contrary; but, until such evidence is produced it has weight, and
constitutes an argument, the force of which is considerable.

In the present instance the presumption raised is met by no argument
of any great weight; while on the other hand it receives important
confirmation from several different quarters. It is said, indeed, that
as all, or almost all, the other nations of these parts were confessedly
Arians (e.g. the Bactrians, the Sogdians, the Chorasmians, the
Margians, the Arians of Herat, the Sagartians, the Sarangians, and the
Hyrcanians), it would be strange if the Parthians belonged to a wholly
different ethnic family. But, in the first place, the existence of
isolated nationalities, detached fragments of some greater ethnic mass,
embodied amid alien material, is a fact familiar to ethnologists; and,
further, it is not at all certain that there were not other Turanian
races in these parts, as, for instance, the Thamanasans. Again, it is
said that the Parthians show their Arian extraction by their names; but
this argument may be turned against those who adduce it. It is true that
among the Parthian names a considerable number are not only Arian, but
distinctly Persian--e.g., Mith-ridates, Tiridates, Artabanus, Orobazus,
Rhodaspes--but the bulk of the names have an entirely different
character. There is nothing Arian in such appellations as Amminapes,
Bacasis, Pacorus, Vonones, Sinnaces, Abdus, Abdageses, Gotarzes,
Vologeses, Mnasciras, Sanatroeces; nor anything markedly Arian in
Priapatius, Himerus, Orodes, Apreetseus, Ornos-pades, Parrhaces,
Vasaces, Monesis, Exedares. If the Parthians were Arians, what account
is to be given of these words? That they employed a certain number of
Persian names is sufficiently explained by their subjection during more
than two centuries to the Persian rule. We are also distinctly told that
they affected Persian habits, and desired to be looked upon as Persians.
The Arian names borne by Parthians no more show them to be Arians in