The reason for this divergence of opinion is very simple, the fact being that there were two tribes or nationalities, Šumer being before Akkad when the two countries are mentioned together, and as it is regarded as identical with the Shinar of Gen. x. 10, Šumer and Šumerian may possibly be preferable, but in all probability Akkad and Akkadian are not wrong. As we see from the chapter of Genesis referred to, there were many nationalities in the Euphrates valley in ancient times, and the expression “Cush begat Nimrod,” would imply that the inhabitants of Babylonia were all Cushites. Yet the great majority of the inscriptions found in that country of a later date than about 2000 B.C. are Semitic. Large additions have of late years been made to the number of ancient remains from Babylonia, and most of these are of a very early period. We are thus in a position to compare not only the different types of that early period with each other, but also with the sculptures of later date. The cylinder-seals show us a comparatively slim race, long-bearded, erect and dignified, and these characteristics are also recognizable among the various types revealed to us by the still earlier sculptures. The representations of kings and deities are often heavily bearded, but, on the other hand, high officials and others are generally clean shaven. These peculiarities, with the difference of costume, especially the thick-brimmed hats, would seem to imply distinct foreign influence, or, rather, in combination with the differences of racial type exhibited, considerable foreign admixture. Perhaps, however, the true explanation is, that the plain of Shinar represents the meeting-point of two different races—one Cushite and the other Semitic. And this fact, as is well known, is confirmed by the existence of what is regarded as the language of the Akkadians, and also of a dialect of the same. This is not the place to discuss the question whether these non-Semitic idioms be really languages or only cryptographs—the author holds, in common with Sayce, Oppert, Hommel, and all the principal Assyriologists, that they are real languages—but a reference to the few passages where these idioms are spoken of may not be without interest.