ciples that the
government of the Ooraon village of Chota Nagpore was constructed.
The Ooraon form of village government is that which has been
preserved with less alteration from subsequent invaders than that of
any other part of India, for the Ooraons, Mundas, Ho-kals and Bhuyas
have always been able, under the protection of their mountain
fastnesses, their political organization and their natural love of
independence, to keep their country free from the interference of
the hated Sadhs, the name by which they call the Hindus. But these
people, who repelled and held themselves aloof from later invaders
were of no less foreign origin than those who succeeded them, for
they were all formed by the union with the matriarchal Australioids
_and patriarchal Mongols or Finnish and other Northern stocks_, most
of whom were formed into confederated tribes of artisans and
agriculturists in Asia Minor and it was from the southern part of
Asia Minor or Northern Palestine, that the Ooraons came. They
themselves say that they came from Western India, from the land of
Ruhidas [the land of the red men], but this means Syria, the country
whose people were called Rotou by the Egyptians, and they were the
race who introduced barley and plough-tillage into India and Chota
Nagpore."

Particular attention is drawn to Wylie's statements, quoted on p.
303, concerning the migration of Israelites to China, via Persia
(about A.D. 58-75) and the native record that Christianity was the
ancient religion of Ta-Tsin=Syria. Hewitt's identification of Syria
as the "red land" causes the Ooraon and Chinese traditions to agree
in assigning it as the common source of origin of their
civilization. According to Professor Sayce it was "about B.C. 600
that the Phoenicians penetrated to the northwest coast of India," and
"tradition brought them originally from the Persian Gulf" (Ancient
Empire of the East, p. 183).

137 The recent discovery, by Prof. Flinders Petrie, of the mummy of
Aha-Mena, and of six other kings of the first dynasty, suggests the
possibility that they may have reigned simultaneously and
constituted a heptarchy(?). Although it would materially affect
Egyptian and Babylonian-Assyrian chronology as it now stands,
historians may yet find