainous country, 

 presumably Elam. How Mr. Hall has got Sinai in 

 appears from a neighbouring sentence, in which 

 Messrs. King and H. R. Hall say that Naram-Sin 

 "made an e.xpedition to Sinai." But that does not 

 matter ; what does matter is that Mr. Hall quotes 

 Messrs. King and Hall as speaking of this " great 

 cone " as if it bore out his theory, as if it were a 

 building, whereas what they actually say is " the great 

 cone in front of Naram-Sin. which is probably intended 

 to represent the peak of the mountain." What right 

 has Mr. Hall, then, to refer to the authors of " Egypt 

 and Western Asia" at all? If he disagrees with them 

 as to the interpretation of the cone on the monument, 

 let him say so. But the relief showing the king before 

 the " cone " in question is dead against him in that 

 case. 



The "'temple-tower' at Ninib at Babylon" is the 

 " ziggurat " or "temple-tower" of the temple 0/ Ndbu 

 at Birs Nimrud, which is the site of the ancient 

 Borsippa, not Babylon ; and these ziggurats were 

 not conical at all, nor do King and Hall, either in 

 connection with that at Borsippa or that at Shirpurla, 

 mention anything like a cone in connection with 

 them ! 



The " ' massive temple-towers ' of Samarra on the 

 Tigris " are a gem. Samarra is a comparatively 

 modern city, with mediaeval walls, over which one 

 sees the gilt domes of two mosques, and a peculiar 

 minaret rather like that of Ibn Tulun, at Cairo. 

 Messrs. King and Hall, writing picturesquely, say : — 



" Such a picture as that of the approach to the city 

 of Samarra, with its mediEeval walls, may be taken as 

 having its counterpart in many a city of the early 

 Babylonians. The caravan-route leads through the 

 desert, and if we substitute two massive temple-towers 

 for the domes of the mosques that rise above the wall, 

 little else in the picture need be changed." 



Mr. Hall has too hastily assumed that these massive 

 temple-towers were conical, or even domed, like the 

 modern mosques. The analogy need not be taken so 

 literally as all that ! 



Finally, the "' cones ' in Assyria " which Mr. R. N. 

 Hall says are mentioned on p. 392 of Messrs. King 

 and Hall's book are the objects thus referred to on 

 that page : — 



"Last year a small cone" [sic: Messrs. King and 

 Hall do not speak of "cones" in the plural, as Mr. 

 Hall misquotes them] "or cylinder was found, 

 which, though it bears only a few lines of inscription, 

 restores the names of no less than seven early Assyrian 

 viceroys whose existence was not previously known." 



These small objects, measuring about nine inches or 

 a foot long, are usually called cones, but they are 

 more properly nail-shaped. What they have to do 

 with Mr. R. N. Hall's theory of conical buildings 

 being Semitic it is hard to see. 

 NO. 2124, VOL. 84] 



The examination of this footnote was interesting, 

 but is not calculated to strengthen one's faith in 

 Mr. Hall's theory, and his authorities do not 

 seem to bear him out so much as he thinks. 

 A more careful study of Semitic lore will prob- 

 ably lead him later to see, himself, the weak 

 points of his dogma. .\s for the supposed Semitic 

 traits of the Makaranga, on which he lays such 

 stress (p. 400), we fail to see in the long list given 

 bv Mr. Hall any peculiarity which is common to 

 Semites and Makaranga only; most of these char- 

 acteristics are shared by every negro tribe in Africa, 

 and the fact that some of them were also shared by 

 the Semites proves no more than that primitive people 

 all the world over have similar customs, especially 

 with regard to marriage, ritual cleanliness, and the 

 like maUers. In this list, also, Mr. Hall shows an 

 inabilitv to distinguish between strong and weak 

 evidence. What is the use to his thesis of such an 

 absurdity as his thirty-eighth resemblance between 

 the Makaranga and Semites, 



" Iron rods were the insignia of old Ma-Karanga 

 chiefs, and it was illegal for any ordinary member 

 of the tribe to own such an article. These iron 

 sceptres have their parallel in Semitic countries, where 

 gold was of more value than iron, and are mentioned 

 in the Scriptures "? 



What is the point of the solemn information " where 

 gold was of more value than iron " in this particular 

 connection? 



We really believe that Mr. Hall does himself and 

 his theory an injustice in his unskilled manner of 

 presenting his ideas and his inability to distinguish 

 between good and bad evidence. Thus the rather 

 "muzzy" photograph facing p. 39S which purports 

 to show the "Semitic Appearance of a Karanga, 

 Zimbabwe." is absolutely bad evidence. Where is 

 this supposed Semitic appearance? In this negro's 

 rather large nose? Does not Mr. Hall know that the 

 purest Semites of Arabia have straight noses, not at 

 all like the "Jewish" type? 



Were it pruned of these and other absurdities, Mr. 

 Hall's theory would command serious attention, for it 

 is by no means impossible that Arab traders may 

 have penetrated as far south as Sofala, even so early 

 as the time of the Himyar kingdom, and have exer- 

 cised a civilising influence on the negro tribes, as the 

 Portuguese did on the tribes of Benin. But granted 

 what one knows now of the capability of certain negro 

 tribes to evolve cultures of their own, Mr. Hall is a 

 bold man to deny the possibility of the truth of Dr. 

 Maciver's theory, that the buildings of Zimbabwe are 

 the work of a native race of comparatively modern 

 times, independent of foreign influence. In any case, 

 until the question of the "Nankin china" is finally 

 settled, it is of little use for Mr. Hall to go on draw- 

 ing "evidence" of supposed Semitic connections in 

 South Africa, which are presumably no older than the 

 early Middle Ages, from "cones " in Mesopotamia of 

 any' date between 3000 and 1500 B.C., especially since 

 these "cones," when examined, turn out to be either 

 mountains, or square, flat-topped towers, or votive 

 offerings, a few inches high, which are shaped like 

 nails ! 



