CONCLUDING REMARKS. 437 
of inclosures. Mucke assumes, further, that in primeval times breeders of cattle 
and cultivators of the soil lived separately, but that gradually there occurred 
warfare and amalgamations in which the restless nomadic cattle-breeders became 
the representatives of civilization and progress. 
In starting from this hypothesis, we are met with the question whether the 
Anau-li of the oldest culture-strata were already cultivators of the soil and found 
themselves under the necessity of using and regulating the watercourses of the 
Kopet Dagh; and whether the need of a larger working force led to the founding 
of some kind of polity, as happened on a larger and more civilized scale in the 
control of the inundations of the Euphrates and of the Nile. I infer from the com- 
munications of Professor Pumpelly that a decisive answer to the latter part of this 
question is not yet possible, but that they were already agriculturists who, accord- 
ing to Professor Schellenberg’s determinations, raised wheat and two-eared barley. 
Since they were clearly cultivators of the soil, we are, according to Mucke, not 
justified in assuming that the Anau-li were the people who first effected the domesti- 
cation, however plausible and probable this seems from the bones found in the 
culture-strata. 
One might, however, admit that a tribe of real nomadic cattle-breeders— 
who, like the modern Turkoman or Kirghiz, lived in round kibitkas or yurts—may 
have domesticated the wild animals living in the neighborhood of Anau, and that 
the settled agricultural Anau-li obtained the domesticated animals from the nomads 
and continued the breeding. 
It is clear that these unknown cattle-breeders did not possess stone weapons, 
since these would have been adopted by the Anau-li, who did not possess arrow- 
points or spear-heads of stone, nor stone axes. Therefore, these cattle-breeders, 
even if, according to Mucke’s theory, they were a separate people, could not have 
come to Anau from any wider culture-sphere than that of Western Turkestan and 
the Iranian highlands, which, according to Professor Pumpelly, was so sharply 
limited and shut off from the rest of the world. 
But a closer consideration of Mucke’s hypothesis seems to show an important 
contradiction: Mucke insists that a hunting people could never become cattle- 
breeders, and we must admit after his own explanation of the process of domestica- 
tion that the people who domesticated the ruminants must have cultivated the 
soil. Mucke says that the wild animals, in want of food, came spontaneously to 
the round dwellings of the men. Therefore, these people must have cultivated 
plants and harvested them; for ruminants like the ox and sheep would not, like 
dogs, be attracted by meat or other products of a hunting or fishing life. Con- 
sequently, the agricultural state of human development must also have preceded 
the state of cattle-breeders, but through the accomplished domestication of rumi- 
nants men obtained freedom of motion for traveling with cattle after good pasture 
and commenced a nomadic life. This must be the real explanation of the origin 
of the wandering peoples, which Mucke can not explain, and he consequently con- 
siders a priort that nomadic peoples were nomads before the domestication of cattle. 
Among the Turkomans of to-day occur also cultivators of the soil and breeders 
