408 H. H. Howorth—The Mammoth in Siberia. 
TV.—Tse Mammotro in SIBERIA. 
By Henry H. Howorrn, F.S.A. 
TY\HE overlapping of the sciences is made the subject of much 
h rhetorical writing now-a-days, and its appreciation is one of the 
most prominent signs of the modern development of the doctrine of 
Continuity which has been so fruitful in the Philosophy of Discovery. 
The boundary-line which once separated the geologist and ethnologist 
has in consequence of this development entirely disappeared, and 
every one now admits as a postulate that between the two sciences 
there is a stretch of neutral ground belonging to neither exclusively, 
and where the students of each must of necessity reap if their 
harvest is to be complete. Not only so, but it is beginning to be 
seen that the methods and the directions of the arguments in each 
science being more or less different—the one partaking much more 
of the historical, and the other of the experimental method—that it 
is well that where they overlap the results of each should be closely 
compared, and thus not only secure a double modicum of certitude, 
but also suggest fresh veins of untried material where we may put 
in our mattock with renewed hope of solving some apparently hope- 
less problems. 
The Mammoth presents very fairly a focus about which we may 
group that congeries of difficulties which is the common property of 
the ethnologist and the geologist. As a student of ethnology who 
have done, I trust, yeoman’s service in some of its walks, and have, 
like all the brotherhood, cast many an anxious glance towards that 
Sorbonian bog where the puzzle of the origin of our race lies buried, 
and as a student whose special subject has been the nomadic races 
of Central and Northern Asia, I have accumulated some materials 
which I believe may throw a little light on that problem, and 
perhaps also on corresponding problems which are presented to the 
geologist in the same area. The last leaf of the geological book 
and the first one of the ethnological book being, in fact, the same 
document, we cannot illustrate the one without at the same time 
throwing light on the other. I preface the remarks I mean to make 
with these observations, because the methods which J shall use in 
approaching the problem will not be strictly geological ones, and I 
therefore have to claim the indulgence of your readers if, in present- 
ing them my sheaves, they complain of the way in which the straw 
has been cut and the bundles have been tied. Whether there be any 
thing else than straw in what I have to offer is not for me to say. 
I shall begin, as is the custom with most of my craft, with a 
small etymological excursus, and then limit this paper by bringing 
together some forgotten and obscure archeological facts relating to 
the Mammoth, which are not uninteresting in view of some current 
discussions, and remit more purely geological matters for another 
number. 
The word Mammoth is clearly a corruption of the Arabic word 
Behemoth, a great beast, the letters b and m being interchangeable, 
as is well known,in many Arabic dialects.’ One of the earliest 
