may be defined as that branch of modern science which treats of the various nations of the earth with respect to their races, i.e., their relative origin, and their linguistic and social affinities; and it is thus distinguished from political geography, which discusses their association under their several civil governments. In the Bible, this subject, like all other scientific questions, is rather touched upon incidentally as connected with the history of mankind than in any formal and exact manner; yet the information thus afforded is of inestimable value, being, in fact, the only trustworthy clew to guide the investigator through the labyrinth in which later complications, and especially recent speculations, have involved the whole matter. Infidelity has striven hard to impugn the statements of Scripture on this ground especially; and it is therefore satisfactory to know that the most candid and general researches strongly tend to corroborate the positions of Holy Writ relative to all the main points involved in the discussion. These, so far as the Bible is directly concerned, all center in one cardinal topic, the unity of the human race; and they bear upon this chiefly in two lines of argument, namely, 1st, the analogous and common elements of various languages, showing an origin from one source; and, 2dly, the manner in which men are distributed, or, rather, grouped, over the surface of the earth, as illustrating the ethnological chart laid down in the tenth chapter of Genesis, This last only, or "the Dispersion of Nations," we propose to discuss in the present article, referring the other two to the article SEE ADAM, and, especially, the article SEE MAN, and articles there referred to; SEE TONGUES (CONFUSION OF), and other articles there referred to. For the physiological part of the argument we refer to the researches of Blumenbach, Dr. Prichard in his elaborate volumes on this subject, the notes in J. Pye Smith's Scripture and Geology, and a dissertation by Samuel Forrey, M.D., entitled The Mosaic Account of the Unity of the Human Race confirmed by the Natural History of the American Aborigines, in the American Biblical Repository, July, 1843. For a complete synoptical view of the present races of men, see Prichard's Ethnological Maps (Londoma, 1843, fol.). The following account embraces the principal points.
I. Fact of an early Dissemination of the Race. Many obvious reasons incline us to suppose that the small number of mankind which divine mercy spared from the extirpation of the Deluge, eight persons, forming at the utmost five families, would continue to dwell near each other as long as the utmost stretch of convenience would permit them. The undutiful conduct of Ham and his fourth son cannot well be assigned to a point of time earlier than twenty or thirty years after the Flood. So long, at least, family affection and mutual interests would urge the children of Noah not to break up their society. The dread of dangers, known and unknown, and every day's experience of the benefit derived from mutual aid, would strengthen other motives. It is evident from Ge 11:10-16, that about 100 years, according to the Hebrew text, were spent in this state of family propinquity, yet with a considerable degree of proximate diffusion, which necessity would urge; but the dates of the Septuagint, without including the generation of the post-diluvian Caanan (q.v.), give 400. The Hebrew period, much more the others, will afford a sufficient time for such an increase of mankind as would render an extensive outspread highly expedient. A crowded population would be likely to furnish means and incentives to turbulence on the one hand, and to some form of tyranny on the other. Many of the unoccupied districts would become dangerously unwholesome by stagnating waters and the accumulation of vegetable and animal putrescence. The products of cultivation and of other arts would have been acquired so slowly as to have retarded human improvement and comfort. Tardy expansion would have failed to reach distant regions till many hundreds or thousands of years had run out. The noxious animals would have multiplied immoderately. The religious obedience associated, by the divine command, with the possession and use of the earth, would have been checked and perverted to a greater degree than the world's bitter experience proves that it actually has been. Thus it may appear with pretty strong evidence that a dispersion of mankind was highly desirable to be in a more prompt and active style than would have been effected by the impulses of mere convenience and vague inclination. SEE GEOGRAPHY.
That this dictate of reasonable conjecture was realized in fact, is determined by the Mosaic writings. Of the elder son of Eber, the narrative says his "name was Peleg (פֶּלֶג, division), because in his days the earth was divided" (Ge 10:25); and this is repeated, evidently as a literal transcript, in 1Ch 1:19. If we might coin a word to imitate the Hebrew, we might show the paronomasia by saying "the earth was pelegged" (נַפלגָה). Some are of opinion that the event took place about the time of his birth, and that his birth-name was given to him as a memorial of the transaction. But it was the practice of probably all nations in the early times that persons assumed to themselves, or imposed upon their children and other connections, new names at different epochs of their lives, derived from coincident events in all the variety of associated ideas. Of that practice many 'examples occur in the Scriptures. The conjecture is more prob. able that, in this instance, the name was applied in the individual's maturer age, and on account of some personal concern which he had in the commencement or progress of the separation. But the signification usually given is by no means a matter of indubitable certainty. The verb occurs only in the two passages mentioned (strictly but one), and in Ps 55:9, "divide their tongues," and Job 38:25, "who bath divided a channel for the torrent" (produced by a heavy thunder-shower)? Respectable philologists have disputed whether it refers at all to a separation of mankind, and think that the event which singularly marked Peleg's life was an occurrence in physical geography, an earthquake which produced a vast chasm, separating two considerable parts of the earth in or near the district inhabited by men. That earthquakes and dislocations of land have taken place in and around that region at various times before the historical period, the present very different levels, and other results of volcanic agency, afford ample proofs. The possibility, therefore, of some geological convulsion cannot be denied; or that it might have been upon a t great scale, and followed by imperfect effects upon the condition of mankind. The transpiration of some comparatively local interest, however, would seem a more appropriate occasion for the name of an individual than so world-wide an occurrence as the general distribution of mankind. But if the race was as yet confined to a narrow circle and a single community, the breaking up of that society would be a very signal event to celebrate in his name. SEE PELEG.
But neither the affirming nor the rejecting of this interpretation of "the earth's being divided" can affect the question upon the primeval separation and migratory distributions of men. The reasons which we have mentioned render it certain that some such event, and successive events, have taken place; and, without urging the passage of disputed interpretation, it is evident that Ge 10; Ge 11 assume the fact, and may be considered as rather a summary recognition of it than as a detailed account. Thus (9:19), "These are the three sons of Noah, and from these all the earth was scattered over" (נ פעָה). Again (10:32), "These are the families of the sons of Noah, [according] to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were dispersed (נַפררוּ) in the earth after the Flood." Here another verb is used, often occurring in the Old Testament, and the meaning of which admits of no doubt. We find it also at verse 5, "From these the isles of the nations were dispersed (נַפרדוּ) in their lands, each [according] to its language, [according] to their families in their nations." The Biblical date thus assigned to the dispersion is not inconsistent with the most careful estimate of the antiquity of nations, such as Egypt and Assyria. SEE CHRONOLOGY.
In the latest composition of Moses is another passage, which, in this inquiry, must not be neglected (De 32:8-9): "In the Most High's assigning abodes to the nations, in his dispersing the sons of Adam, he fixed boundaries to the peoples according to the number (מַספָּר, numeration) of the sons of Israel: for the assigned portion of Jehovah is his people; Jacob, the lot of his inheritance." Of this 8th verse the Septuagint translation is remarkable, and it thus became the source of extraordinary interpretations: "When the Most High apportioned nations, when he scattered abroad the, sons of Adam he fixed boundaries of nations according to the number of the angels of God." There might be a reading (El or Elohim instead of Israel) which would yield that meaning from comparison with Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7. Also the Alexandrine translators might welcone a colorable reasoning for the rendering, that it might haply serve as a protection from the danger of the Macedonico-Egyptian government, taking up the idea that the Jews claimed a divine right of supremacy over all other nations. This reading, however, save occasion to the Greek fathers (Justin Martyr, Origen, Eusebius, etc.) to maintain the doctrine of a later Jewish origin, that the grandsons of Noah being seventy, each was the ancestor of a nation, each nation having its own language derived from the confusion of Babel, and each also its guardian angel set over it by the Creator, excepting the nation of Israel, of which Jehovah himself was the tutelary deity. The only real difficulty of this passage lies in its seeming to assert that the nascent population was distributed into groups with the express design of effecting a numerical correspondence with the Israelitish family eight hundred years after. The names assigned to the third degree, that is, the sons (rather tribes or nations) of Noah's three sons, are, Japhet fourteen, Ham thirty-one, Shenm twenty-five, making seventy; and the whole family of Jacob, when it came to be domiciliated in Egypt, was seventy (Ge 46:26; Ex 1:5; De 10:22). Some have also fancied a parallel in the seventy elders (Ex 24:1,9; Nu 11:16,24-25; see also Kitto, Pictorial Palestine, Civil History, Index, "Elders"). These puerilities might have been prevented had men considered that מַספָּר does not signify merely an arithmetical amount, but is used to denote an exact narration (Jg 7:15). The passage is in the highly poetical style of the magnificent ode in which it occurs, and, reduced to plain terms, simply declares that the Almighty Sovereign, in whose hands of necessity lies the disposal of human birth- places, had so arranged these, in mapping out the world, as best to subserve the future occupancy of Canaan by his chosen people.
But the main passage of Scripture usually relied upon to prove the fact of a sudden and violent disruption of primeval society into the germs of the early nations, as well as to explain its circumstances and cause, is the account of the building of the tower of Babel (Ge 11:1-9), in which the dispersion of those engaged in that enterprise has been regarded as a part of the disseverance commemorated in the name of Peleg. There are, however, some objections to this view of the narrative. In the first place, these two events are not thus connected in the account itself. The sporadic varieties of language, which is the grand distinction between the different tribes that have founded the ancient monarchies and cities, had not yet appeared; nor could they be accounted for in this manner if the original community had already begun to separate into the more modern states. The only supposition that would make the two occurrences compatible, if connected, is that the whole body of the Noachites, while in process of migration westward (בּנָסעָם מַקֶּדֶם), with a view to settling in different localities, were arrested by the inviting character of the plain of Shinar, until their purpose of diffusion (פּוּוֹ, the same word in verses 4 and 8) was renewed by the divine interference. In the second place, it is not certain that either of the incidents thus associated is of so cosmopolitan a character as this theory assumes. By simply rendering אֶרֶוֹ, land or region, instead of "earth," the whole affair is reduced to a petty dispute or misunderstanding among the workmen engaged upon a public edifice, and a consequent dissolution of that particular cluster of inhabitants. Certain it is that all the dialects of this polyglot globe cannot be referred to a single incident or occasion like this. Such, at least, are in substance the arguments that have been offered against interpreting the sacred narrative here as having a general application to the whole race, nor can it be denied that they possess a certain degree of plausibility (see Bryant, Ancient Mythology, 3d ed. 4:23-44, 92 pq.). On the other hand, if, as everything in the context seems to require, we conceive the descendants of Noah to have been at this time (say about the birth of Peleg, i.e., one hundred years after the Flood) quite limited in numbers and extent (as the longevity of the patriarchs and their pastoral habits both indicate), we shall find no particular difficulty in taking the entire statement in its broadest and most literal sense, as the opening wedge of that universal split, which has since widened more and more, in language and abode, among the sons of men. This narrative, then, of the Dispersion begins with the remarkable statement: "Now the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from [or "in"] the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there" (Ge 1:2). The expressions " language" (lip) and "speech" (words) are too precise to be understood (as Vitringa, Obs. Sacrae, chapter 9, page 109) as indicating merely an agreement in purpose. The journeying together shows that the time spoken of was before the Noachians had ceased to be a single nation, and perhaps when they formed but a great tribe, and were journeying (נָסִע, to pull up stakes, as a tent or encampment) after the manner of time Arabs across the plains watered by the Tigris and Euphrates. It cannot be doubted that Shinar was Babylonia. The name, indeed, is perhaps traceable in Mesopotamia in the modern Sinjhi, and it is noticeable that the ancient Egyptian transcription of Shinar (שַׁנעָר) is SANSART (this k corresponding to the Hebrew ג, as though the had been pronounced like the Arabic Gain). But there is no evidence that the Hebrews called any country except Babylonia "the land of Shinar." The direction of the journey, if it be indicated as "from the East," probably would only mark the previous halting-place of the Noachians, not the place at which they first began to repeople the earth. The narrative then relates the attempt to build a city and a tower in order to prevent the scattering of mankind, and the punishment of the builders by the confusion (if their language and their being scattered abroad from the unfinished city Babel, or Confusion. Leaving the subject of the Confusion of Tongues for later discussion, we must observe the general agreement of profane historians as to the antiquity of Babylon, and the reminiscence of the Tower in the towers of the Babylonian temples. The Pyramids of Egypt and those of Mexico should be compared with these towers; and, in the case of the former, on account of their extreme antiquity, the comparison is very impertant. The exact character of the scattering is difficult to infer. The cause, according to the ordinary explanation of the narrative, was the Confusion of Tongues, but some have supposed the latter to have been the consequence of the Dispersion. From verse 4 compared with verse 9, it would appear to have been but a resumption of the original plan of immigration, now that their holding together had become impossible, for the want of a common medium of vocal communication. Whatever difficulties we may discover in this and the preceding chapter of Genesis, "it is no longer probable only, but it is absolutely certain, that the whole race of man proceeded from Irann [the proper and native name of Persia and some connected regions] as from a center, whence they migrated first in three great colonies; and that those three branches grew from a common stock, which bad been miraculously preserved in a general convulsion and inundation of this globe" (Sir William Jones, On the Origin and Families of Nations, Works, ed. by Lord Teignmouth, 8vo, 3:196). There is, perhaps, no distinct reference to the building of the Tower and the Dispersion in the traditions of any heathen nation. The Greek story of the giants who piled mountains one upon another to reach Olympus is perhaps the most probable trace. Unlike the case of the Flood, there is no clear evidence that the Dispersion made a strong impression upon the minds of those who witnessed and shared in it. This would indicate that it was unaccompanied by any great outward manifestation of God's anger, and was the immediate consequence of such difficulties as would arise from the sudden division of mankind into tribes speaking different languages or dialects. SEE BABEL (TOWER OF).
II. Preliminary Considerations in examining the List of Genesis 50–70. The enumeration comprises only nations existing in the age of Moses, and probably of them only the most conspicuous, as more or less connected with the history of the Israelites. Many nations have been formed in subsequent times, and, indeed, are still forming, by separation and by combination; these can be considered only as included on the ground of long subsequent derivation. Such are the populations of Eastern Asia, Medial and South Africa, America, and Australasia.
2. It cannot be affirmed with certainty that we are here presented with a complete Table of Nations, even as existing in the time of Moses. Of each of the sons of Noah it gives the sons; but of their sons (Noah's great- grandsons) it is manifest that all are not mentioned, and we have no possible means of ascertaining how many are omitted. Thus, of the sons of Japheth, the line is pursued only of Gomer and Javan; Magog, Madai, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras are dropped without any mention of their issue; yet we have evidence that nations of great importance in the history of mankind have descended from them. Ham had four sons: of three of them the sons, or rather clannish or national descendants, are specified; but to Phut, the fourth, no posterity is assigned. Shem had five sons, but the descendants of only two of them are recorded. It cannot be supposed that those whose sequence is thus cut off died without children; for as we shall presently see, nations of great historical interest may be traced up to them.
3. Mere similarity, or even identity of name, is not a sure guide. So remarkable a name as Hazarmaveth can scarcely be mistaken when we find it in Hadramaut. Such a name would not be repeated, and the Hadramaut which we discover in Arabia cannot be doubted to indicate the settlement of Joktan's son Hazarmaveth; but this is an exceptional case. When the similarity of Dodanim to Dodona is considered to be a sufficient proof of identity, all criticism is set at defiance. For the investigation before us we have an aid, invaluable both for its ample comprehension and its divine authority, in the account of the traffic of Tyre (Ezekiel 27).
4. The list is, in one aspect, a kind of geographical table: many names in its descents are found in later places of Scripture as geographical terms designating nations, or at least important tribes. Therefore
(1.) We must not look for a name in that of a town. There is an exceptions probably not the only one, in the case of Sidon, the city of the Sidonians, who were doubtless a Canaanitish tribe, but to trace names in general in those of towns is very hazardous.
(2.) The tracing of a nation or tribe to a name in the list is of little value, unless neighboring or kindred nations, or nations otherwise markedly connected with it, can also be traced to the same part of the list.
5. Preference must always be given to the oldest documents in seeking for identifications. Next to the O.T., the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian monuments must be cited. In each set of documents, the notices nearest in point of time are always likely to be the best commentators; for it must be remembered that migrations and deportations are less likely to affect evidence the earlier it is.
6. Although the list is geographical, its form is genealogical; and it does sometimes, and may frequently, state or convey the name of the founder of a nation or tribe-thus, all those terminating in the plural ins, and those specified by the Gentilitian adjective, the Jebusite, the Hivite, etc. Yet
(1.) We must not attempt to identify a founder's name in the traditions of nations, except when it is distinctly mentioned there as such.
(2.) As before, we must not be satisfied unless the identification is' supported by the geographical position of the founder's nation, or its ethnological character, or else by some marked characteristics connecting it: with other names identified in the same part of the list.
III. The Immediate Sons of Noah. — Shem is always mentioned first of the three sons of Noah when their names occur together, the order being Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Ge 10:21 he is called "the elder brother of Japheth," which the A.V. incorrectly translates "the brother of Japheth the elder," where a comma after "Japheth" gives the correct sense. In the list of that chapter, notwithstanding the occurrence of the usual order in verse 1, the sons of Japheth are first mentioned, then those of Ham, and lastly those of Shem, the order being inverted. It has been supposed that Shem was put at the close of the list in order that the insertion of the other descendants of Noah might not form a digression in the history of the Shemites and their Hebrew branch. The Japhethites may have been put at the head of the list as the most widely spread, and so the most distant; and, for a like reason, the Hamites may have preceded the Shemites, the order being that of the extent of colonization. Or, again, the order may be geographical, from west to east, in accordance with the western, central, and eastern positions of the three great stocks. We shall see that the details favor the last view.
Shem (שֵׁם) signifies "name, good name, fame;" Ham (חָם ), "hot, warm;" Japheth (יֶפֶת), "spread," from פָּתָה. The names are probably prophetical of the future renown of the Shemites, of the hot land of the Hamites, and the spread of the Japhethites. The prophecy of Noah (Ge 9:25-27) indicates the appropriateness of Japheth's name to his future; and a prophetical sense of the names of his brethren may therefore be conjectured. But there is no distinct allusion to any such sense in their cases. It might be thought that the appropriateness of Shem's name as illustrious could be traced in the prediction that his should be the believing stock, but there is no indication whatever of any moral significance in the name of Ham.
1. Shem. — There is no trace of any single nation or country named after Shem, probably because the Shemites, by an instinct afterwards remarkable in their descendants, early separated into distinct tribes, though not migrating very far. This was the case with the Israelites; and with the Arabs the same process is still in constant operation. SEE SHEM.
2. Ham. — The name of Ham has been connected with an appellation of Egypt in Hebrew, only occurring in three. passages in the poetical books- "the land of Ham" (Ps 78:51; Ps 105:23; Ps 106:22), and with the most usual Egyptian name of the country, KEM, the black (land)." The former term we cannot doubt contained the patriarch's name. Is the latter identical with it? The significations of Ham and KEM are sufficiently near. Ham may reasonably be derived from חָמִם, "he or it was warm," and compared with חוּם, "he or it was black," and the Arabic cham, of the same signification as the last, and chama, "black fetid mud" (Kdmsues), or "black mud" (Sihah MS.). KEli cannot be taken for an Egyptian transcription of Ham, but it may be a word of cognate origin (comp. KAR, "a circle," הוּל, חַיל, "he or it turned, turned round;" KARR, "a furnace," חָרָה, "it burned;" ENA, "to bend," חָנָה, "he or it bowed down, inclined"). There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that the Egyptian name of the country is identical with the Hebrew name of the patriarch. Are they of separate origin? We must either suppose this, or that "the land of Ham" became changed to "Ham-land," or "black land." The genius of the Egyptian language would account for such a change, which seems not improbable. That Ham should have given his name to a country might be accounted for by the supposition that, except the Canaanites, the Hamites penetrated into Africa, and at first established themselves in Egypt. SEE HAM.
3. Japheth. — It is impossible not to see the name of Japheth in the Greek Japetus the Titan, son of Uranus and Ge, and the supposed ancestor of the human race; for, as we shall see, the Greeks, or at least those of the Hellenic stock, are classed among the Japhethites in the list of Genesis. SEE JAPHETH.
IV. The Descendants of Japheth.— The following is the table of the Japhethites:
Japheth. 1. Gomer. a. Ashikenaz. b. Riphath. c. Togarmah.
2. Magog. 3. Madai. 4. Javan. a. Elishah. b. Tarshish. c. Kittim. d. Dodanim. 5. Tubal. 6. Meshech. 7. Tiras.
1. Gomer. — This name occurs in but one later place in connection with geography, as that of a nation of tribe allied with Magog, and it is there mentioned immediately before Togarmah, distinguished as northern (Eze 38:6). It has therefore been supposed to point to a remote northern nation, Scythic, or perhaps European. Two great gentile names have been compared, the Cimmerians of the Tauric Chersonese, who invaded the west of Asia Minor early in the 7th century B.C., and the Cimbri and Cymry, whose ethnic and nominal identity cannot be doubted. Considering the migratory character of the Cimmerians and Cimbri, it is reasonable to suppose that they had the same origin. In the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius Bystaspes, Gimiri occurs as the Shemitic equivalent of the Arian name Saka (Σακαι). (Sir H. Rawlinson, in Rawlinson's Herodotus, 3:150, note 1.) SEE GOMER.
a. Ashkenaz. — In a single later mention Ashkeumaz occurs, in a confederacy against Babylon, with Ararat, Minni, and Middai (Jer 51:27-28). It was therefore a nation in the direction of Armenia.
b. Riphath, written in 1Ch 1:6, Diphath, does not occur elsewhere in Scripture. It has been compared with the Riphasan Mountains of Greek geography; but the statement of Josephus, commenting on this list, that the Paphlagonians were anciently called Riphathmeams, is worthy of notice (Ant. 1:6, 1).
c. Togarmah is mentioned in Ezekiel among the traders with Tyre, after Tarshish, Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, all Japhethites, and before Dedan, here probably the country of which the inhabitants, called Dodanina, are classed among the sons of the Japhethite Javan (Eze 27:12-15); and, in a later place, "the house of Togarmah, of the north quarters," follows Gomer in the list of the army of Gog, prince of Magog (Eze 38:6). These particulars point to a northern people not remote from Greece. Togarmah traded with Tyre "with horses and horsemen, and mules" (Eze 27:14), whence we may suppose these traffickers came by land. All the indications agree very well with the opinion that Togarmah may be connected with the Armenians.
2. Magog is elsewhere mentioned by Ezekiel only, first among the countries ruled by Gog, and especially associated with Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal (Eze 38:2-3), and apparently spoken of as dwelling "in the isles" (Eze 39:6). The term "isles" certainly must not be taken necessarily to indicate islands, but it is apparently limited to maritime, transmarinei, and very remote regions. It has generally been held that Magog, used for a nation, is applied to the Scythians of the Greeks, though perhaps in a restricted sense. Certainly, in the time of Ezekiel, the Scythians who invaded Western Asia were the most powerful nation of the country to which the confederacy mentioned by the prophet may reasonably be assigned; and the agreement of Josephus (Ant. 1:6, 1) and Jerome (Quaest. in Ge 10:2) in the identification is not to be overlooked. SEE MAGOG.
3. Madai, always later applied to the country Media, very appropriately follows Magog, if the latter, when used geographically, indicates the Scythiian neighbors of the Medes. Madai, like other names afterwards employed for a country rather than a people, may originally have been a man's name (comp. Mizraim, infra). SEE MADAI.
4. Javan. — Except where applied to an Arabian place or tribe (Eze 27:19; and perhaps Joe 3:6), this is, in all later places, the name of the Greeks, or at least of the Hellenic Greeks. The Persians, like the Hebrews, called all the Greeks Ionians. SEE JAVAN.
a. Elishahi at the head of the descendants of Javan, is to be looked for in Hellenic geography. It is mentioned in Ezekiel as trading with Tyre, "Blue and purple, from the isles of Elishah, was that which covered thee" (Eze 27:7). The name has been compared with Elis, Hellas, and the AEolians. Etymologically the first and third are equally probable, but other circumstances seem almost decisive in favor of the latter. The coast of the AEolian settlements in Asia Minor produced purple, and the name of so important a division of the Hellenic nation would suit better than that of a city which never was rich and powerful enough to be classed with Sidon, Tyre, or Carthage.
b. Tarshish is in later Biblical history the name of a great mart, or, as some hold, of two. The famous Tarshish, supposing there were two, was one of the most important commercial cities of the period of the kings; second only, if second, to Tyre. It was accessible from the coast of Palestine, but its trade was carried on in large ships, "ships of Tarshish," which implies a distant voyage from Palestine. It brought to Tyre "silver, iron, tin, and lead" (Eze 27:12). These products, seem to point incontestably to a Spanish emporium, and the majority of modern commentators agree in fixing on the celebrated Tartessus, said to have been founded by the Phoenicians, and with which the Phoenicians traded. In some places Tarshish seems to be evidently a country.
c. Kittim.— This Gentile noun, usually written Chittim in the A.V., is generally connected with Citium of Cyprus. Other indications of Scripture seem not unfavorable to this identification, which would make the Kittim or Chittim a seafaring population of Cyprus.
d. Dodanim, closely connected in the table by construction as well as in form with Kittim — "Elishah and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim" (Ge 10:4) — was a maritime or insular people. Ezekiel says of Tyre, "The men of Dedan [were] thy merchants; many isles [were] the merchandise of thine hand': they brought thee [for] a present horns of ivory and ebony" (Ge 27:15). The reading in the list as given in 1Ch 1:7 is Rodanim, a form which is probably the true one, as supported by the Sept. and Saniaritan versions. The Sept. identifies this people with the Rhodians in all instances, including that in Ezekiel. In the prophet's time Rhodes was a great seat of Phoenician commerce, and at the site of Camirus, one of its three important cities before the city Rhodes was founded, many objects of Phoenician style have been discovered. It may be added that ivory is one of the materials of its antiquities. The identification, considering the probable place of the Kittim, is very likely.
5. Tubal, and,
6. Meshech, are in later places mentioned together (Eze 27:13; Eze 38:2-3; Eze 39:1), and were evidently northern nations (Eze 39:2). They have been traced in the Moschi and Tibareni mentioned together by Herodotus (3:94; 7:78), and as Muskai and Tuplai, in the Assyrian inscriptions (Rawlinson's Herodotus, 1:530), which inhabited the northern coast of Asia Minor towards the Caucasus.
7. Tiras, last in the list of the sons of Japheth, has not been satisfactorily identified. The best comparison is perhaps with the Tyrrhenians or Tyrsenians, as then all the chief territories of Japhethite civilization would seem to have been indicated — Armenia, Asia Minor, Thrace, the Asiatic Islands, European Greece, Italy, and Spain.
V. Descendants of Ham, or Hamites:
Ham. 1. Cash. a. Seba. b. Havilah. c. Seabtah. d. Raamah.
e. Sabtechah. f. Nimrod. 2. Mizraim. a. Ludim. b. Anamim. c. Lehabim. d. Naphtuhim. e. Pathrusim. a. Sheba. b. Dedan.
3. Phut. f. Casluhim. a. Philistim. g. Caphtorim. 4. Canaan. a. Sidon. b. Heth. c. Jebusite. d. Amorite. e. Girgasite. f. Hivite. g. Arkite. h. Sinite. i. Arvadite. j. Zemarite. k. Hamathite.
1. Cush is immediately recognised in KISH, the ancient Egyptian name of Ethiopia above Egypt, With this identification all geographical mentions in Scripture, except that in the account of Paradise (Ge 2:13), agree. The latter may refer to a primaeval Cush, but an Asiatic settlement is positively indicated in the history of Nimrod, and we shall see that the settlements of the Cushites extended from African Ethiopia to Babylon, through Arabia. SEE CUSH.
a. Seba is connected by Isaiah with Egypt and Cush (43:3; 45:14), and the statement of Josephus that the island and city of Meroe bore this name is therefore to be noticed. In the ancient Egyptian geographical lists, SAHABA and SABARA occur among names of tribes or places belonging to Ethiopia (Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. 2, page 9, pl. 12, k. 1.).
b. Havilah. — The identification of Havilah is difficult, as the name recurs in the list of the sons of Joktan; and in Biblical geography, except only in the description of Edent it is found in Arabia alone. If the two stocks intermixed, and thus bore a common name, a single localization would be sufficient.
c. Sabtah can only be doubtfully traced in Arabian geography.
d. Raamah, in the Sept. ῾Ρεγμά, is well traced in the ῾Ρέγμα of Ptol. (6:7), and ῾Ρῆγμα of Steph. Byz. (s.v.), a city of Arabia on the Persian Gulf.
a. Sheba, and, b. Dedan, bear the same names as two descendants of Keturah (Ge 25:3), from which it has reasonably been supposed that we have here an indication of a mixture of Cushite and Abrahamite Arabs, like that of Cushite and Joktanite Arals inferred in the case of the two Havilahs. It is to be remarked that the name of Dedan has been conjecturally traced in the modern name of the island of Dadan, on the east coast of Arabia, and that of Sheba in, the ruins of an ancient, city called Seba, in the neighboring island of Awal.
e. Sabtechah is not identified.
f. Nimrod is generally thought to have been a remoter descendant of Cush than son, and this the usage of Hebrew genealogies may be held to sanction. He is the first and only known instance in the list of the leader of a dynasty rather than the parent of a nation or tribe. His name is followed by a parenthetical passage relating to his power and the establishment and extension of his kingdom. It is probable that this narrative is introduced to mark the commencement of the first Noachian monarchy. It may be compared with the notices of inventions in the account of Cain's descendants (Ge 4:20-22). The name of Nimrod is probably Shemitic, from מָרִר, " he was rebellious." It occurs in ancient Egyptian, in the form NAMURET, in the family of the 22d dynasty, which was certainly, at least in part, of foreign origin, The like names SHESHENK, USARKEN, TEKERUT, appear to be Shemitic.
2. Mizraim, literally "the two Mazors," is the common name of Egypt in the Bible; the singular, Mazor, being rarely used. It has been thought to be a purely geographical name, from its having a dual form, but it has been discovered in ancient Egyptian as the name of a Hittite or kindred chief, B.C. cir. 1300, contemporary with Rameses II, written in hieroglyphics MATRIMA, where the MA is known to express the Hebrew dual, as in MAHANMA for Mahanaim. That it should be used at so early a time as a proper name of a man suggests that the fact that Egypt was so called may be due to a Noachian's name having had a dual form, not to the division of the country into two regions. If, however, we suppose that in Genesis 10 Mizraim indicates the country, then we might infer that Ham's son was probably called Mazor. It is remarkable that Mazor appears to be equivalent to Ham: as we have seen, the meaning of the latter is evidently "hot" or "black," perhaps both, and a cognate word is used in Arabic for "black mud;" among the meanings of misr, the Arabic equivalent of Mazor, the Kaaitls gives "red earth or mud." Thus Ham and Mazor or Mizraim would especially apply to darkness of skin or earth; and, since both were used geographically to designate the "black land," as cultivated Egypt always was from the blackness of its alluvial soil, it is not surprising that the idea of earth came to be included in one of the significations of each. If Mizraim were purely geographical in the list, then we might perhaps suppose that it was derived from Mazor as a Shemitic equivalent of Ham. It is certainly remarkable that all the descendants of Mizraim are mentioned as tribes in the plurals of gentile nouns. SEE MIZRAIM.
a. Ludim, perhaps mentioned in passages of the prophets as Lud or Ludim (Isa 66:19; Jer 46:9; Eze 27:10; Eze 38:5; Eze 30:4-5), where, however, the Shemitic Lud may be intended. There would be no doubt that in at least one of these passages (Eze 30:4-5), where Egypt, and, as far as they are identified, African nations or countries are spoken of, the Ludim are those of the Mizraite stock, were it not possible that under the term Ludim or Lydian the Ionian and Carian mercenaries of the Pharaohs may be indicated.
b. Anamim, a nation as yet not identified. c. Lehabim, no doubt the same as the Lubim or Libyans mentioned in later places of Scripture as allies or mercenaries contributing to the armies of the Pharaohs, and supporting or dependent on Egypt as a race in very close relations. They correspond to the REBU or LEBU of the Egyptian inscriptions, western neighbors of Egypt, conquered by the kings of the 19th and 20th dynasties.
d. Naphtuhim strikingly resembles the Coptic name of the westernmost part of Lower Egypt, the territory of the city Marea, probably the older Mareotic nome Niphaiat or Niphaiad, a plural form commencing with the definite article ni.
e. Pathrusim, a tribe of which the territory, "the country of Pathros," is mentioned in later places. The latter has been compared with the Egyptian Pathyrite or Phaturite Nome; in Coptic papitoures, papithoures; in ancient Egyptian PA-HAT-HER; the chief objection to which identification is, that the geographical importance of the name seems scarcely sufficient.
f. Casluhim, not as yet identified.
g. Caphtorim, and the land of Caphtor, have given rise to much discussion. Poole has proposed as the equivalent of Caphtor the ancient Egyptian name of Coptos, KEBTU, KEBTA, KEBHER, probably pronounced Kuht, Kabt, Kebthor, the Coptic Keft, Kepto, Kepto, Kebto, Gr. Κόπτος, Arab. Kuft, and ventured to compare Αἴγυπτος with אַי כִפַתּוֹר. SEE CAPHTOR. It must be rememtered that the city Coptos, or its nome, has given its name to the whole nation of Egyptians, who were known as Copts by the Arabs at the time of the conquest. But good reasons have been urged in favor of Cyprus, especially the circumstance of the Philistine migration.
h. Philistim. — The Philistines are here said to have come forth from the Casluhim; elsewhere they are called Caphtorim, and said to have come out of Caphtor. It is not allowable to read that the Philistim and Caphtorim came from the Casluhitn. Perhaps there is a transposition in the text. The origin of the Philistines from a Mizraite stock is a very important fact for the explanation of the list.
3. Phut. — In later places, Put or Phut occurs as the name of an African country or nation, closely connected with Egypt, like the Lubim. It may be compared with those geographical names in the ancient Egyptian inscriptions in which the element PET, "the bow," occurs. Nubia was called the "bow-land," TU-PET, where it is usual to read TU-KENS, but the bow has not the sound KENS elsewhere; and it is probable that a part of Nubia was called Kens, and that the bow was written as a determinative symbol to show that Kens was included in "the bow-land;" but the question is full of difficulties. SEE PHUT.
4. Canaan, in Genesis 9 (18, 22, 25, 26, 27), is distinctly mentioned as the son of Ham. It has been thought that his name means the "degraded," "the subdued" man, "the lowlander," for both senses are possible. SEE CANAAN.
a. Sidon, "the first-born" of Canaan, like Heth, immediately following, is a proper name, whereas all the remaining names are gentile nouns in the singular. Sidon is thought to signify "the fishing-place," so that the name of the place would seem here to be put for that of the founder, "the fisherman," Αλιεύς of Sanchoniathon or Philo of Byblus. But it must be noticed that the next name, Heth, is treated in later places as that of a man. The position of the Sidonians, like that of most of the Canaanitish tribes, need not here be described.
b. Heth, ancestor of the "Children of Heth," or Hittites, a very important nation of Palestine and Syria. 'There are indications in Scripture of Hittites out of Palestine, and the ancient Egyptians warred with the KHETA in the valley of the Orontes, whose names show that they spoke a Shemitic language. The Egyptian monumental representations show that their armies were composed of men of two races, the one apparently Shemite in type, the other beardless, and resembling the Tatar type. SEE HITTITE.
c. The Jebusite,
e. Girgasite (properly Girgashite),
f. Hivite, all inhabitants of Palestine; but the Amorite, like the Hittite nation, seems to have had a wider extension, for the territory in which stood KETESH, the great stronghold of the KHETA on the Orontes, is called in Egyptian "the land of AMAR" (Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. 2, page 21, 22, pl. 18:44, 47).
g. The Arkite, compared with the Phoenician town of Area.
h. The Sinite, not satisfactorily identified. Perhaps one of their settlements may be traced in Sin or Pelu-slum.
i. The Arvadite, no doubt the people of Aradus. The derivation from רוּד, with the sense " wandering," "place of fugitives," is in accordance with the tradition referred to by Strabo, who says that Aradus was built by Sidonian fugitives (16:2, 13, 14). Aradus was a Phoenician city.
j. The Zemarite, conjecturally traced in the town Simyra, which has nothing to recommend it but its neighborhood to Arka and Aradus.
k. The Hamathite, well known to have been seated in Upper Syria, where Hamath, on the Orontes, was long a capital of an important kingdom.
VI. Descendants of Shem, or Shemites: Shem. I. Elam. II. Asshur. III. Arphaxad. a. Salah. a. Eber. (a.) Peleg. (b.) Joktan. (a.) Almodad. (b.) Sheleph. (c.) Hazarmaveth. (d.) Jerah. (e.) Hadoram. (f.) Uzal. (g.) Diklah. (h.) Obal. (i.) Abimael.
IV. Lud. 5. Arian. a. Uz. b. Hul. c. Gether. d. Mash. (j. ) Sheba. (k.) Ophir. (l.) Havilah. (m.) Jobab.
1. Elam, when used geographically, held to correspond to Susiana, not to Persia Proper.
2. Asshur, afterwards the Assyrian nation. In the cuneiform inscriptions Asshur is the chief object of worship of the kings. SEE ASSHUR.
3. Arphaxad, probably well traced, in the province Arrapachitis.
a. Salah seems to be only a genealogical link. In the Shemitic family the list is clearly something more than ethnological and geo graphical; it is of the nature of a pedigree, at least as far as it deals with the ancestry of Abraham.
b. Eber. — It is impossible here to discuss the difficult question whether to this patriarch the name of the Hebrews owed its origin. The argument based on the mention in this list that Shem was " the father of all the children of Eber" (Heb 10:21) seems to us almost unanswerable on the affirmative side. SEE EBER.
(a.) Peleg seems, like Salah, to be but a genealogical link.
(b.) Joktan is perhaps only a similar link: his descendants form an important series.
(a.) Almodad, supposed to b e traceable in Arabian names.
(b.) Sheleph, traced in El-Yemen.
(c.) Hazarmaveth, identical in name with the great region of Hadramaut, in Southern Arabia.
(d.) Jerah, not certainly identified, and (e.) Hadoram, not traced.
(f.) Uzal, the same name as Awzal, the ancient name of San'a, capital of El-Yemen. (g.) Diklah, (h.) Obal, (i.) Abimael, not traced.
(j.) Sheba is the same name as the Arabic Sebh, the old kingdomn of El-Yemen. The mentions in the Bible of the kingdom of Sheba point towards Arabia, amid the Arabic indication thus fixes the position of Joktanite Sheba in the south.
(k.) Ophir, perhaps traced in Southern Arabia.
(l.) Havilab, as already remarked under the head of the Cushite Havilab, may indicate a mixture of Cushite and Joktanite settlers in Arabia.
(m.) Jobab, not certainly identified.
4. Lud has been compared to Lydus, the traditional ancestor of the Lydians. The Shemitic character of the Lydian civilization is confirmatory of this view. The Egyptian monuments of the empire mention a powerful Asiatic people of Shemitic type, apparently living not far from Mesopotamia, called RUTEN or LUDEN. It is possible that the Lydians may have migrated into Asia Minor after the time of the Egyptian empire, or that there may have been two Lydian settlements. It is not clear whether the Lud or Ludini of later places of Scripture were of this stock, or the same as the Alizraite Ludim, as already remarked.
5. Aram is, in later places, the geographical designation of Syria, though the term is not of the same extent as our Syria. We read of Aram- namharaimm, "Aram of the two rivers," either Mesopotamacia, according to the general opinion, or the country of the Orontes and Leontes, of Padan-Aram, perhaps a part of the same tract, or another name for it; and also of Arama-Zobah, Aram-Bath-rehob, Aram-Maachah, and Aram- Dammesek, or Syria of Damascus, all kingdoms in the country Aram (q.v.).
a. Uz. Mention is made of "the land of Uz"-in the book of Job, where other indications seem to point to the north of Arabia.
b. Hul, and,
c. Gether, are not identified;
d. Mash is but conjecturally traced in Mesene, in Lower Babylonia, or Mons Masius, at the north of Mesopotauinia.
VII. Results. — These are twofold:
I. Caucasian. I. Shemitic (as Hebrew). 1. White (as Greek). II. Iranian (Greek). 2. Tawny (Arab). III. Barbaric. 3. Brown (Abyssinian). 1. Egyptian. II. Lower Nilotic (Egyptian). 2. Nigritian. III. Nigritian (Negro). 3. Tatar. IV. Tatar (Chinese).
In the table which follows, the first column gives those names from Genesis 10 for which there are highly probable geographical identifications; the second column states these identifications; the third contains ethnological evidence from Egyptian (Eg.), Assyrian (As.), or other. sources; the fourth exhibits the like philological evidence.
From this evidence we may draw the followimeg inferences on several important points:
1. Order of Names. — The Japhethites seem to be placed first, as the most distant nations. In the list of the Hamites, the southern, and, therefore, most distamnt Cushites, are arranged from west to east, Seba (Meroe) being followed by Raamah (in Arabia), and the series closing with Nimrod, who ruled in Babylonia and Assyria. North of Cush is Mizrain, in the enumeration of whose tribes the western Lehabinin (Libyans) are followed after an interval by the easternmost Philistim, apparently the only Mizraites of Palestine. The list of the Canaanites begins with Sidon, the Phoenicians of the sea-coast north of the Philistines; then mentions under Heth the Hittites, perhaps on account of their southern settlement, and, going northwards, enumerates tribes near Lebanon, closing with the Syrian Hamathites. The Shemitic tribes begin in the east, extending regularly from Susiana to Arabia, and then ascending to Syria. Lud may be an exception, but, as we have seen, the Lydians may primeavally have been settled near Syria, otherwise Lud may be mentioned between the Arabs and Aram as, an outlying Shenaitic tribe, to be spoken of before the enumeration of those nearest Palestine.
2. Race. — All the names identified with a high degree of probability are, with six exceptions, of Caucasian nations. The exceptions are: three certainly of the Lower Nilotic race, which is intermediate between the Caucasian and Nigritian races, showing strong traits of both, a fourth probably of the same race, and two others which require more particular investigation. Cush, in ancient Egyptian, applies to Nigritians, for the race of KISH is represented on the Egyptian monuments as of the most marked Nigritian type: the kings and other royal personages of Merohi, and the Ethiopians of rank under them, are, however, represented on their monuments as similar to the Lower Nilotic race. This suggests that Cush may indicate a country mainly peopled by Nigritians, yet with a governing mixed race. The remaining exception is the case of the Hittites, who are represented on the Egyptian monuments as of two types — the one Caucasian. the other apparently Tatar. This may show that two different races were ruled by those Hittite kings with whom the Pharaohs warred, as Og, the king of Bashan, was a Rephaite, not an Amorite.
3. Language. — The languages are all Iranian or Shemitic, with three exceptions. Egyptian, occurring twice in our table, has a monosyllabic barbaric vocabulary, with an amalgamate Shemitic grammar. Here, therefore, as in race, there is a departure from the unmixed type. To Cush we have conjecturally assigned a barbaric Niriitian language, because the names of Ethiopian tribes conquered by the Egyptians, and of Ethiopian sovereigns of later times, are not readily traceable to either an Egyptian or a Shemitic source; but we cannot say certainly that a Shemitic element is wholly wanting in the languages to which these words belong.
The order indicates that the intention of the list is partly geographical. In the detail of each division the settlements of races are probably indicated rather in the order of position than of ancestral relationship;, though the principle of relationship is never departed from, as far as we can see.
4. Date. — The list of Genesis 10 contains certain statements which may now be examined, in order to infer the date to which the document refers. It is said, "Afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad" (Ge 10:18); which may indicate the formation of the great Hittite settlement in the valley of the Orontes, or other like extensions. In any case it points to an event, or series of events almost certainly prior to the establishment of the Israelites in Palestine. So, too, the definition of the otherwise unknown Resen, as "the great city" (Ge 10:12), indicates a period anterior to that of the kings who ruled at Asshur (Kal'ah Sherghat) and Calah (Nimrud), the earliest of whom is placed about B.C. 1270. At the time of the Egyptian empire the capital appears to have been Nineveh, "and the date of the list would therefore be anterior to that time, or at least to the reign of Thothmes III, to whom it was tributary about 1450 B.C. It would appear, therefore, that the list was either written or put into its present form not long after, or at the time of Moses if not earlier, and that it refers to a yet earlier period — that of the first spread of the Noachians.
VIII. Omissions. — The nations omitted in the list must now be noticed, as far as they seem to be of a like hi oh antiquity. In Deuteronomy 2 there is mention of several tribes or nations which had been destroyed by other tribes or nations who reached Palestine or its neighborhood before the Israelitish occupation. Certain of these are called Rephaim, others not. The particulars are as follows, as far as they relate to our present subject:
1. Emim Rephaim, succeeded by Moabites (De 2:9-11).
2. Horim, succeeded by Edomites (verses 12, 22).
3. Zamzummim, elsewhere called Zuzi in (Ge 14:5), Rephaim, succeeded byAmmonites (De 2:19-21).
4. Avim, succeeded by Caphtorim, that is, Philistines (verse 23).
5. Anakim, here mentioned as Rephaim (verses 10, 21) still occupying the south of Palestine at the time when the Israelites entered it.
The Avim were probably also a Rephaite nation, for as late as David's time giants were found among the Philistines. Elsewhere in Palestine the Israelites seem to have found, besides "the three sons of Anak," or the Anaekim of Hebron, Og, the king of Bashan, who "remained of the remnant of Rephaim" (2:11), a man of gigantic stature. The position of these Rephaim is that of a few powerful chiefs among the Canaanites and Philistines, representing tribes destroyed by Hebrews, the only exceptional case being that of the Philistines, if, as we suppose, the Avim were Rephaim, for in that case the former must have first attacked , but ultimately changing their policy, abstained from annihilating the older population.
At an earlier time we find a very different condition of the country. The powerful confederacy of which (Chedorlaomaer as chief, attacked and conquered, besides the kings of the cities of the plain, the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horim, Amalekites, and Amorites. Here the Canaanites occupy a very inferior position in the south and east of Palestine, but one Canaanitish nation being mentioned, and besides undoubted Rephaites, the Horim probably of the same stock, and the ancient and pedigreeless nation of Amalek.
We thus find an indication of an old population of Palestine distinct from both Canaanites and Hebrews, and especially remarkable for their great height. That they were in race still more remote from their successors than has usually been held, has been argued from the Anakim's being spoken of as "of the Nephilim" (Nu 14:33), the term applied to the giants before the Flood, where it is said "the Nephilim were in the earth in those days" (Ge 6:4). On this subject, compare Poole, The Genesis of the Earth and of Man, 2d ed. pages 80-82, 284, 285, where it is maintained that the Nephilim were a pre-Adamite race.
IX. Literature. — Bochart, Phaleg et Canaan, sive Geographia Sacra (Cadomi. 1646); Michaelis, Spicilegiuna Geographiae exterae Hebrmorena (Gotting. 1769, 1780); Forster, Epistolae ad J.D. Michaelem (Gotting. 1772); Volney, Recherches nouvelles (Paris, 1814), chapter 18; Feldhoff, Volkestafel der Genesis (Elberf. 1837); Hohlenberg, Comnaent. de cap. 10 Geneseos (Hafn. 1828); Eichhorn, De Cuscheis verisinailia (Amst. 1774); Krebs, De divisione Phalegria (Lips. 1750); Nagel, Commentatio exeget. in Ac 17:26 (Altd. 1740); Zacharih, Dissent. philol. in loc. und. (Hal. 1754); Schulthess, Das Paradies (Zier. 1816); Krucke, Erklar. d. Volkestatfeln in erst B. Moses (Bonn, 1837); Rosenmuller, Bibl. Alterthumsk. 1, 1:221 sq.; Knobel, Die Volkestafel der Genesis (Giess. 1850); Milhenhoff, in the Gotting. Anzeigen, 1851, page 17 sq.; Joseph 5: Gorres, Die Japhidem und ihr Auszug aus Armenien (Regensb. 1845); Beke, Origines Biblicae (Lond. 1884); Forster, Hist. Geography of Arabia (Lond. 1844); Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses (in Clarke's Library); Brace, Races of the Old World (N.Y. 1863). SEE DISPERSION OF MANKIND; SEE DIVISION OF THE EARTH; SEE MAN.