of Assyria. The
answer to this question would depend upon the answer to the question as
to the original home of the Semites.[16] The probabilities, however, are
in favor of assuming a movement of population, as of culture, from the
south to the north. At all events, the history of Babylonia and Assyria
begins with the former, and as a consequence we are justified also in
beginning with that phase of the religion for which we have the earliest
records--the Babylonian.

III.

At the very outset of a brief survey of the history of the Babylonians,
a problem confronts us of primary importance. Are there any traces of
other settlers besides the Semitic Babylonians in the earliest period of
the history of the Euphrates Valley? Those who cling to the theory of a
non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform syllabary will, of course, be ready
to answer in the affirmative. Sumerians and Akkadians are the names
given to these non-Semitic settlers who preceded the Babylonians in the
control of the Euphrates Valley. The names are derived from the terms
Sumer and Akkad, which are frequently found in Babylonian and Assyrian
inscriptions, in connection with the titles of the kings. Unfortunately,
scholars are not a unit in the exact location of the districts comprised
by these names, some declaring Sumer to be in the north and Akkad in the
south; others favoring the reverse position. The balance of proof rests
in favor of the former supposition; but however that may be, Sumer and
Akkad represent, from a certain period on, a general designation to
include the whole of Babylonia. Professor Hommel goes so far as to
declare that in the types found on statues and monuments of the oldest
period of Babylonian history--the monuments coming from the mound
Telloh--we have actual representations of these Sumerians, who are thus
made out to be a smooth-faced race with rather prominent cheek-bones,
round faces, and shaven heads.[17] He pronounces in favor of the
highlands lying to the east of Babylonia, as the home of the Sumerians,
whence they made their way into the Euphrates Valley. Unfortunately, the
noses on these old statues are mutilated, and with such an important
feature missing, anthropologists, at least, are unwilling to pronounce
definitely as to the type represented. Again, together with these
supposed non-Semitic types, other figures have been found which, as
Professor Hommel also admits, show the ordinary Semitic features. It
would seem,