and this Oppert emphatically denies we should still have to regard this only as a Babylonian inexactitude of expression. It is far more likely that Anshan was a place in Persis, the proper family seat of the Achæmenides, therefore perhaps near Pasargadae, or identified with it."*

Now let us turn to M. Dieulafoy, who seems to have satisfied himself on the subject, and has taken infinite pains to make his treatment of it exhaustive. Nothing daunted by time or change, he rushes to the fons et origo of his history, reverts to the early Biblical period, finds his starting-point in that wonderful tenth chapter of Genesis (so commonly passed over as one of names only), and boldly traces the fortunes of Elam, from the days of the son of Shem, to those of the Muhammadan Khalifs, a period roughly computable at three thousand years. Though this is no place in which to follow him, step by step, through his laborious investigations, we may state that, to achieve his purpose, he consults the ethnography of Persia generally, and its special developments in the south-west; the sculptures and inscriptions which come in his way, whether at Bésitún, Malamír, Mashhadi-Murgháb, NakshaiRustam, or Bushire; the classical authorities, such as Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius, Arrian, and others to whom even the more modern inquirers are so much indebted for light; as also the learned readings of Oppert and the better known interpreters of Cuneiform. Admitting the intervention of many and important gaps, together with long periods (even consecutive centuries) of doubt and obscurity, he finds that a certain Koudour Nakhounta (sic), King of Elam, is the first Susian potentate of whom any trace is obtainable; that, according to an inscription of Achchour (Assur) banipal he flourished in B.c. 2295; and that, having subdued Chaldæa, he founded the kingdom of AnzanSousounka. He was a predecessor, on the throne of Elam, of Koudour Lagomer (the Chedorlaomer of our English Bible), one of the four kings from whose hands the patriarch Abraham rescued his nephew Lot. Holy Scripture gives the date of this incident at circa B.C. 1913. Singularly enough the second Koudour Nakhounta does not appear in M. Dieulafoy's narrative until B.C. 693,† or sixteen centuries after the first; though we can hardly suppose that Koudour Nakhounta II." is a strictly correct designation.

Our author adds that this Anzan-Sousounka, when consolidated as an independent monarchy, or up to the period of its conquest by Assyria in the seventh century B.C., comprised the south of Ardelan, Luristan, Arabistan, the Bakhtiári Mountains, and the north-eastern shores of the Persian Gulf-practically, the larger portion of Western

*

Encyclopædia Britannica.' Ninth edition. Vol. xviii. (1885), p. 565.

Chronique Babylonienne d'Arrabeltakkit' (Oppert's version). Mém. Paris Institut, 1887.

Persia between 26° and 35° parallels of latitude. The whole territory was divided into two governments, i.e., Susiana or the plains, including the littoral of the gulf, and Anzan or the mountain ranges. Khuzistan would naturally fall into the former division. Not the least instructive result of his inquiries is the statement put forward in reference to the negro element in the population of Persia. His assertion that the plains and maritime parts of Susiana have been peopled by "Negritos," full and half-bred, will no doubt be attested by the ordinary traveller as well as ethnographer. These are not, he holds, the "Kushite" immigrants, traced by M. Eckstein and other writers from the southern slopes of the Hindu Kush, who, moving along the shores of Western India, had crossed over to the Persian Gulf, Susiana and Chaldæa, and reached the African Nile; nor is the so-called "Negrito" to be confounded with the real African negro.

It is presumed, then, that, for adaptation to modern times, and therefore illustratively rather than philologically, we may define AnzanSousounka, as Elam, or more strictly Elymaïs-Susiana. The second word. belongs to the Sousa of Herodotus and Susis of Strabo, and has palpable affinity with the Scriptural Shushan and the now discussed and still more ancient Sousanka, while it is again to be traced in the "Susanechæi" of the scribe and priest Ezra, whom M. Dieulafoy, according to the division of the books in the Latin Vulgate, calls Esdras.

As to the name Khuzistan, we are told, on the evidence of the inscriptions, that among the inhabitants of Anzan-Sousounka were four divisions of people known as Houssi, Habardib, or Hapartip (very suggestive of Sanskrit in its last syllable), Koussí, and Nímê. In the first and third, the common Indo-Persian termination, stan, would suffice to give almost the exact etymology required. M. Dieulafoy thus comments upon them, noting Oppert's authority: "Dans Houssi ou Khoussi on reconnait la racine locale du nom-Uxie-attribué par les Grecs à l'extrême sud de la chaine des monts Zagros séparative de la Suside et de la vieille Perse, puis la racine d'Uwaja, Khouz et Khouzistan, expressions géographiques dont se servaient les Perses du moyen âge pour designer l'Arabistan moderne."

In Curzon's 'Persia,' vol. ii. p. 320, is the following footnote: "Khuzistan is thought to be derived from the word Uwaja signifying aborigines, that occurs in the Cuneiform inscriptions, and is, perhaps, also the origin of the Uxii of Strabo and Pliny. On the other hand Mordtmann derives Khuzistan from a Persian word meaning sugarcane."

To the above extracts may be added one from a curious, well-printed Elzevir duodecimo of 1633,* which states: "juxta mare Abadan . . . . sita est terra Chusistan (nomen habens à Cossæis latronibus, quorum Plinius

* Persia seu Regni Persici status.' By John de Laet, S.D. (Leyden).

meminit liber vi., cap. 27) ad quam pertinet Ahvvaz et Escar Mekrom et Gendi Sabur, et Susa et Ram Hormoz." All these places now remain, or are capable of identification; but the derivation from the Cossæi looks unlikely. From the same little book we gather the historical fact mentioned by "Shikardus" (Schickard, ob. 1635) that in the twentyfirst year of the Hijira, or about A.D. 642, one Mûsa Askari, despatched with an army east of the Tigris, occupied Khuzistan, with the two cities of Ahwaz and Susa.

Another question of geographical interest is that of identification of rivers in the immediate neighbourhood of Susa and the Memnonium. The four to which M. Dieulafoy gives the first consideration are: (1) the Choaspes, or Kerkha, an affluent of the Tigris; (2) the Ulái or Eulous, which connected the Choaspes and Koprates; (3) the Koprates or Abi-Dizful, coming down, like the Kerkha, from the mountains of Luristan; and (4) the Pasitigris or Karun, which received the waters of the Koprates, increased by those of the Choaspes passing through the Ulái. For the second he finds no corresponding modern name, because he cannot accept the "ruisseau, le Chaour"-according to Loftus “a narrow stream" quite unsuited for identification with the waters on which Alexander sailed from Susa to the sea-to represent the river which, as we have the highest authority for believing, laved the walls of the Memnonium. But he has no objection to offer to the compromise by which Loftus accords to the "ruisseau" the honour of absorption into an artificial channel formed by a bifurcation of the Kerkha at some distance above Susa, corresponding with Ptolemy's "left branch of the Eulous" on which the city is built. Captain Wells, it is true, visiting the locality in 1881, "could see no sign of the depression in which Loftus would have one believe the Eulous once flowed."* This, however, is but the note of a passing traveller; whereas Dieulafoy, a repeated visitor and sojourner at Susa, wrote: "L'Oulai, aujourd'hui comblé, mais apparent sur son ancien parcours "--and so affirmed that the bed, though dry, was en évidence. Later on, the view which he entertains of his English predecessor's disposal of the whole question is stated in strong terms, and merits quotation: "La détermination du cours de l'Oulai pouvait seule présenter quelques difficultés; mais le problème, très bien posé par Loftus, a été résolu d'une manière décisive."

In the following extract from M. Dieulafoy's introductory chapters, it is not quite clear to what particular point in "the high table-lands of Susiana," he refers. The southern road appears to be the natural and more direct one to reach Fars viâ Bebehan. With regard to the route indicated as that of MM. Babin and Houssaye, Colonel Wells, R.E., marched from Ahwaz (west of Ram Hormuz) to Shiraz in fifteen days.

* Proceedings of Royal Geographical Society, Vol. V., New Series (March, 1883), p. 155.

of December, 1881. The italics are in accordance with the original

"The best map is misleading when consulted for information which it is unable to supply, such as the estimation, in stages, of a road to be traversed. The passage of the Zagros Mountains from Persepolis to Malamir is a long and painful military operation during the fine season, and impracticable in winter, although the actual wall scarcely attains in theoretical breadth 200 kilomètres. It has been indeed demonstrated from the information given by the caravan leaders—or, better still, reported by MM. Babin and Houssaye, in connection with their journey to Malamir, Ram Hormuz, and Shiraz-that it is impossible to proceed directly from the high table-lands of Susiana into Fars. It would be necessary either to move up again northward and reach Media, or to come down again southward and debouch by the Persian Pyloe. The journey by caravan, if the more direct road were chosen, would be from thirty-five to forty days in the fine season; while in winter the road is always covered with snow."

By the Persian Pyle may be intended the Pylo Susidæ, which Quintus Curtius refers to as the scene of dangers and difficulties for Alexander and his troops. But the position would be better understood with a more practical illustration.

Space is wanting to enter more fully into the merits of this remarkable publication, so creditable to the ability and industry of the author. We may not even venture into the domain of practical research, or speak of the excavations carried out, and their successful results; but our readers may be assured there is much in these things to fascinate and instruct. The volume is one which should find a conspicuous place in all high-class libraries and institutions.

In taking leave of M. Dieulafoy one brief extract may be appropriate, showing how, with the Arab invasion, the curtain falls on the history which he has sketched out with so much care as an introduction to the story of the disentombed Acropolis.

"Then came the Arab hordes. They disembarked at Muhamra, moved up the Karun, reached Shuster and Susa. At this period (A.D. 640) the legend of Daniel's tomb took shape, and the first funereal edifices or cenotaphs consecrated to the great prophet were reared. The Jews assembled in multitudes, as proved by research; then the desert, that inseparable companion of Islam, spread itself around the Sassanian cities, erst so populous, and over the lands erst so fertile. Ahwáz, Muhamra, Hawízeh, Susa, Aiwan, Júndi Shápúr disappeared for ever; the latest Arab monuments yet indicative of living civilisation belong to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Dizful and Shuster, raised from the ruins of Susa and peopled by its last inhabitants, alone outlived, wretched and devastated, this era of desolation. At the present day tribes but rarely traverse the Steppe, and these wonderful lands, where millions

could find a facile and plenteous subsistence, do not sustain 100,000 inhabitants. As for Susa, the mother of cities, she is reduced to a few ravined peaks covered with herbs and brambles in winter-dry, when the implacable sun burns the growing grass. How many centuries of glories and troubles, how many kingdoms repose under this accumulation of dust!"

A FRENCH ARCHITECT IN INDIA.*

By W. M. CONWAY.

IN days not so very far removed from our own a man who had been to Rome was considered a great traveller. It is now easy to go round the world and to visit many of the most remote countries without transgressing the limits of touristdom, nor can one any longer readily define what it is that divides the tourist from the traveller. The essential qualities upon which the distinction depends belong rather to an attitude of mind than to a manner of moving about. George Borrow, crossing England in a railway train, was a traveller because he looked out of his head with a traveller's eyes. Most globe-trotters survey all countries in an unobservant, touristical fashion, and return from the farthest parts of the Earth without having experienced one of the emotions that the intelligent can derive from a walk in Surrey.

Our great dependency, India, which is becoming more and more the playground of the tourist, is a country abounding in interest for every intelligent traveller. It is not my purpose here to discuss all the diverse matters of interest that are ready to appeal to an intelligent eye, but to treat briefly a small group of them, and to point out how far a recently published work, issued under the auspices of the French Minister of Public Instruction, and lately added to the library of the Society, is worth the attention of intending travellers.

A difficulty, which I myself experienced on the occasion of a first visit to India, and which has doubtless been felt by many, is that of deciding what to see. In all countries called "old," the most noteworthy sights, after the living folk, are the architectural monuments of all ages. The man who has not been to India knows in a general way that it is very large, very various, the home of many races, the site of many ancient civilisations, and that it is dotted over with countless monuments. Which of all these should be visited? That is the problem that faces the intelligent traveller If he sets to work to read up the subject, he embarks upon a wearisome and almost hopeless task. Fergusson, as an architectural critic, is far from reliable; as an arthistorian is too much given to "believing" and having this and the

* Les Monuments de l'Inde,' by Dr. Gustave Le Bon, Paris, 1893.