Full text of "The origin of nations. - On early civilizations: On ethnic affinities"

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

University of Toronto 



http://www.archive.org/details/originofnationsoOOrawl 



1 



THE 



ORIGIN OF NATIONS 

|n Wm parts 

ON EARLY CIVILIZATIONS 
ON ETHNIC AFFINITIES, Etc. 



By GEORGE RAWLINSON M.A. 

CAMDEN PBOFESSOB OF ANCIENT HISTORY, OXFOED. AND CANON OF CANTERBnRT 



NEW YORK: 

CHARLES SCRIBNERS' SONS, 

1883. 



GRANT, FAIRES 4 RODGERS, 

EUctrotyptrt ir* Printers, 

52 & 54 North Sixth Street, Philadelphia. 



PREFACE. 



The following Essays were contributed, as occasional 
papers, to The Leisure Hour, in the course of the 
years 1875 and 1876. They have now been collected 
and recast, at the instance of the Committee of the 
Religious Tract Society, in the hope that they may 
thereby obtain a permanency which the circum- 
stances of the case do not permit to our periodical 
literature. 

As attacks on the credibility of the Bible — 
more especially of the earlier books — are now 
frequently made, not merely upon scientific, but 
also upon historical grounds, it seemed desirable 
that one whose business it is to make himself 
acquainted with all the ascertained facts of Ancient 
History, should state his impressions with regard to 
the bearing of modern discoveries in the historical 
field upon the authenticity of the Scripture narrative. 
Such a statement the present writer made sixteen 

iii 



iv Preface. 

years ago in his contribution to the volume entitled 

" Aids to Faith," where he summed up his views in 

the words : — 

" There is really not a pretence for saying that recent discoveries 
in the field of history, monumental or other, have made the accept- 
ance of the Mosaic narrative in its plain and literal sense any 
more difficult now than in the days of Bossupt or Stillingfleet." 

In the interval between 1861 and 1877, much has 
been written in disproof of the above conclusion; 
and it has been the present writer's unpleasant duty 
to peruse the works as they appeared, and to weigh 
the arguments employed in them. Of these argu- 
ments two only seemed to him to require an answer. 
One based itself on the supposed historical certainty 
of a settled monarchy having existed in Egypt from 
at least B.C. 5000 — a fact, if it were a fact, incom- 
patible with the truth of the chronological notices of 
the Pentateuch. The other was more general. It 
asserted the very early existence of civilization in 
various parts of the world; and assuming the 
unproved hypothesis that man was originally an 
absolute savage, it required our acceptance of the 
belief that some such space as a hundred thousand 
years must have elapsed from the first beginnings 
of man to his development into his present civilized 
condition. The Essays on Civilization are directed 
against these two lines of reasoning. The author is 



Preface. v 

of opinion that there is no sufficient evidence of a 
settled monarchy in Egypt prior to about B.C. 2500 ; 
and he has endeavoured to set before the public the 
grounds of his belief on this point. He is further 
of opinion that civilization can nowhere be traced 
back to a date anterior to this, and has sought to 
prove his point by a general survey of the ancient 
civilizations. Finally, regarding it as a pure 
assumption that the primitive condition of mankind 
was one of savagery, he has endeavoured to show 
cause in favour of the opposite hypothesis^ that 
man's primitive condition was one very remote 
indeed from savagery, and containing many of the 
elements of what is now termed civilization. 

The Essays on the Ethnology of Genesis are 
directed to a different point. One modern view of 
Biblical Inspiration is to the effect, that while the 
writers of Scripture are to be held as infallible 
guides in whatever relates to religion and morality, 
in all other matters they are to be considered as 
simply on a par with other men, equally limited in 
their knowledge, equally liable to error, not a whit 
superior to their contemporaries, or in advance of 
their age. The accordance of the ethnology of 
Genesis with the latest results of modern ethno- 
graphical science, seems to the present author to 
deal a rude blow to such a theory; and he has 



vi Jr'reJ'ace. 

therefore thought it worth while to exhibit this 
accordance at some length, in the hope of checking 
a view which he thinks disparaging to the Divine 
Word, and of leading those who hold it — often 
devoutly religious men — to a higher, and (as he 
believes) a truer theory of Inspiration — the theory 
most in accordance with the apostle's words — "All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Origen's 
argument has always seemed to him sound — that, 
if in the material world God has wrought every 
minutest part to a finish and a perfection the highest 
that it is possible to conceive, much more is it to be 
believed that, in the far more important treasure of 
His AVord, He has left nothing incomplete, but 
has given to every jot and tittle His full care, the 
utmost perfection of which it was capable, so that 
the whole is designed, and is the utterance to man 
of Absolute Wisdom. 



CAXTEEBrRY : 

October, 1877. 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 
EARLY CIVILIZATIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Introduoti on. 

PAOZ. 

Theory of man's original savagery unproved — Connection of 
the theory with unproved hypothesis of evolution — Ap- 
peal to history — Two movements possible, progressive 
and retrograde— -Examples of each — Possible decline 
from high civilization to extreme savagery proved oy the 
case of the Weddas — The Hebrew account of primeval 
man makes him no savage — General tradition of a 
"golden age" in the remotest times — "Golden age" 
of the Zendavesta, of the Chinese, the Mexicans and 
Peruvians, the Greeks — No trace of savagery as preced 
ing civilization in Egypt — Early but incomplete civiliza- 
tion of Babylon — Question raised as to the probable date 
of the earliest civilization in these countries 1 

CHAPTER II. 

On the Antiquity of Civilization in Eotpt. 

Recent assertions with respect to the extreme antiquity 
of civilization in Egypt — Assertions conflicting — Great 
diversity of views upon the subject among historians and 

vii 



viii Contents. 



PAOS. 



Egyptologists — Three points proposed for consideration : 
I. Extent of the diversity ; Views of Mariette, Brugsch, 
Lepsius, Bunsen, Stuart Poole, and Wilkinson : Tabular 
exposition of the amount of difiFerence. II. Causes of 
the diversity: (1) No monumental chronology; (2) 
Chronology of Manetho uncertain, as containing (a) 
contemporary dynasties, (b) differently reported numbers. 
Ill, Reasons for preferring the shorter chronology of 
Stuart Poole and Wilkinson — Possible further reduction. 17 



CHAPTER III. 

On the Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 

High antiquity claimed for Babylonian civilization by some 
■writers — View of Bunsen — W^ant of foundation for this 
view — Classical date for the foundation of Babylon, b.c. 
2230 — Views of Berosus agree nearly — Septuagint date 
for the kingdom of Nimrod, B.C. 2u67 — Assyrian date of 
B.C. 2286 — General conclusion from the cuneiform in- 
scriptions and Berosus combined — From the inscriptions 
only — Character of the civilization — Architecture — Im- 
plements — Pottery— Writing — Engraving of hard stones 
- -Dresses — Progress made in the different arts unequal. 83 

CHAPTER rV. 

On the Date and Chabactek of Phoenician Civilization. 

Phoenician claim to have originated civilization — Claim dis- 
allowed — Yet the civilization was among the earliest — 
Indications of it in Homer— In Herodotus — In Scripture 
— Existing Phoenician remains — Phoenician glass — Phoe- 
nician dyes— Phoenician music — Chief glory of the Phoe- 
nicians, their invention of (exclusively) alphabetic writing 
— Spread of the writing — Date of Phoenician civilization 
— Of the founding of Tyre — of Sidon — All requirements 
satisfied by such a date as B.C. 1600 — 1500 48 



Contents. i? 

CHAPTER V. 

On the Civilizations of Asia Minor — Phktoia, Lydia, Lycia, 
THE Teoas. 

PAOI. 

Claim made by the Phrygians to an extreme antiquity — 
Their military power about b.c. 1300 — Character of their 
civilization — Period which it covers, from about B.C. 900 
to D.c. 565 — Antiquity of the Lydian monarchy — Ac- 
count of Herodotus — His third, or Mermnad dynasty — 
His second, or Heracleid dynasty — His first dynasty 
mythic — Lydian civilization not traceable further back 
than about B.C. 900-850 — Chief features of the civiliza- 
tion — Coinage — Trade — Glyptic Art — Tombs of the kings 
— Flourishing period of Lydia, from B.C. 850 to B.C. 550 
— Civilization of Lydia remarkable — Beauty of the sculp- 
tures — Indications of refinement — High position of 
women — Early civilization of the Troas — Character of 
the civilization as shown by recent excavations — Lead- 
ing features of Aryan civilization . . . .60 

CHAPTER VI. 

On the Civilizations of Central Asia — Assyria, Media anp 
Persia, India. 

Civilization in Central Asia — Supposed antiquity of the Assy- 
rian Empire — View of Ctesias — More moderate chrono- 
logy of Berosus and Herodotus — Cuneiform monuments 
fix about B.C. 1500 for commencement of Assyrian inde- 
pendence — Flourishing period begins B.C. 1300 — Gene- 
ral character of Assyrian civilization — Architecture — 
Sculpture — Minor Ornamental arts — First beginnings of 
Iranian civilization — Supposed date of Zoroaster — Ear- 
liest portions of Zendavesta not before B.C. 1500 — Char- 
acter of the early civilization — Fresh impulse received 
about B.C. 850 — Greatest development between B.C. 630 
and B.C. 450 — Leading features of the architecture and 
sculpture — Decoration of palaces — Literary cultivation 
— Habits of life — Indie civilization nearly coeval with 



ConteTits. 

PAOI. 

Iranic — Four periods of Sanskrit literature — Chrono- 
logy of the periods — Civilization begins about b.c. 1200 
— Character of the civilization as indicated by the Vedic 
writings 86 



CHAPTER VII. 

Op the Civilization of the Etbuscans. 

Etruria the source of early Roman civilization — Supposed 
date of the commencement of Etruscan power, b.c. 1000 
or even B.C. 1400 — Real date probably not before B.C. 
650 — Most flourishing period from b.c. 620 to B.C. 600 
— Character of Etruscan civilization — Architecture — Its 
massiveness — Walls — Towers — Gateways — Sewers — 
Vaults — Tombs — .^Esthetic art — Statues — Bas-reliefs — 
Paintings — Bronzes generally — Candelabra — Engraved 
mirrors — Vases — Figures in clay — Etruscan music — 
General mode of life — Higher elements of civilization 
wanting — Characteristics of the government — Low mo- 
rality — Small progress in science and literature ... 110 



CHAPTER VIII. 

On the Civilization of the British Celts. 

Supposed high antiquity of Celtic civilization in Britain — 
Contradicted by Caesar, Strabo, Diodorus, and others — 
Account given by Caesar — Accounts of Diodorus and 
Strabo — Accounts of Tacitus — Theory that the civilized 
Celts were those of the interior contradicted by Caesar — 
Conclusions of archaeologists on the subject — Monuments 
of the Celtic period — Cromlechs — Pottery — Tools and 
implements — Druids' circles — Stonehenge and Avebury 
— Amount of mechanical skill implied in these works not 
great — No astronomical knowledge implied in them 
— Low character of the Celtic civilizatiou before the 
Roman invasion 132 



Contents. xl 

CHAPTER IX. 
Results of the Inquikt. 

PAQI 

General agreement in a modern chronology, except in the 
single case of Egypt — Extraordinary contrast — Question 
one to be decided by evidence — Overwhelming evidence 
needed to establish very improbable conclusions — Extreme 
improbability of Egypt having been the only civilized 
country for two thousand years — Consideration of the 
evidence — Defects of the monumental evidence — Contrsi- 
dictions — Incompleteness — Admissions made by Brugsch 
— Evidence of Manetho — Doubt whether he is correctly 
reported — Reasons why little reliance is to be placed on 
his numbers (a) as reported ; (b) as originally set forth 
Mistakes of Manetho — Absurdity of his general scheme 
— Recapitulation of conclusions — Their harmony with 
the chronology of the Septuagint — Tabular view of the 
chief conclusions arrived at 147 



PART II. 
ETHNIC AFFINITIES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. 



CHAPTER I. 

The Chief Japhetic Races. 

The genealogies of Scripture generally regarded as uninte- 
resting — Their real importance — Special interest of those 
in the 10th chapter of Genesis — The names in the lists 
ethnic rather than personal — The chapter an " ethno- 
graphical essay" — Descendants of Japheth : Gomer, or the 
Cimmerians (Cymry) ; Magog, or the Scythians ; Madai, 
or the Medes ; Javan, or the Greeks (lonians) ; Meshbch 



xii CkmtaUs. 

and Tubal, or the Moschi and Tibareni ; Tiras, or tlie 
Thracians — Summary — Comparison of these statenicntj 
with the views of modern ethnologists — Identity of the 
Mosaic names with the chief divisions of the Indo- 
European race 165 

CHAPTER II. 

Subdivisions of the Japhetic Races, Gomer asd Jatan. 

Comparative obscurity of the minor details in the Mosaic 
genealogies — Subdivisions of Gomer and Javan — 1. Of 
Gomer, three: Ashkenaz, an unknown race; Riphath, 
also unknown ; Tooarmah, or " people of Armenia " — 2. 
Of Javan, four : Elishah, or ^olian Greeks ; Tarshish, 
or people of Tarsus in Cilicia; Kittim, or Greeks of 
Cyprus ; Rodaxim, or Rhodians — Impossibility of deter- 
mining why two only of the Japhetic races are subdivided 
— Importance of the principle of subdivision — Geographic 
position of the Japhetic races 180 



CHAPTER III. 

The Chie? Hamitic Races. 

Races descended from Ham : Cush, Mizrahn, Phut, and 
Canaan — CrsH represents the Ethiopians — Mizraim, the 
people of Egypt — Phut, probably the "Pet" of the 
hieroglyphical inscriptions, a people of Nubia — Canaan, 
the ancient people of Syria and Palestine — Geographical 
proximity of these races — Modern ethnology undecided in 
its view of them — Mixed character of the Egyptian lan- 
guage — Language of the Ethiopians only to be guessed 
from that of the purer tribes of Abyssinians — The 
Canaanites generally regarded as Semitic — Grounds of 
this belief examined — Nothing really known of the 
Canaanite language — General conclusions negative 
rather than positive 192 



CoTdents. xiii 

CHAPTER IV. 

Subdivision of Cush. 

Principal Cushite races, according to Genesis — Shbba, or the 
people of Meroe — Havilah, or the people of Khawlan, in 

Arabia Sabtah, or the people of Sabota, the capital of 

Hadramaut— Raama, Sheba, and Dedan, or the Arab 
tribes of the south-east — Sabtechah, a race not identified 
—Geographic position of these tribes and races— Ethno- 
logical inquiry shows two races in Arabia, a northern 
and a southern— The southern race Cushite— Meaning 
of the phrase '-Cush begat Nimrod "—Geographical 
position of Nimrod' s kingdom— View of the late Baron 
Bunsen— Cushite character of the early Babylonians 
proved by Sir H. Rawlinson— General result 204 

CHAPTER V. 

Subdivisions of Mizbaim and Canaan. 

Races of Egyptian descent— Ludim, an unknown people— 
Anamim, also unknown — Lehabim, or Libyans— Naph- 
TUHiM, or Na-Petu — Pathrusim, or people of Phatu- 
rite nome — Casluhim, an unknown people — Philistim, 
the Philistines — Caphtorim, the people of Coptos — 
Nothing known ethnologically of the Na-Petu — Probable 
resemblance of the Philistines to the Egyptians — Grounds 
for regarding the Libyans as " cognate " to the Egyp- 
tians — Descendants of Canaan— Supposed Semitic cha- 
racter of some disproved 215 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Semitic Races. 

Races descended from Shem— Why placed last— Eber, or the 
Hebrews— Elam, the people of Elymais— Asshub, or 
the Assyrians-AuPHAXAD, supposed to be people of Arra- 
pachitis— LuD, the Luden or Ruten of the hieroglyphics 



xiv Contents. 

PAOI. 

— Aram, or the Syrians— Ethnic character of the Luden 
and of Elamites uncertain — Semitic character of 
Aramaic and Hebrew — The Assyrian language and 
physiognomy Semitic — Summary 228 



CHAPTER VII. 

On the Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 

Subdivisions of Aram — Uz or Huz, arace of Central Arabia — 
HuL and Gether, unknown — Mash, a wrong reading for 
Meshech — may designate the Syrian clement in Cappa- 
docia — Descendants of Arphaxad — Races descended from 
Joktan — Almodad, the Jurhum or Beni Mudad — She- 
LEPH, the Salapeni or Salaf — Hazarmaveth, the people of 
Hadramaut — Jekah, the people of Yerikh — Hadoram, 
uncertain — Uzal, the people of Sana in the Yemen — 
DiKL-iH, the people of Dakalah in the Yemen — Obal 
and Abimael, uncertain — Sheba, the Sabaeans — Ophir, 
the people of Aphar or Saphar — Havilah, the people of 
Khawldn — Jobab, perhaps the Jobarites of Ptolemy — 
All these races Arabian — Arabs predominantly Semitic 
— Geographical position of the Semites intermediate — 
Summary of the whole argument 240 

APPENDICES. 

I. Antiquity of EarpriAS Civilization, by Professor 

Owen, F.R.S 255 

II. The Avtiqcitt of the Chinese, by the Rev. Dr. 

Edkins, Pekin 262 

Index 273 



PART I. 



EARLY CIVILIZATIONS. 



THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS. 



PART I.— ON EARLY CIVILIZATIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION. f 

Theory of man's original savagery unproved — Connection of the 
theory with unproved hypothesis of evolution — Appeal to his- 
tory — Two movements possible, progressive and retrograde — 
Examples of each — Possible decline from high civilization to 
extreme savagery proved by the case of the Weddas — The 
Hebrew account of primeval man makes him no savage — Gene- 
ral tradition of a " golden age " in the remotest times — " Golden 
age" of the Zendavesta, of the Chinese, the Mexicans and 
Peruvians, the Greeks — No trace of savagery as preceding 
civilization in Egypt — Early but incomplete civilization of 
Babylon — Questions raised as to the probable date of the earliest 
civilization in these countries. 

TT is commonly assumed at the present day that 
-*- civilization is a plant of slow and gradual 
growth, which developed itself by degrees in the 
course of ages, and which belongs consequently to 
a comparatively late period of the world's history. 
The " primeval savage " is a familiar idea ; and the 
so-called "science" of the day is never tired of 



2 Eai'iy Civitizatioiia. 

presenting before us the primitive race of man as 
only a little removed from the brutes, devoid of 
knowledge, devoid of art, devoid of language, a 
creature in few respects elevated above, and in many 
sunk below, the anthropoid apes, from whom it is 
held that he derived his descent by way of evolution. 
Occasionally, indeed, a confession is made — paren- 
thetically and by the way — that there is no proof 
of this supposed priority of savagery to any form 
of civilization ;* and it is admitted to be ques- 
tionable which of the two preceded the other. But 
this confession, hurriedly uttered and hastily slurred 
over in most cases, makes little impression on the 
public niipd, and the belief is general that in some 
M^ay or other science has proved that the first 
men who inhabited the earth were savages, and that 
there was no civilization till a comparatively recent 
period. 

But the question is one which is really quite an 
open one ; it is one on which natural science is quite 
incompetent to pronounce a judgment, and on which 
historical research has not hitherto decided in either 
Way. Natural science, of course, if it assumes the 
doctrine of evolution and applies that doctrine to 
man, must give the precedence to savagery, which is 

* Such a confession was made by Mr. Pengelly at the meeting 
of the British Association (Bristol, Aug. 1875), but I saw no 
notice taken of it in the newspapers. Sir Charles Lyell admitted 
in, I think, his latest work, that " we have no distinct geological 
evidence that the appearance of what are called the inferior races 
of mankind has always preceded in chronological order that of 
the higher races." — " Antiquity of Man," p. 90. 



Introduction. 3 

manifestly more congenial than civilization to the 
anthropoid ape. But if the doctrine of evolution is 
recognized as a mere hypothesis, one out of many 
theories as to the mode in which things that are have 
been brought into the state in which they are, and a 
theory which lacks altogether any confirmation from 
fact, then science has to confess that she can give no 
decision on the point in question, but must leave it 
to the judgment of those who are familiar with 
historic facts. 

Now, historic facts show that either of two move- 
ments is possible. Man can and does often, perhaps 
most usually, pass from the savage into the civilized 
condition. We have numerous instances of this 
transition, which we can follow step by step, and put 
(as it were) under a metaphysical microscope. We 
see the Greek pass from the simple, semi-savage state 
described by Homer to the condition of high civili- 
zation placed before us by Thucydides and Xenophon. 
We see the Romans gradually exchange the robber 
life of the eighth century B.C. for the splendour 
of the Augustan age, or the paler but J)urer ra- 
diance of the court of the Antonines. In later 
times, we observe the Arab hordes, issuing from the 
desert unkempt and almost naked, with no literature 
but the confused jumble known as the Koran, no arts 
but those of forging iron and weaving a coarse cloth ; 
and we trace their progress from this rude condition 
to the glories of the Baghdad caliphate and the mag- 
nificence of Granada. All over Western Europe we 
see the barbarous races which overran and crushed 



4 Early Civilizations. 

the Roman empire settling down into a less wild and 
savage life, adopting the arts as well as the religion 
of the conquered, and gradually emulating or sur- 
passing the civilization which at their first coming 
they destroyed. In our own time, and before our 
eyes, a civilizing process is going on in Russia and 
in Turkey; serfdom disappears; nomadic tribes be- 
come settled ; the arts, the habits, even the dress, of 
neighbouring nations, are in course of adoption ; and 
the Muscovite and Turkic hordes are becoming scarce 
distinguishable from other Europeans. 

But, while this is the more ordinary process, or at 
any rate the one which most catches the eye when it 
roves at large over the historic field, there are not 
wanting indications that the process is occasionally 
/reversed. Herodotus tells us of the Geloni,* a Greek 
people, who, having been expelled from the cities on 
the northern coast of the Euxine, had retired into 
the interior, and there lived in wooden huts, and 
spoke a language " half Greek, half Scythian." By 
the time of Mela this people had become completely 
barbarous, and used the skins of those slain by them 
in battle as coverings for themselves and their 
horses.f A gradual degradation of the Greco-Bac- 
trian people is apparent in the series of their coins, 
which is extant, and which has been carefully edited 
by the late Professor H. H. Wilson| and by Major 

* Herod, iv. 108. 

f Pomp. Mel. ii. 1. " Geloni hostium cutibus, equos seque 
velant, illos reliqui corporis, se capitum." Compare Solinus, 
"Polyhist." § 20, and Amm. Marc. xxxi. 2. 

j: See his " Ariana Autiqua. Plates. 



Introduction. 5 

Cunningham.* We trace a certain degeneration in 
the Jews of the post-Babylonian period, if we com- 
pare them with their compatriots from the accession 
of David to the captivity of Zedekiah. The modern 
Copts are very degraded descendants of the ancient 
Egyptians, and the Roumans of Wallachia have 
fallen away very considerably from the level of the 
Dacian colonists of Trajan. In America, both North 
and South, the modern descendants of the Spanish 
conquerors are poor representatives of the Castilian 
gentlemen who, under Cortez and Pizarro, made 
themselves masters of the Mexican and Peruvian 
kingdoms, and introduced into the new world the 
time-honoured civilization of the old. 

Civilization, as is evident from these and various 
other instances, is liable to decay, to wane, to dete- 
riorate, to proceed from bad to worse, and in course 
of time to sink to so low a level that the question 
occurs. Is it civilization any longer? But still, 
perhaps, a doubt may be entertained whether the 
relapse can be complete — whether, that is to say, 
any people which has once participated in a high 
civilization can ever under any circumstances be 
reduced to absolute savagery. In most of the cases 
that have been quoted, while a certain deterioration 
has taken place, the end has not been actual savagery 
or barbarism, but rather a low and degraded form of 
civilization, retaining traces of something higher, 
and considerably raised above the condition of the 

* " Numism. Chron." New Series, vols. viii. and ix. 



6 Early Civilizations. 

absolute savage. Are there any eases, it may be 
asked, where the degradation has proceeded beyond 
this, where a civilized race has lapsed into complete 
and absolute barbarism ? 

Now, it is exceedingly diflficult — it is almost, if 
not quite, impossible — to trace such cases. So long 
as contact with civilization remains, the degeneration 
will not be extreme. Savagery can only be reached 
where there is a complete separation from civilized 
mankind, and at the same time such a condition of 
the physical circumstances as demands the concen- 
tration of all mental power on efforts to support life. 
But in such cases there is, of course, no record. The 
race, tribe, nation has passed beyond the ken of its 
civilized neighbors, and has no time to spare for 
recording its ovra history. It loses all knowledge of 
the past, all power of noting events ; and if, in after 
time, it is so bold as to venture an account of its 
•" Origines," the narrative is ev^olved from the inner 
consciousness — is pure fancy, and has no claim to be 
regarded as even built on any historical foundation. 
Complete and continuous historical evidence, there- 
fore, of such a degeneration as we are now speaking 
of is not to be looked for ; and we must be content 
to accept as sufficient proof of what is so difficult 
to be proved evidence of a lower kind. Xow, Com- 
parative Philology does present to us cases where 
there is reason to presume an original participation 
in a high civilization, though the present condition of 
the race is almost the lowest conceivable. 

An instance of this kind is furnished by the very 



Introduction. 7 

curious race still existing in Ceylon, and known as 
the " Weddas." The best comparative philologists 
pronounce the language of the Weddas to be a de- 
based descendant of the most elaborate and earliest 
known form of Aryan speech — the Sanskrit ; and the 
Weddas are on this ground believed to be degenerate 
descendants of the Sanskritic Aryans who conquered 
India. If this be indeed so, it is difficult to conceive 
of a degeneration which could be more complete. 
The Sanskritic Aryans must, by their language and 
literature, have been, at the time of their conquest, 
in a fairly advanced stage of civilization. The 
Weddas are savages of a type than which it is 
scarcely possible to conceive anything more debased. 
Their language is limited to some few hundred 
vocables ; they cannot count beyond two or three ; 
they have, of course, no idea of letters ; they have 
domesticated no animal but the dog ; they have no 
arts beyond the power of making bows and arrows, 
and constructing huts of a very rude kind ; they are 
said to have no idea of God, and scarcely any 
memory. They with difficulty obtain a subsistence 
by means of the bow, and are continually dwindling, 
and threaten to become extinct. In height they 
rarely exceed five feet, and are thus degenerate both 
physically and intellectually.* 

Thus, on the whole, there would seem to be 

* See "Report of the British Association for the Advancement 
of Science for the year 1875," part iii. p. 175, where an abstract 
is given of a paper on the Weddas, by Mr. B. F. Hartshorne, which 
I had the pleasure of hearing read. 



8 Early Civilizations. 

grounds for believing, broadly, that savagery and 
civilization, the two opposite poles of our social con- 
dition, are states between which men oscillate freely, 
passing from either to the other with almost equal 
ease, according to the external circumstances where- 
with they are surrounded. If the circumstances 
become ameliorated, if life becomes less of a struggle, 
if leisure be obtained, civilization (as a general rule) 
grows up ; if these conditions are reversed, if the 
struggle for existence tends to occupy the whole 
attention of each man, civilization disappears, the 
community becomes barbarized, and the savage con- 
dition is reached. 

What, then, does history say as to the priority 
of the one state or the other ? History, no doubt 
shows abundant instances of improvement, of an 
advance from a comparatively low condition to a 
higher one, of civilization developing itself out of a 
savage or a semi-savage state, and gradually pro- 
gressing until it arrives at a sort of ^uasj-perfection. 
But what does the earliest historj- say as to the 
earliest condition of mankind ? Does it accord with 
the bulk of those who write the accounts, now so 
common, of " prehistoric man ? " Does it make the 
" primeval man " a savage, or something very re- 
mote from a savage ? To us it seems that, so far 
as the voice of history speaks at all, it ls in favour 
of a primitive race of men, not indeed equipped with 
all the arts and appliances of our modern ci\aliza- 
tion, but substantially civilized, possessing language, 
thought, intelligence, conscious of a Divine Being, 



Introduction. 9 

quick to form the conception of tools, and to frame 
them as it needed them, early developing many of 
the useful and elegant arts, and only sinking by 
degrees, and under peculiar circimistances, into the 
savage condition. 

In proof of this we shall allege, first and foremost, 
that sacred record which is, even humanly speaking, 
one of the most valuable fragments of antiquity 
that has come down to us — the opening section of 
Genesis, chapters i. to v. In this we find our first 
parents represented much as Milton has drawn 
them : — 

" Two of far nobler shape, erect and tall, 
Godlike erect, with naked honour clad 
In naked majesty, seemed lords of all; 
And worthy seemed ; for in their looks divine 
The image of their glorious Maker shone. 
Truth, wisdom, sanctitude, severe and pure ; 
Severe, but in true filial freedom placed ; 
Whence true authority in men." 

No savages are this simple pair, but clever, intel- 
ligent, quick to invent, able to sew themselveh coats 
on the first perception of the need of them (Gen. iii. 7), 
able during their innocence to enjoy high converse 
with God and with each other, able to suggest to 
their children the two chief modes of life by which 
subsistence is readily procured in simple times, the 
pastoral and the agricultural. No gradual working 
onward, with toil and pain, from the life of the 
hunter to that of the shepherd, and from the life of 
the shepherd to that of the cultivator, is set before 
us — the two sons first born to the first man are re- 



10 Early Civilizations. 

spectively "a tiller of the ground" and "a keeper 
of sheep " (Gen. iv. 2). Again, the primeval race 
does not find a shelter in hollow trees or in caverns, 
neither does it burrow under ground, like some 
tribes of Africans. The eldest son of the first man 
"builded a city" (Gen. iv. 17) — not, of course, a 
Nineveh or a Babylon, but still C^) a cit\' — a collec- 
tion of habitations, permanent and fixed, fitted toge- 
ther by human skill, a sufficient protection against 
extremes of heat and cold, or against storms and 
rainy weather. Later, not earlier than this, the 
tent is invented (Gen. iv. 20), and then, while the 
first man is still alive, instrumental music comes 
into being ; the harp and flute are framed by skilful 
hands (Gen. iv. 21), and the pastoral life is enlivened 
by the charms of melody. Copper and iron are 
smelted at the same period (Gen. iv. 22), and a race 
of artificers in metal grows up, which produces tools 
and weapons of war, perhaps also works of artistic 
beaut^^. 

Such is the account given in one of the earliest 
historical records that has come down to us — a record 
whose historical value is not diminished by the fact 
that, according to the general belief of the Jewish 
and Christian worlds, it is inspired. AVe proceed to 
consider whether this record is in accordance, or not, 
with such other historical evidence as exists upon the 
point in question. 

Xow, it will scarcely be denied that the mythical 
traditions of almost all nations place at the begin- 
ning of human history a time of happiness and per- 



Introduction, 11 

fection, a "golden age," which has no features 
of savagery or barbarism, but many of civilization 
and refinement. In the Zendavesta, Yima-khshaeta 
(Jemshid), the first Aryan king, after reigning for a 
time in the original Aryanem vaejo, removes with his 
subjects to a secluded spot, where both he and they 
enjoy uninterrupted happiness. In this place " was 
neither overbearing nor mean-spiriteduess, neither 
stupidity nor violence, neither poverty nor deceit, 
neither puniness nor deformity, neither huge teeth, 
nor bodies beyond the usual measure." * The in- 
habitants suffered no defilement from the evil spirit. 
They dwelt amid odoriferous trees and golden pillars; 
their cattle were the largest, best, and most beautiful 
on the earth ; they were themselves a tall and beau- 
tiful race; their food was ambrosial, and never failed 
them.t The Chinese speak t of a " first heaven," an 
age of innocence, when " the whole creation enjoyed 
a state of happiness ; when everything was beautiful, 
everything was good; all beings were perfect in 
their kind." Mexican tradition tells of the "golden 
age of Tezeuco;"§ and Peruvian history commences 
with two " Children of the Sun," who establish a 
civilized community on the borders of Lake Titicaca.|| 
The elegant imagination of the Greeks described the 
first age as follows : — 

* Vendidad, Fargard, ii. ? 29. 

f See the author's "Ancient Monarchies," vol. ii. p. 341, sec- 
ond edition. 

J Faber, " Horoe Mosaicse," ch. iv. p. 147. 
§ Prescott, "Conquest of Mexico," ch.vi. 
II Ibid. " Conquest of Peru, ch. i. p. 8. 



12 Early Civilizations. 

"The immortal gods, that tread the courts of heaven, 
First made a golden race of mortal men. 
Like gods they lived, with happy careless souls, 
From toil and pain exempt; nor on them crept 
Wretched old age, but all their life was passed 
In feasting, and their limbs no changes knew. 
Nought evil came them nigh ; and, when they died, 
'Twas but as if they were o'ercome by sleep. 
All good things were their portion : the fat soil 
Bare them its fruit spoutaneous, fruit ungrudged 
And plentiful ; they at their own sweet will 
Pursued in peace the tasks that seemed them good, 
Laden with blessings, rich in flocks, and dear 
To the great gods."* 

Such is tlie voice which reaches us on all sides 
from that dim and twilight laud, where the mythical 
and historical seem to meet and blend together in- 
separably. Can we go at all beyond this ? Can we 
say that historj^ proper tells us anything upon the 
subject, or leans at all to one side of the question 
rather than the other ? 

It is plain that there are very few nations which 
even profess to have a history that goes back to the 
beginning of all things. Of the few which make 
such a profession, some, like the Chinese and the 
Hindoos, appear upon inquiry to do so without any 
valid ground, their real histories commencing not 
very long before the Christian era. Others may 
perhaps have more reason for the claims which they 
urge. Egypt and Babylonia have monuments to 
show which antedate probably all others upon the 
earth's surface. If real histoiy is to have anything 

* Hesiod, "Op. et Dies." 11. 109—120. 



Introduction. 13 

to say with regard to the problem before us, it is to 
Egypt and Babylonia that we must look for light 
upon this vexed question.* 

Now, in Egypt, it is notorious that there is no 
indication of any early period of savagery or bar- 
barism. All the authorities agree that, however far 
we go back, we find in Egypt no rude or uncivilized 
time out of which civilization is developed. Menes, 
the first king, changes the course of the Nile, makes 
a great reservoir, and builds the temple of Phthah 
at Memphis.f Athothis, or Tosorthmus, his son and 
successor, is the builder of the Memphite palace, and 
a physician, who wrote books on anatomy. | The 
Pyramid period falls very early in Egyptian history, 
but " the scenes depicted in the tombs of this epoch 
show that the Egyptians had already the same habits 

* The finding, by Dr. Schliemann and others, of traces of an 
earlier platform of life below the first civilization of Greece or Asia 
Minor, so far from proving the occurrence of a very long lapse of 
years, during ■which the same people slowly progressed from 
savagery into civilization, proves exactly the contrary. There 
was occupation by barbarians, the nomads or offshoots of popula- 
tion elsewhere, there may have been occupation by them for some 
considerable time, there was some improvement in the apparatus 
of life, but all this was superseded suddenly by the advent of more 
civilized conquerors, who in their turn occupied and flourished, 
and were again displaced, in one case by a less civilized com- 
munity, but usually by a people better armed and accoutred. The 
layers of monumental remains are successive, but not in the suc- 
cession of a single series but of successive displacements. There is 
no single case, in east or west, of a steady uninterrupted jwro^ress 
from barbarism to civilization, and therefore the theory of time 
proposed to be based on this has literally no foundation. 

t Herod, ii. 99. 

t Manetho ap. Euseb. " Chron. Can." i. 20, § 4. 



14 Early Civilizations. 

and arts as in after-times; and the hieroglyphics in 
the Great Pyramid prove that writing had been long 
in use. We see no primitive mode of life in Egypt; 
no bar})arons cnstoms; not even the habit, so slowly 
abandoned by all j^eople, of wearing arms when not 
on military service, nor any archaic art. . . In the 
tombs of the Pyramid period are represented the 
same foAvling and fishing scenes as occur later ; the 
rearing of cattle, and wild animals of the desert; the 
scribes using the same kind of reed for writing on 
the pap}Tus an inventory of the estate, which was 
to be presented to the owner ; the same boats, though 
rigged Avith a double mast instead of the single one 
of later times ; the same mode of preparing for the 
entertainment of guests ; the same introduction of 
music and dancing ; the same trades, as glass-blowers, 
cabinet-makers, and others ; as well as similar agri- 
cultural scenes, implements and granaries."* 

In Babylonia there is more indication of early- 
rudeness. The bricks of the most ancient buildings 
are coarsely made; the vases found in them are 
clumsy and irregular in shape ; and implements in 
flint and stone are not uncommon. But on the other 
hand there are not wanting signs of an advanced 
state of certain arts, even in the very earliest times, 
which denote a high degree of civilization, and con- 
trast most curiously with the indications of rudeness 
here spoken of. Among the objects recovered are 
the cylinder-seals of two monarchs who are among 

* Sir G. "Wilkinson in the author's " Herodotus," vol. ii. p. 291 
second edition. 



Introduction. 15 

the most ancient of the series ; and on these seals, 
which are of hard stone, very difficult to engrave, we 
have, in the first place, a primitive form of cuneiform 
writing; and secondly, elaborate representations of 
men wearing elegant flounced or fringed robes, and 
with crowns on their heads ; and in one case wc 
have a rc^esentation of an elegant chair or throne, 
the hind legs of which are modelled after the leg of 
an animal. Mechanical and artistic skill had thus, 
it is evident, reached a very surprising degree of 
excellence ; the engraving of hard stones, probably 
with steel and emery, was practised ; and writing 
was in constant and familiar use, at almost the very 
remotest period to which the Babylonian records 
carry us back.* 

A question of considerable interest presents itself 
with respect to these earliest forms of civilization — 
the most remote whereto history carries us back — 
viz.. What is their probable date ? Can we fix, 
definitely, or within certain limits, the chronology of 
Egypt and Babylon, or must such matters be left in 
the shadowy vagueness in which writers on " pre- 
historic man " love to indulge when they deal with 
the " Origines " of the human race ? We propose 
to examine this question in the next and following 
chapters ; and, if we are not mistaken, we shall be 

* See the author's "Ancient Monarchies," pp. 118, 119, first 
edition. To the cylinder there described — tliat of Urukh — may be 
added a more recent discovery, the signet of his son and successor, 
which has tliree well-drawn figures on it, together with twelve 
lines of cuneiform writing. 



16 Early Civilizations. 

able, without very much difficulty, to dispel an 
illusion, fostered by some' great names, that the 
present state of our historical knowledge requires 
an enormous expansion of the ordinarily accepted 
chronology — an expansion (as some suppose) of 4,000 
into 10,000, 15,000, or even 20,000 years.* Swne 
expansion of what has been called " the authorized 
chronology " — though it is not authorizea — may be 
necessary ; but such enlargements as have been pro- 
posed are, it is believed, excessive, there being no 
sufficient evidence to justify them, and the general 
results of historical inquiry up to the present time 
being such as to render them highly improbable. 

* See Bunsen, " Egypt's Place in Universal History," yoI. v. p. 103. 



CHAPTER II. 

ON THE ANTIQUITY OF CIVILIZATION IN EGYPT. 

Xlecent assertions with respect to the extreme antiquity of civili- 
zation in Egypt — Assertions contiicting — Great diversity of 
views upon the subject among historians and Egyptologists — 
Three points proposed for consideration : I. Extent of the 
diversity ; Views of Mariette, Brugsch, Lepsius, Bunsen, Stu- 
art Poole, and Wilkinson ; Tabular exposition of the amount 
of difference. II. Causes of the diversity : (1) No monumental 
chronology ; (2) Chronology of Manetho uncertain, as contain- 
ing (a) contemporary dynasties, (6) differently reported num- 
bers. III. Beasons for preferring the shorter chronology of 
Stuart Poole and Wilkinson — Possible further reduction. 

IN September, 1874, Professor Owen, speaking at 
the International Congress of Orientalists in 
London,* declared that the space of "7,000 years 
was but a brief period to be allotted to the earliest, 
the oldest civilized and governed community," that 
of Eg}'^t. In yeptember, 1875, Sir John Hawk- 
shaw, in his address to the British Association, at 
Bristol, t spoke, with more moderation, of the art of 
building in stone, as "having reached the greatest 
perfection in Egypt" (in the erection of the great 
pyramid) " 5,000 years ago." It is manifest that 
these statements are conflicting. The one would 
place the commencement of Egyptian civilization 

* See the "Times" of Sept. 21, 1874. 
t Ibid. Aug. 26, 1875. 

c 17 



18 Early Civilizations. 

about B.C. 5000; the other 1,500 years later. Even 
the latter estimate is, according to some writers, 
extravagant, being (as they think) as much as a 
thousand years in excess of the true date. 

Curious as such contradictions seem, and widely at 
variance with ordinary chronological notions as is 
the idea of an Egypt with a continuoiLs history reach- 
ing back ai the least 7,000 years, yet it must be 
confessed that the scientific men who make such 
statements upon platforms can quote in support 
of their views historians of eminence. A great 
diversity of o^iiuion does in fact exist among those 
who have devoted their main time and attention to 
the language and antiquities of Egypt, on the point 
of the real historical chronolog}' of the country ; and 
there are Egyptologists who maintain views not 
veiy different from those of Professor Owen. That 
there are others who advocate a very moderate 
Egyptian chronology is no less true \ and it would 
be as well perhaps if scientific men, when they touch 
the point, would mention the diversity of views 
existing with respect to it. They may, however, 
not always be aware of the fact, since their historical 
readmg must be limited, and they may thus un- 
consciously mislead the public. We hold it very 
important that the fact should be known ; and we 
propose therefore, in the present chapter, to place 
before our readers, first of all, a statement of the 
extent of the variation which exists in the views of 
first-rate Eg^-ptologists on the subject of the Anti- 
quity of Ci^^ization in Eg}^t. AVe shall thea 



Antiquity of Civilization in Egypt. 19 

endeavour to explain the grounds upon which the 
different writers base their views, and so to unfold 
the causes of the variation. Finally, we shall try to 
come to some conclusion upon the question, to which of 
the views probability, upon the whole, most inclines. 
I. A general consent on the part of almost all 
authors attaches the commencement of civilization 
in Egyjjt to the name of a certain M'na, Men, or 
Menes,* who is believed to have been the first king. 
The Greek writers and the Egyptian monuments 
agree in assigning to Menes this position, and 
consequently we may regard the inquiry upon 
which we are entering as equivalent to another, 
viz., " At what time did King Menes ascend the 
Egyptian throne ? " Now the earliest date which we 
find assigned by modern authors to this event is the 
year B.C. 5004. This is the date preferred by M. 
Mariette, " Director of the Service of Conservation 
of the Antiquities of Egypt," and founder, arranger, 
curator, and expositor of the Museum of Antiquities 
at Cairo. It has been adopted f in his " Manual of 
Ancient Oriental History," by M. Mariette's most 
distinguished follower, M. Fran5ois Lenormant, and 
is now generally taught in the schools of France, 
where M. Lenormant's work has been accepted as 
an educational handbook. The " 7,000 years " of 
Professor Owen is, we presume, produced by adding 

* M'na is a native form of tlie word; M^n, that used by 
Herodotus (ii. 99) ; Menes is found in Manetho (ap. Euseb. 
"Cliron. Can.," i. 20). 

f See the " Manual de I'Histoire Ancienne de 1' Orient," vol. i. 
p. 321. 



20 Early CivUizcUloTis. 

the date a.d. 1875 to b.c. 5004, and expressing the 
sum total by a round number. 

Dr. Brugseh, Dii-ector of the Maseum of Antiqui- 
ties at Berlin, and the author of a valuable " History 
of Egypt," placed in 1859 the accession of Menes in 
the year B.C. 4455, five centuries and a half later 
than the time assigned to it by MM. Lenormant and 
Mariette.* He has since (in 1875) corrected his 
date to B.C. 4400.t 

Dr. Lepsius in his "Chronologic der Egypter," 
published in 1849, gave the date of Menes as B.C. 
3892, while Baron Bunsen originally fixed his acces- 
sion to the year B.C. 3623. Subsequent researches 
and calculations induced the latter writer to modify 
his earlier views, and finally he gave, in the last 
volume of his " Egypt," X ^ the first of Menes the 
year b.c. 3059. 

Mr. Reginald Stuart Poole, head of the Numis- 
matic Depai'tment in the British Maseum, and a 
good hieroglyphic scholar, in his article on " Chro- 
nology/' written for the " Dictionary of the Bible " 
in 1860, gave the date of B.C. 2717 as that to which 
his calculations led him,§ at the same time admitting 

* " Histoire d'Egypte," p. 287. 

f See his second edition of the "Histoire d'Egypte" (Leipsic, 
1875), premiere livraison, p. 179. This statement depends in the 
main on the supposition that in Egypt the average length of a 
king's reign was 33J years, so that three reigns went to a century. 
Eut tlie real average duration of monarchs' reigns in the East 
does not exceed 20 years, so that Dr. Brugseh' s estimate is two- 
fifths in excess. 

X " Egypt's Place in Universal History," vol. v. p. 63. 

§ "Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 508. 



Antiquity of Civilization in Egypt. 



21 



the great uncertainty in which the whole subject of 
early Egyptian chronology was involved, and desir- 
ing that his numbers should be considered as merely 
approximate. 

Sir Gardner Wilkinson, who, on the whole, must 
be regarded as the greatest of English Egyptologers, 
declared, in the year 1862, that he agreed in the 
main with Mr. R. Stuart Poole,* but, slightly modify- 
ing some of his numbers, produced, as the approximate 
date of the accession of Menes, the year b. c. 2691. f 

These views all claim to be the results of original 
research, and have been put forward by persons 
(more or less) acquainted with the Egyptian monu- 
ments, and (more or less) competent to translate and 
expound the hieroglyphical inscriptions. Before 
proceeding to explain how it comes to be possible 
that such different views can be taken, it will, 
perhaps, help the reader to appreciate the diversity 
if we tabulate the views themselves, and express 
numerically their differences : — 

DATE FOR ACCESSION OF MENES. 





B.C. 


a . 
3g 


. 

Is 




3« 


aS, 

v u 


Mariette and Lenor- 














mant 


5004 








— 


— 


— 


Brugsch ..... 


4400 


604 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Lepsius 


3892 


nil 


508 


— 


— 


— 


Bunsen pearly view) 
Bunsen (later view) 


3623 


1381 


777 


260 


— 


— 


3059 


1945 


1341 


833 


— 


— 


Stuart Poole . . . 


2717 


2287 


1683 


1175 


342 


— 


G.Wilkinson . . . 


2691 


2313 


1719 


1201 


368 


26 



* Rawlinson's " Herodotus," vol. ii. p. 287, second edition, 
t Ibid, pp., 289, 290. 



22 Early OivUizatioTis. 

II. We have now to show how it has happened 
that these various writers, having all of them the 
same data, have been able to come to such very dif- 
ferent conclusions, conclasions which, as will be seen, 
differ in the extremest case by a period of above two 
thousand three hundred years ! 

1. Now the first cause of such a great diversity is 
the fact that the Egyptians themselves were without 
the chronological idea. Not only had they no era, 
but it was not their habit to enter into computations 
of time, or to trouble themselves with anything be- 
yond the consideration of the number of years that 
the existing " divinity " had sat upon the Egj^tian 
throne. In some few cases, where another divinity, 
incarnate Apis, was believed to have been present 
with them, they went so far, in noting his arrival 
and departure, as to mention in one connection the 
regnal years of two kings ; and from these notices 
— known as those of the Apis Stelce* — we sometimes 
obtain important results; but otherwise chronology 
is upon the Egyptian monuments almost non- 
existent. This is the unanimous confession of the 
Egyptologers. "The evidence of the monuments" 
in respect of the chronology, says Mr. R. Stuart 
Poole,t " is neither full nor explicit. " Chrono- 
logy," says Baron Bunsen,J "cannot be elicited 
from them." " The greatest obstacle," says M. 

* See M. Mariette's work, entitled, " Renseignements sur le3 
soixante-quatre Apis trouv^g au Sferap4iim," Paris, 1855. 
f " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 506, col. ii. 
J " Egypt's Place in Universal History," vol. i. p. 32. 



Antiquity of Civilization in Egypt. 23 

Mariettc,* " to the establishment of a regular Egyp- 
tian chronology is the circumstance that the Egyp- 
tians themselves never had any chronology at all!' 

2. In default of any general monumental scheme 
of Egyptian chronology, all attempts to construct 
such a scheme must have been abandoned had not a 
work been written by an Egyptian priest under the 
Ptolemies (ab. B.C., 280 — 250), of which certain ab- 
stracts have come down to us. Manetho, a priest of 
Sebenn}i;us, composed in Greek, under Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus, a history of Egypt which he professed to have 
taken from the archives preserved in the Egyptian 
temples. This work is lost, but abstracts of it have 
reached us in the writings of Eusebiusf and Syn- 
cellus, X and a few quotations in those of Joseph us, 
by means of which a good idea may be formed of its 
general character. It divided Egyptian history into 
three periods, which it called respectively the Old 
Empire, the Middle Empire, and the New Empire. 
To the first of these it assigned eleven dynasties ; 
to the second, six dynasties ; to the third, fourteen 
dynasties ; in all, thirty-one dynasties. It assigned 
to each dynasty a certain number of years, and (with- 
out perhaps distinctly stating that it was so §) pro- 

*As quoted by M. Lenormant (" Histoire Ancienne de 
rOrient," vol. i. p. 322. — " Le plus grand de tous les obstacles a 
retablissement d'une chronologie Egyptienne r^guli^re, c'est que 
les Egyptiens eux-me.mes n'ont jamais en de chronologic.") 

fSee Euseb., " Chron. Can.," i. 20. 

f Syncell., " Chronograph," pp. 55 — 78. 

I It is not at all clear that Manetho himself represented all his 
dynasties as consecutive. Neither Eusebius nor Africanus appears 
to have been in possession of his woi'k. So far as we can tell, all 



24 Early Civilizutioiia. 

duced the impression that the dynasties were conse- 
cutive, and formed a single continuous series. Had 
this been the case, the time which they had occupied 
would have been, according to Manetho's numbers, 
from 5,040 to 5,358 years,* and the commencement 
of the Old Empire would have fallen between B.C. 
5372 and B.C. 5678. 

Lists of kings, accompanied by regnal years, but 
unaccompanied by events, or accompanied only by 
very improbable events, as that one of them was 
carried off by a hippopotamas, and that under an- 
other the Nile flowed with honey for eleven days, f 
are not generally treated with much tenderness by 
modern historical critics, who are apt to consign the 
Assyrian and Median lists of Ctesias,]: the Sicyonian, 
Argive, Athenian, and early Macedonian lists of 

that tliey had before them was a Synopsis, or abstract. The 
opinion of Eusebius was distinctly that many of the dynasties 
were contemporary. " If the quantity of time is in excess," he 
says, " we must remember that there were, perhaps, at one and 
the same time, several kings in Egypt ; for we are told that the 
Thinites and Memphites reigned simultaneously, and likewise the 
Ethiopians and the Saites, and others also. Moreover, some 
seemed to have reigned in one place, some in another, each dy- 
nasty being confined to its own canton ; so that the several kings 
did not rule successively, but different kings reigned at the same 
time in different places."—'- Chron. Can.," i. 20, sec. 3. 

* Manetho's dynasty numbers, as given by Syncellus, pro- 
fessedly from Eusebius, produce a minimum of 5,040 years ; as 
reported in the Armenian Version of Eusebius, a minimum of 
5,207 years ; as reported by Eusebius from Africanus, they give 
5,358 years. 

f Manetho ap. Eusebium, " Chron. Can.," i. 20, sec. 4. 

X Ap. Syncell., " Chronograph.," pp. 96—165 ; and ap. Diod. 
Sic, ii. 32—34. , 



Antiquity of Oivilization in Egypt. 25 

Eusebiiis,* the Corinthian list of Dioclorus,t and the 
Albau list of Livy| to the historical waste-paper 
basket. Manetho has been made an exception to 
the general rule, on account of the fact that his lists 
accord to a great extent with those on the Egyptian 
monuments, and appear beyond any reasonable 
doubt to have been drawn from them. His kings 
are thus admitted on all hands to be — for the most 
part, at any rate — real personages, veritable men who 
held the royal dignity at some time or other in some 
part of Egypt. The question which alone divides 
historical critics, and which produces the existing 
diversity of opinion with respect to the duration 
of Egyptian civilization, is simply this — Were the 
dynasties of Manetho continuous, or were any of 
them contemporary ? If the latter, what deduction 
are we to make from his numbers on account of 
contemporaneousness ? 

One writer — and one only — has denied that any 
two of Manetho's thirty-one dynasties were contem- 
porary. " There were undoubtedly," says M. Mari- 
ette, "dynasties in Egypt which reigned simulta- 
neously ; but Manetho has rejected them, and has 
admitted none but those reckoned legitimate; the 
secondary dynasties are no longer in his lists" And 
again, " There is superabundant monumental proof 
collected by Egyptologers to show that all the royal 

* "Chron. Can.," i., 25, 27, 80, and 37. 
I Ap. Euseb., "Chron. Can.," i. 34. 

X Liv., i. 3. Compare Dionys. Hal. i., pp. 1G2— 179; Ovid, 
"Met.," xiv.609— G23; Eusebius, "Chron.Can.," ii., pp. 299-320. 



26 Early Civilizations. 

races enumerated by the priest of Sebennytus (Mane- 
tho) occupied tlie throne one after Vie other."* 

All other Egyptologers are of a different opinion. 
All believe that Manetho has not ■wholly eliminated 
from his list contemporar\' dynasties, but has, on the 
contrary', included them occasionally. The differ- 
ences between the various chronological schemes 
which we have already exhibited arise mainly from 
diversity of view as to the extent to which contem- 
porary dynasties are admitted. M. Lenorraant, in 
most respects the alter ego of M. Mariette, here, in 
this essential matter, deserts his master, and main- 
tains that Manetho's eleventh dynasty was contem- 
porary with his ninth and tenth, and his fourteenth 
dynasty contemporary with his thirteenth. f Dr. 
Brugsch makes the ninth and tenth dynasties 
contemporary with the eighth and eleventh ; the 
fourteenth with the thirteenth ; the seventeenth 
with the fifteenth, sixteenth, and part of the 
eighteenth ; and the twent^'-fifth with the end of 
the twents'-fourth and the besrinning; of the twents'- 
sixth.;}: Baron Bunsen advances a step beyond Dr. 
Brugsch ; he places the second, fifth, ninth, tenth, 
fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth in the list of 
collateral dynasties, regarding them as parallel to 
the third, the sixth, the eighth, and the fifteenth.§ 

* Quoted by Lenormant in his "HistoireAncienne de T Orient," 
vol. i. pp. 323, 324. 

f "Manuel de IHistoire Ancienne de I'Orient," vol. 1, pp. 
348, 358. j "Histoire de I'Egypte," pp. 47, 49, 72, 288. 

^ "Egypt's Place in Universal History," vol. ii. pp. 106, 208, 
239 ; and vol. iv. pp. 499, 500, 510—512. 



Antiquity of Civilization in Egypt. 27 

Finally, the English Egyptologers, Sir G. Wilkinson 
and Mr. \i. Stuart Poole, carry out the principle of 
contemporaneousness still further than Baron Bunsen. 
With them, the third dynasty is contemporary with 
the first ; the second with the fourth and fifth ; the 
ninth, tenth, and eleventh with the sixth ; the twelfth 
and thirteenth (at Thebes), the fourteenth (at Xois) ; 
and the three Shepherd dynasties, the fifteenth, six- 
teenth, and seventeenth, with the seventh and eighth 
(at Memphis).* 

Besides this main cause of difference in the chrono- 
logical schemes, there is a second arising from the 
uncertainty of Manetho's numbers, which are vari- 
ously reported by Eusebius and Africanus. f Eu- 
sebius gives the ninth dynasty 100 years, Africanus 
409 years. Eusebius makes the three Shepherd dy- 
nasties reign respectively, 250, 190, and 108 years ; 
Africanus, 284, 518, and 151 years, the sum of the 
differences in this latter case being 410 years. There 
is no reconciling these differences, and historians 
choose, as they please, the longer or the shorter esti- 
mates. 

III. We come now to the final question, Which 
view of Egyptian chronology is, on the whole, to be 
preferred ? Are we, with M. Mariette and Professor 
Owen, to regard civilization as having commenced in 

* "Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 508 ; Rawlinson's " Hero- 
dotus," vol. ii. Appendix to Book ii. cli. viii. sees. 7, 9, 12, 13, 
IG, and 17. 

f Manetho's numbers are in comparatively few cases reported 
identically by Eusebius and Africanus. The difference in a single 
dynasty sometimes exceeds 300 years. 



28 Early Civilizations. 

Egypt above 5,000 years before the birth of our 
Saviour ; or are we, with Poole and Wilkinson, to 
shorten the term by at least twenty-three centuries, 
and place its commencement not before B.C. 2700? 
Or, finally, ought we to pursue, here as elsewhere, 
the juste milieu, and give the preference on that ac- 
count to the date of Lepsius, or to the earlier view 
of Bunsen ? It might have been hoped that the 
monuments, studied carefully and without prejudice, 
would have given a decided answer to this question ; 
but at present they appear not to have done so. 
While on the one hand M. Mariette stoutly asserts 
that they show none of Manetho's dynasties to have 
been contemporary, * all other Egyptologers declare 
that they prove contemporaneity in several instances. 
Mr. R. Stuart Poole asserts positively f that " kings 
who unquestionably belong to different dynasties are 
shown by the monuments to be contemporary." Sir 
G. Wilkinson descends to particulars. " Useskef," 
he says, " of the second dynasty, is found together 
with Soris, or Shure, and Menkera, of the fourth 
dynasty, and with Osirkef and Shafre of the fifth ; 
while some of these again occur with Shufu and 
others of the fourth and fifth d}Tiasties." % -^^^ 
again, " The ovals of the first four kings of the fifth 
dynasty have been found with those of the fourth 
dynasty ; " § and " other monuments prove that the 

* See the passages quoted above, pp. 25, 26. 
t " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 507, col. i. 
X Rawlinson's " Herodotus," vol. ii. Appendix to Book ii. 
ch. viii. sec. 9. 

§ Ibid. sec. 10 ; p. 292, second edition. 



Antiquity of Civilization in Egypt. 29 

eleventh dynasty reigned in the Thebaid at the same 
time" (as the sixth dynasty at Memphis);* and 
" that the kings of the ninth were contemporaries of 
the eleventh, or earliest Theban dynasty, is proved 
by the fact of Muntopt II. being mentioned on a 
stela together with the first Amun-m-he ; and an 
Enentef, one of his predecessors, has been found with 
the third king of this eleventh dynasty, Muntopt I."t 
It is marvellous that M. Mariette, writing several 
years after the publication of these statements should, 
instead of controverting them, wholly ignore them 
and pass them by, as he does when he unblushingly 
declares : " Never have any of the savants who have 
set themselves to reduce Manetho's numbers suc- 
ceeded in producing a single monument, from which 
it results that two dynasties given by him as succes- 
sive were in fact contemporary."! 

For ourselves we cannot doubt that the contem- 
poraneity asserted, more or less, by all the Egypto- 
logers except M. Mariette, is an established fact ; but 
tlie extent to which it pervades Manetho's lists is, 
we admit, a matter of much uncertainty. Hitherto 
we have ^een no disproof of the views taken by Mr. 
Stuart Poole and Sir G. Wilkinson, according to 
which — Manetho's dynastic numbers being accepted 

* Rawlinson's "Herodotus," sec. 11. 

f Ibid. sec. 13. 

X "Jamais aucun des savants qui se sont efforc^s deraccourcir 
les chiflfres donnas par Man^thon n'est encore parvenu a produire 
un seul monument d'oii il resultat que deux dynasties donn^es 
comme successives dans ces listes aient ^fc6 contemporaines." 
(Quoted in Lenormant's "Manuel," vol. i. p. 324,) 



30 Early Civilizations. 

— the date of Menes is brought down to about 
B.C. 2700. But we do not regard this date a.s in any 
sense established. There may have been more con- 
temporaneity than even Mr. Poole and Sir G. Wil- 
kinson suspect ; and Manetho's dynastic numbers we 
regard as wholly uncertain. They are frequently 
WTong where we can test them,* and they are evi- 
dently arrived at (as a general rule) by a mere addi- 
tion of the numbers of the regnal years assigned to 
the several kings. But as association was largely 
practised in Eg^-pt, such a mode of reckoning the 
years of a dynasty would be certain to prcKluce a 
result greatly in excess of the truth. And further, 
we ver\' much doubt whether Manetho, with the best 
intentions, had any materials for reconstructing the 
chronology of the Old or Middle Empires. The 
Shepherd conquest of Eg^-pt threw ever\i:hing into 
confusion, produced a complete shipwreck of Egyp- 
tian literature and civilization. f The length of the 

* For instance, Manetho assigned to the twenty-sixth dynasty 
150 (Africanus), or 168 (167) years (Eusebius) ; but M. Mariette 
is able from the monuments to determine positively that the term 
of its continuance was but 138 years (Lenormant, p. 321). Ma- 
netho gave the twenty-fifth dynasty a duration of forty (Africanus), 
or forty-four years (Eusebius). M. Mariette fixes its term at fifty 
years (ibid.). 

f M. Lenormant says: "Nous assist ons done, sous la quin- 
zifeme et seizifeme dynastie, a un nouveau naufrage de la civilisa- 
tion Egyptienne." ( "Manuel," vol. i. p. 360.) And a little before — 
" Dire ce que durant ces quatre cents ans (?) TEgvpte eut a subir 
de bouleversements est impossible. Le seul fait qu il soil permis 
de donner eomme certain, c'est que pas un monument de cette 
^poque d^eolee n'est venu jusqu' a nous." Elsewhere he speaks 



Antiquity of Civilization in Egypt. 31 

Shepherd domination was unknown when Egypt, 
under the eighteenth dynasty, recovered itself, and 
was variously estimated at 260, 350, 811, and 953 
years. In reality, Egyptian chronology only begins 
with the accession of the eighteenth dynasty, and 
even then is far from exact, the best critics varying 
in their dates for this event by nearly 200 years. 
We should be inclined to place it about B.C. 1 500, or 
a little earlier. If the Shepherd period lasted about 
two centuries and a half, which is the view of Canon 
Cook,* the Old Empire would have come to an end 
about B.C. 1750. That there was such an empire is, 
we think, clearly established ; and we have no doubt 
that the pyramids and various tombs now existing 
belonged to it. But its duration can only be guessed. 
We should be inclined, on the whole, to allow it 
from 500 to 700 years. The establishment of a 
settled monarchy in Egypt, and with it of civili- 
zation, would then fall between B.C. 2450 and B.C. 
2250. 

This view appears to us to be more in accordance 
than any other with the general facts of oriental 
history and chronology. Its compatibility with the 
chronology of the Bible will be evident, if it be 
borne in mind that, according to the Septuagint ver- 

of Egyptian civilization as " annihilated" (an^antie) by the Shep- 
herd invasion (p. 363). 

* See the " Speaker's Commentary," vol. i. p. 447. The argu- 
ments of this writer against a longer duration of the Shepherd 
dominion than "from two to three centuries"' appear to us to 
have great weight. 



82 Early Civilizations. 

sion, the date of the deluge was certainly anterior to 
B.C. 3000.* 

* The flint-flakes, which in western countries are indications of 
th« most remote antiquity of which we can find any trace, have 
in Egypt been found together with polished stone tools "of no 
very remote antiquity ; and Lepsius assigns some of them, found 
in a grave there, te about B.C. 2500. (See Evans's "Stflne Im- 
plements," p. 259.) It is therefore quite possible that the Palajo- 
lithic period of the West was contemporaneous with the earljr 
Egyptian ciTilization. 



CHAPTER III. 

ON THE ANTIQUITY OF CIVILIZATION AT BABYLON. 

High antiquity claimed for Babylonian civilization by some 
writers — View of Bunsen — Want of ftundation for this view — 
Classical date for the foundation of Babylon, b. c. 2230 — Views 
of Berosus agree nearly — Septuagint date for the kingdom of 
Nimrod, b.c. 2567 — Assyrian date of B.C. 2286 — General conclu- 
sion from the cuneiform inscriptions and Berosus combined — 
From the inscriptions only — Character of the civilization — 
Architecture — Implements — Pottery — Writing — Engraving of 
hard stones — Dresses — Progress made in the diiferent arts 
unequal. 

rpHE advocates of an extreme antiquity for the 
-*- commencement of civilization and of settled 
monarchy in Egypt have sometimes endeavoured to 
bolster up their cause by alleging an equal or even 
a greater antiquity for the kingdom and civilization 
of the Babylonians. It was evident to them that the 
world at large would not be persuaded that a single 
country stood in an entirely exceptional position ; 
and that, while elsewhere the dawn of history could 
nowhere be dated much before B.C. 2000, in Egypt 
existing records carried us back a thousand, two thou- 
sand, or even three thousand years earlier. Accord- 
ingly the effort was made to find at least one other 

D 33 



34 Early OivilizaMoiis. 

country which might keep Egypt company; and 
none seemed capable of being turned to such good 
account as Chaldea or Babylonia. Scripture spoke 
of a " kingdom " as set up in Babylon * at a remoter 
period than its first notice of a kingdom in Egypt. 
Very curious and remarkable ruins of vast size and 
apparently great age were known to exist in the 
region ; and, above all, it was certain that the Baby- 
lonians themselves, when they first came into contact 
with the Greeks, laid claim to an antiquity as great 
or greater than that which was claimed for them- 
selves by the Egyptians. A good case, it was thought, 
could be made out of these data ; and the early origin 
of civilization and settled government in Mesopo- 
tamia, resting on its own grounds of proof, would, it 
was concluded with reason, tend strongly to support 
the theory of an extreme antiquity for the same 
things in Egypt. 

The best representative of the school of writers to 
whom we allude is the late Baron Bunsen. This 
learned scholar, but overbold speculator, having laid 
it down in the earlier part of his great work upon 
Egypt, that the commencement of monarchy there 
was about B.C. 3600, when he came to speak of 
Babylon, boldly asserted that a Chaldaean Idngdom 
was established there not much later than B.C. 4000, 
and even hinted at the earlier existence in the 
country of a Tm'anian monarchy, for the foundation 
of which the latest date that could be reasonably 

* Gen. X. 10. Monarchy in Egypt is first noticed in ch. xii. 
15—20. 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 35 

assigned was B.C. 7000!* In another place f the 
" Chaldsean era " in Babylon was definitely fixed to the 
year B.C. 3784, as if trustworthy materials existed for 
a complete and exact chronology at this early period ! 
It is difficult to understand on Avhat grounds of 
proof this date of B.C. 3784 was supposed to rest. 
Some authorities I spoke of a Chaldsean dynasty as 
having reigned at Babylon for two hundred and 
twenty-five years anterior to a date which probably 
corresponded to about B.C. 2286. These numbers, 
if viewed as historical, produce for the foundation of 
the Chaldsean monarchy, not B.C. 3784, but B.C. 
2511 — ^nearly 1300 years later. A skilful manipu- 
lation of the authorities from whom we obtain 
Berosus' numbers might raise this date by about 
two hundred and thirty years ; § but whence the 
other thousand are to be obtained it is very difficult 
to understand. We su])pose they come from the 
dynasty of eighty-six kings, generally regarded as 
mythical, whose joint reigns covered, according to 

* See " Egypt's Place in Universal History," vol. iv. p. 479; 
and for the establishment of a ChaLliean monarchy in Babylonia 
not much after b.c. 4000, seethe same work, vol. iii. p. 451, vol. 
iv. p. 411, and vol. v. p. 77. 

f Ibid. vol. iii. p. 361, "There exists a strict chronology for the 
Babylonian empire dating back to the year 3784 B.C." 

J As Syncellus ("Chronograph.," p. 1G9). 

^ Dr. Brandis calculated B.C. 2458 as the first year of Berosus' 
second or Median dynasty (" Rerum Assyriar. Temp, Emendata." 
p. 17). If we were to add to this the 225 years of Syncellus, we 
should obtain B.C. 2683 for the commencement of monarchy in 
Babylon. If an allowance were made for the reign of Pul, and 
234 years (margin) were adopted instead of 224 (text) for the 
second dynasty, the date might be raised to about b.c. 2743. 



36 Early Civilizations. 

Berosus, the space of 34,080 years, though how they 
are got out of this number,* or wliy this dynasty 
should be accounted historical, surpasses our powers 
of conjecture. As for the still earlier Turanian 
dynasty, to which we are invited to assign the date 
of B.C. 8000, or B.C. 7000 at the latest, we fail to see 
on what scrap of historical evidence it Is based. Ap- 
parently, it rests wholly upon two arbitrary assump- 
tions : one, that the Deluge happened exactly ten 
thousand years before the Christian era ; and another, 
that the generations between Noah and Nimrod rep- 
resent — each of them — periods of a thoasand years. 

Putting aside these wild and baseless speculations, 
let us now inquire what history, w^orthy of the name, 
actually says with regard to the antiquity of civiliza- 
tion and settled government in Babylon. 

The classical accounts, as it has been often 
showTijt fixed the era of the foundation of Babylon 
at B.C. 2230, or a very little earlier. Berosus, by 
a sudden change | from exaggerated to unexag- 

* The "years" of tliis dynasty have been regarded by some as 
" months ;" but so counted they would amount to 2840 lunar, or 
2756 solar year^ 

f See the author's " Herodotus," vol.i. essay vi. sect. 3, note 4, 
and compare the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society," vol. xv. 
p. 7 et scq. 

J The dynasties of Berosus are arranged as follows : — 



1st Dynasty . 


. 86 kings . 


. 34,080 years. 


2d 


. . 8 " . 


. . 224 (234) years 


3d 


. 11 " . 


. . 48 (?) years, 


4th 


. 49 " . 


458 years. 


5th " . . 


. 9 " . 


245 years. 


6th " 


. 45 " . 


526 years. 



See Euseb.," Chron. Can.," part i. c. 4. 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 37 

geratecl numbers, implied a belief that real human 
history had its commencement at Babylon, at a date 
which may have been as late as B.C. 2286, and 
cannot well have been earlier than B.C. 2458.* 
The Septuagint numbers indicate for the establish- 
ment of Nimrod's kingdom some such date as B.C. 
2567. The Hebrew numbers lower this date by 
about 225 years. All these accounts agree in 
assigning the foundation of the Babylonian mon- 
archy to the third millennium before the Christian 
era — B.C. 3000 — 2000 ; and all but one place it in 
the latter half of that millennium B.C. 2500—2000. 
The extreme limits of difference in the several 
accounts do not much exceed three centuries, the 
highest date being B.C. 2567, and the lowest B.C. 
2230, or 337 years later. 

A notice in the annals of Asshur-bani-pal, the 
son of Esarhaddon (about B.C. 651), tells of the 
invasion of Babylonia by an Elamitic king 1,635 
years earlier,f and appears to imply the existence 
in that country of a settled government and of 
great cities at the time of the invasion, or about 
B.C. 2286. 

The general conclusions to be drawn from the 

* The date b.c. 2286 is obtained by allowing twenty-eight years 
for the reign of Pul, who preceded Tiglath-Pileser, and thus 
obtaining as the last year of Berosus' sixth dynasty b.c. 775. To 
obtain B.C. 2458, we must omit the reign of Pul, and accept the 
conjecture of Gutschmid and Brandis, that the time which Berosus 
assigned to the third dynasty was 258, and not 48 years. 

f See •' Records of the Past," vol. i. p. 88, and compare Lenor- 
mant, "Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne de I'Orient," vol. ii. p. 24, 



38 Early Civilizations. 

entire series of Babylonian and Assyrian remains 
recently exlmmed in Mesopotamia are the follow- 
ing. Babylon was conquered by the Assyrians in 
or about the year B.C. 1300,* and from that time 
until the revolt of Nabopolassar (about B.C. 610), 
was a secondary power, sometimes subject to 
Assyria, sometimes in revolt, but never dominant 
over any wide extent of country. Her greatness 
M'as in times ^anterior and in times subsequent to 
this period. AVith the subsequent period, that of 
the later Babylonian empire B.C. 610 — 538, we 
have in this place nothing to do. Our business is 
with the earlier one. Babylon, before the Assyrian 
conquest of B.C. 1300, had been for a long time a 
very great power. Recent research has recovered 
the names of at least fifty-five monarchsf who bore 
sway in the country anterior to B.C. 1300. Of these 
fifty-five names twent}' are thought to belong to a 
single dynasty — the dynasty which ruled imme- 
diately before the Assyrian conquest, and to which 
Berosus, who called it Arabian, assigned the dura- 
tion of 245 years. It commenced with a king 
named Khammurabi, who dug caiials,| built palaces 
and temples, and left numerous memorials which 

* Sennacherib places the conquest 600 years before his own 
recovery of the city, which was in B.C. 703. 

f See the "Notes on the Early History of Assyria and Baby- 
lonia," recently published by Mr. George Smith (London, 1872). 

X On the doings of Khammurabi see M. Menant's work, entitled, 
"Inscriptions de Kammourabi, Roi de Babylone," published at 
Paris in 1863; and compare the present writer's "Ancient Mo- 
narchies," vol. i. pp. 188, 189, second edition, and Oppert's 
"Expedition en Mesopotamie," vol. i. pp. 267, 268. 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 39 

remain to the present day. A bilingual inscription, 
Avliich he set up in Babylonia, exists in the museum 
of the Louvre, and has been translated by M. 
M6nant and Mr. Fox Talbot.* Khammurabi pro- 
bably ascended the throne about B.C. 1545, and was 
succeeded by his son, Samshu-iluna, some twenty or 
thirty years later. His immediate predecessor was 
an Elamite monarch, Kudur-Mabuk, who has been 
sometimes identified with the Chedor-Laomer 
(Kudur-Lagaraar) of Scripture,t but who was pro- 
bably a different personage. This king, who, together 
with his son Rim-agu, or Ri-agu, exercised supremacy 
over the greater part of Southern Mesopotamia for 
the space of about thu'ty years, must have reigned 
from about B.C. 1575 to 1545. Previously to the 
conquest of Babylonia by Kudur-Mabuk, the 
country is thought to have been divided up among 
a number of petty kingdoms, | which were frequently 
at war with one another, as those of Agadi (or 
Accad), of Karrak, Erech, Ur, and Larsa. The 
monarchs of this period have Semitic names. It is 
difficult to form any estimate of the length of time 
which their reign covered. The number and 

* M. M^nant's translation will be found in the ■work quoted in 
the last note. Mr. Fox Talbot's latest version is published in the 
"Records of the Past," vol. i. pp. 7, 8. 

f This identification was first made by Sir H. Rawlinson. 
Chronology is against it, since we can scarcely bring the date of 
Abraham so low as B.C. 1575 — 1545. Otherwise it would be very 
tempting to conclude that Kudui'-]\Iabuk=Chedor-Laomer, and 
that his son Rim-agu, or Ri-agu, was the Scriptural Arioch. Ri- 
agu was King of Larsa, which is probably the same as Ellasar. 

J So Mr. George Smith (see his "Notes" quoted above). 



40 Early Cimlization^. 

succession of the names hitherto obtained would 
seem to indicate a period of from 250 to 300 years ; 
but there is no certainty that the list of names is 
in any case complete, and future discoveries may 
require the period to be enlarged considerably. It 
is quite possible that the 458 years assigned by 
Berosus to the dynasty immediately preceding the 
Arabs * may represent the combine<l Semitic and 
Elamitic periodsj in which case we should have to 
place the commencement of the Semitic period a little 
before B.C. 2000.t 

We have not, however, reached as yet the earliest 
date to which the Babylonian remains carry us. 
The Semitic is preceded by a Turanian period, 
during which there is the same division of the 
country among several distinct kingdoms, which we 
have noted as obtaining under the Semites. The 
seats of empire are now Babylon, Ur, Eridu, and 
Zerghul, the influence of Babylon and Ur preponde- 
rating. A space of about a century and a half is 
required by the list of names which have been 
recovered; but again it is to be noted that this space 
is merely a minimum, and that fresh discoveries 
may at any time require us to enlarge it. There is, 
however, no reason to suppose that the enlargement 
required will be very great, or that we need allow 
for the Turanian period indicated by the monuments 
a longer duration of time than that which Berosus 

* See above, p. 36, note. 

f The addition of 458 years to b.c. 1545, the probable first year 
of the fifth (Arab) dynasty would produce the date b.c. 2003. 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 41 

gave to his first and second historical dynasties. 
This space is unfortunately doubtful, being accord- 
ing to one estimate 282 ; according to another 482, 
or even 492 years.* If we accept the largest of these 
numbers, we bring the commencement of the Baby- 
lonian kingdom to about B.C. 2500, or a little later ; if 
we take the smallest, we reduce the date by 210 years. 

This is the conclusion which seems to follow from 
a combination of the monumental history with the 
scheme of Berosus. From the monuments alone we 
should not be obliged to carry back the origines of 
Babylon further than about B.C. 2025.t 

It remains to consider briefly the character of the 
civilization which appears to have existed in Baby- 
lonia id this period (b.c. 2300 — 1300). The remains 
discovered belong to the entire space, to the early 
or Turanian time (b.c. 2300 — 2000), no less than to 
the Semitic period (b.c. 2000 — 1575), the Elamitic 
(B.C. 1575 — 1545), and the Arabian (b.c. 1545 — 
1300). It is a civilization which was at no time 
very advanced.J The buildings were of brick, partly 

* Two hundred and eighty-two, according to the margin of the 
Armenian Eusebius ; 482, according to the conjectural emenda- 
tion of Brandis (see p. 188, note) ; 492, if this emendation is 
combined with the marginal number for the second (Median) 
dynasty. 

f This is allowing three centuries for the Semitic, and a century 
and a-half for the previous Turanian period. For the former the 
lists give about twelve consecutive names ; for the latter, six. 
The allowance of twenty-five years for a reign is a7njAe. 

X For further details on this subject see the present writer's 
"Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. pp. 71-100, and compare Loftus, 
"Chaldsea and Susiana," pp. 164-192, and the "As. Soc. Jour- 
nal," vol. XV. 



42 Early Civilizations. 

sun-dried, partly baked; the great mass of the 
structure was usually of the former, the external 
casing of the latter material. Sometimes buildings 
were composed entirely of unbaked bricks, in which 
case it was usual to interpose, at intervals of four or 
five feet, a layer of reed-matting, which protected 
the crude brick from the weather, and retarded dis- 
integration. The chief edifices were temples. In 
these the pyramidical form was, as a general rule, 
affected ; but, instead of the slope being completed, 
the temple rose in a number of upright stages, which 
were not fewer than three, and may occasionally have 
amounted to seven. External ornamentation was 
by buttresses, by half-columns, by shalloAv stepped 
recesses, and sometimes by a patterning of terra- 
cotta cones. In the most elaborate facade which is 
left, we are told that " nothing can be more plain, 
more rude, or in fact more unsightly, than the deco- 
ration employed upon this front ; but it is this very 
aspect, this very ugliness, which vouches for the 
originality of the stymie."* The column is used; 
but it is without cornice, capital, base, or diminution 
of shaft, " in groups of seven Aa//"-columns repeated 
seven times — the rudest perhaps ichieh icere ever reared, 
but built of moulded semicircular bricks, and securely 
bonded to the wall."t The arch occurs, but only in 
doorways of no great width, and scarcely as a decora- 
tive feature. It is, however, believed^ that the great 

* Loftus, " Chaldeea and Susiana," p. 175. 

t Ibid. 

X Ibid. p. 181 and p. 183, note. 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 43 

chambers, which were sometimes above thirty-feet 
wide, were vaulted either with brick or with a mass 
of gypsum-plaster. Altogetlier, the architectural 
efforts of the early Babylonian people must be pro- 
nounced in the highest degree rude and primitive. 
The heavy massiveness of the walls, the coarseness 
of the material, the absence of ornamentation or its 
mean character, tell of a time when art was in its 
infancy, * when ideas of beauty were undeveloped, 
and utility was all in all. So far as architecture 
goes, the Babylonians of B. c. 2300 — 2000 were not 
in a more advanced condition than the Mexicans be- 
fore the Spanish invasion. 

Another indication of extreme rudeness and inci- 
pient civilization is to be found in the implements of 
the period, which are entirely either of stone or 
bronze, f No iron implement has been found, though 
some may have existed, since iron occurs among the 
materials of personal ornaments. The weapons of 
the Babylonians, their spear-heads and arrow-heads, 
were of bronze ; their tools and implements, such as 
hammers, hatchets, adzes, knives, sickles, nails, were 
either of bronze or stone. The workmanship of the 

* Mr. Loftus says, " The entire absence of cornice, capital, base, 
or diminution of sliaft, so cliaracteristic of other columnar archi- 
tecture, and the peculiar and original disposition of each group 
in rows like palm logs, suggest the type from which they sprang. 
It is only to be compared with the style adopted by the aboriginal in- 
habitants of other countries, and was evidently derived from the 
construction of wooden edifices" (p. 175). 

I See the present writer's " Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. pp. 
95 — 98, second edition. 



44 Early Civilizations. 

stone implements is somewhat more advanced than 
tliat of those very primitive ones wliich have been 
found in the drift ; but it is in no degree more skilled 
than that of the ordinary stone celts of Western and 
Northern Europe, which, uutil the examination of 
the drift and cave remains, were regarded as the 
most ancient products of human art in our quarter of 
the globe. The bronze implements have been cast 
in clay moulds, and are not ill-shaped. They are 
generally, no doubt, of later date than the stone 
ones ; but their position in the remains appears to 
indicate that the two materials were, during a long 
term of years, in use together. 

In pottery, the early Babylonians exhibit some 
considerable skill and ingenuity. Clay was a mate- 
rial with wliich they must have been familiar from 
their original settlement in the country, and which, 
from the time when they first fashioned it into 
bricks, * they must have perceived to be adapted 
also for other purposes. In their earliest fictile art, 
there is neither elegance of form nor excellence of 
material. The clay used is of a coarse kind ; it is 
mixed with chopped sti-aw to give it cohesion ; and 
it is roughly moulded by the hand into the required 
lamp or drinking vessel.f At a later time they 
learnt, or invented, the employment of the potter's 
wheel ; they sought out and procured a finer clay, 
and they modelled vases, lamps, jugs, and amphorae 
of a form and taste not much inferior to the ordinary 

* Gen. xi. 3. 

f " Ancient Monarcliies," vol. i. pp. 91, 92. 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 45 

workmanship of the Greeks. They also constructed 
clay coffins, remarkable for their size,* and pipes for 
drains, exhibiting a considerable knowledge of 
mechanical principles ; f but it is not certain that 
these works were of an earlier date than B.C. 1500. 

Writing was known to the Babylonians from 
almost the earliest times of which any ti'aces remain 
to us ; but the writing was of a very rude and primi- 
tive kind. The letters show strong signs of having 
recently emerged out of hieroglyphics; J they are 
coarsely and irregularly formed, and the sentences 
are of the simplest possible construction. § The in- 
scriptions preserved in no case much exceed half- 
a-dozen lines, and are of a formal and stereotyped 
character. The civilization indicated by the writings 
is thus one of a primitive and undeveloped type. 

In two or three respects only can it be said that 
the Babylonians of the first period (b.c. 2300—2000) 
exhibit more than a rudimentary acquaintance with 
the arts and appliances which go to make up what 
moderns understand by civilized life. Among these 
are especially the engraving of hard gems, and the 
manufacture of delicate textile fabrics. Hard stones, 

* "Ancient Monarchies," vol. 1, pp. 87-89. The "dish- 
cover " coffins are sometimes seven feet long, by two or three feet 
high, and are two feet and a-half broad at the bottom. They are 
made in one piece. 

t Ibid. p. 90. X Ibid. pp. 64, 65. 

^ They usually run much as follows: — " Urukh, Iving of Ur, 
and king of the land of Accad, has built the temple of Belus." 
"The signet of Urukh, the pious chief, King of Ur, high-priest of 
NifFer." By the time of Khammurabi, the legends are longer; 
but the constructions are scarcely more elaborate. 



46 Early Civilizations. 

well cut, bearing upon them representations of 
human forms fairly rendered, belong to almost the 
very earliest period whereto the Babylonian monu- 
ments reach ; * and the figures upon these stones are 
clothed in dresses which are as elaborate as those of 
Nebuchadnezzar's age.f It would seem that the 
art of working gems, of cutting them into shape ■\\ath 
a wheel or disk, and then engraving them with an 
iron implement dipped in emery powder, must havis 
been a very early discovery of the Babylonian people. 
They must also, at a verj- remote date, have been 
able to weave linen, muslin, or silk, of a fine texture, 
and to construct dresses | of these materials scarcely 
less elaborate than those worn in their palmiest days 
by the Egyptians and Assyrians. Altogether, what 
strikes us most with respect to the early civilization 
of the Babylonians is its unevenness. Instead of that 
general diffusion over all the varioas departments of 
art and manufacture whereto we are accustomed, 
there was the most marked difference of degree, at 
one and the same time, with respect to different 
branches. Dress was elaborate, ornaments were 

* The signet cylinders of Urukh, and his son Ilgi (or Dungi), 
two of the earliest kings of the first, or Turanian period, have 
been recovered by explorers. They are of the character described 
in the text. Many others of the cylinders to be found in all 
museums are probably as early or earlier. 

f See the author's " Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. p. 94; and 
compare Ker Porter, "Travels," vol. ii. pi. 79, fig. 6. 

X We have an instance of the export of one such dress to a 
distance from Babylonia, and of the high value set upon it at a 
date which can scarcely be much less than B.C. 1500, in the stoiy 
of Achan (Josh. vii. 21). 



Antiquity of Civilization at Babylon. 47 

tastefully wrought,* seal-engraving was carried to a 
high pitch of perfection, furniture was in some cases 
artistic,! while architecture stood at a low level, 
pottery was rude and inelegant, and stone was still 
the ordinary material for tools and implements. The 
general result indicates the combination of much 
natural intelligence with a somewhat brief term of 
experience, which has precluded the application of 
the natural gifts equally in all directions. The pre- 
dominant aim has been rather to gratify the desires 
of the great and powerful than to ameliorate the 
condition of the working classes. Even the former 
object has been but jiartially accomplished, as if there 
had scarcely been time for thought to employ itself 
on more than a limited number of subjects. The 
civilization reached is, on the whole, inferior to that 
of the early Egyptians. It seems to be, in its main 
features, independent of Egypt. Whether it is a 
little earlier or a little later, can scarcely be deter- 
mined ; but, on the whole, we are inclined to assign 
to Egypt the palm of antiquity. 

* "Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. p. 98. 
t Ibid. p. 94. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ON THE DATE AXD CHARACTER OF PHOENICIAN 
CIVILIZATION. 

Phoenician claim to have originated civilization — Claim disallowed 
— Yet the civilization was among the earliest — Indications of it 
in Homer — In Herodotus — In Scripture — Existing Phoenician 
remains — Phoenician glass — Phoenician dyes — Phoenician music 
— Chief glory of the Phoenicians, their invention of (exclusively) 
alphabetic writing— Spread of the writing — Date of Phoenician 
civilization — Of the founding of Tyre — Of Sidon — All require- 
ments satisfied by such a date as B.C. 1600 — 1500. 

ONE of the earliest Oriental civilizations was that 
of Phoenicia. Philo of Byblos, a Syro-Phcenician 
Greek, who wrote in the early part of the second 
century after Christ, and professed to present his 
countrymen with a translation of an old Phoenician 
history composed by a native priest, called San- 
choniathon, claimed for Phoenicia a precedence over 
every other known nation in respect of science, 
art, and civilization generally. According to him, 
Thoth (Taautus), the Egvptian god of learning, 
whom the Greeks identified with Mercury, was a 
Phoenician, who had instructed the Egyptians in 
theology. Osiris had come from Egypt to Phoenicia, 
and having there studied and been initiated into the 
native mysteries, had carried back to his own coun- 
48 



Date and Charadcr of Phoenician Civilization. 49 

trymcii the knowledge of letters, and invented the 
threefold system of Egyptian writing. Kronos, a 
Phoenician king, had introduced civilization into 
Greece, and established Athene there as queen of 
Attica. This same monarch was the progenitor of 
the Jewish nation through his only son, Jeoud. 
Civilization in all its branches had originated in 
Phoenicia. Here masonry, agriculture, fishing, navi- 
gation, astronomy, music, metallurgy had been dis- 
covered and first practised. From Phoenicia the 
stream of knowledge had flowed out to other coun- 
tries, which had all derived from this source their 
art and science, their writing and literature, their 
religion and tlieosophy. 

The claims of Philo of Byblos, or Sanchoniathon, 
whichever was the real author of the work in ques- 
tion, which is largely quoted by Eusebius, most cer- 
tainly exceed the truth. As Mr. Keurick well 
observes, " If it be safe to pronounce in any case on 
priority of knowledge and civilization, it is in award- 
ing to Egypt precedence over Phoenicia."* But 
still, though Phoenician authors might exaggerate 
the antiquity and early civilization of their country, 
they must undoubtedly have had a basis of truth to 
rest upon. It would have been ridiculous to claim 
priority over all other races and nations, unless in 
general repute their antiquity was regarded as con- 
siderable. We can entertain no reasonable doubt 
that they were among the nations whose origin went 
back the furthest, and who might thus be considered 

* See Kenrick's "Phoenicia," p. 286. 
E 



50 Early Civilizations. 

entitled to compete for the palm of antiquity without 
putting forth a wholly absurd pretension. 

And the conclusion which we should thas draw 
from the claim set up in the work ascribed to 
Sanchoniathon is borne out by various other consi- 
derations. In the earliest Greek literature — the 
Homeric poems — whose date we cannot bring our- 
selves to place later than about B.C. 1000, the Phoe- 
nicians are already regarded as among the great 
nations of the earth, and the most advanced in art 
and civilization. " It is to this people," says Mr. 
Gladstone, * " that we mast look as the established 
merchants, hardiest navigators, and furthest ex- 
plorers of those days. To them alone, as a body, in 
the whole Homeric world of flesh and blo(xl, does 
Homer give the distinctive epithet of * ship-re- 
nowned.' He accords it, indeed, to the airy Phae- 
acians ; but in all probability' that element of their 
character is borrowed from the Phoenicians ; and, 
if so, the reason of the derivation can only be that 
the Phoenicians were for that age the t^'pe of a nau- 
tical peojjle. To them only does he assign the epi- 
thets which belong to the knavery of trade, po- 
lypaipaJoi and trokiai. When we hear of their 
ships in Egypt or in Greece, the circmnstance is 
mentioned as if their coming was in the usual course 
of their commercial operations." The Mediterranean 
of Homer's time, and of the still earlier age which 
he strives to depict, is, in fact, a " Phoenician lake." 
The Phoenicians have settlements in various parts of 

* " Homer, and the Homeric Age," vol. i. p. 220. 



Date and Character of Phcenician Civilization. 51 

it, and trade with all the countries whose shores it 
washes. No other nation interferes with them, or 
even seeks to share in their profits. They are the 
established carriers between land and land, and 
supply to each the foreign commodities that it re- 
quires. 

This ejirly nautical skill and addiction to commerce 
is celebrated by the historians no less than by the 
poets. Herodotus, who places the Trojan War * 
about B.C. 1250, represents the Phoenicians as trading 
with Argos several generations earlier, and as then 
oifering for sale on the shores of the Peloi3onnese the 
wares of Egypt and Assyria.f At a date at least as 
remote he regards the Phcenicians as slave-dealers 
who kidnapped defenceless persons in the countries 
to which they had access, and sold them to the 
dwellers in other Mediterranean regions. | 

The Jewish historians assign to Sidon a very 
remote antiquity,! and attest the great maritime 
knowledge and naval skill of the Phoenicians at the 
time when their own people first developed a ten- 
dency to commercial speculation. || This, however, 
was not till about B.C. 1000, a date long subsequent 
to the times of which Homer and Herodotus bear 
witness. 

* Seethe " Vita Homeri," sec. 38; and compare the "History," 
ii. 145. 

f Herod, i. 1. 

X Ibin. ii. 54. 

g See Gen. x. 15, where Sidon is made the first-born of Canaan ; 
and compare the mention of "great Sidon" in Joshua (xi. 8). 

II 1 Kings ix. 27 ; 2 Chron. viii. 18. 



52 Early Civilizations. 

Besides their pre-eminency in nautical matters 
the Phoenicians were also in those early ages profi- 
cients in varioas elegant and ornamental arts. In 
Phoenicia were produced, according to Homer, the 
noblest works of metallic skill, and the choicest 
specimens of embroidery. The prize assigned by 
Achilles for the foot-race at the funeral of Patrocles 
was,* 

" A bowl of solid silver, deftly wrought, 
That held six measures, and in beauty far 
Surpassed whatever else the world could boast ; 
Since men of Sidon, skilled in glyptic art, 
Had made it, and Phoenician mariners 
Had brought it with them over the dark sea." 

The choicest gift that Menelaus could offer to Tele- 
machus when he took his departure from his Court 
is described as followsf : — 

" Of all the chattels that my house contains. 
The noblest and most beautiful, a bowl 
Wrought deftly, all of silver, but with lips 
Gold-sprinkled, by Hephaestus shaped and framed, 
Which Phaedimus once gave me, Sidon' s king." 

When Hecuba was anxious to conciliate Athene by 
a costly and precious offering, she went to her ward- 
robe, and selected from the many vestments there in 
store, which were all of them 

"The cunning work of Sidon's well-skilled dames, "J 

one of special and extraordinary beauty, 

* Hom. "11." xxiii. 741 — 744. 
t Hom. "Od." iv. 614—618. 
t Horn. "H," vi. 289, 



Dole and Character of Phoenician Civilization. 53 

" Fairest of all 
In its rich broidery, and amplest too ; 
Which blazed as 'twere a star, and lowest lay 
Of all the garments."* 

Of a very similar character were the artistic works 
which Hiram, the Phoenician artificer lent by the 
King of Tyre to Solomon, constructed at Jerusalem 
for the ornamentation of the Temple. Hiram was 
" skilful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in 
iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, 
and in fine linen (white ?), and in crimson ; also to 
grave any manner of graving."t He cast for 
Solomon, " in the plain of Jordan, in the clay 
ground between Succoth and Zarthan,"| the two 
great bronze pillars, called Jachin and Boaz, each of 
them twenty-seven feet high, and with capitals five 
and a half feet high,§ which stood before the Temple 
on either side of the porch, adorned with pome- 
granates, and "nets of checker work and wreaths 
of chain work,"|| real marvels of glyjatic skill ! He 
made, moreover, a " molten sea," ^ or great bronze 
laver, supported on twelve oxen, of the same mate- 
rial, together with ten movable lavers, that went 
on wheels, and were ornamented with lions, oxen, 
and cherubim.** The lesser vessels and implements 

* Hom. "II." Ti. 292-295. 
t See 2 Chron. ii. 14. 

J 1 Kings vii. 46. Compare the " Quarterly Statement of tlv 
Palestine Exploration Fund," for January, 1875, p. 31. 
I 1 Kings vii. 15, 16. 
Ij Ibid, verse 17. 
\ Ibid, verse 23. 
** Ibid, verses 27-39. 



54 Early Cimlizations. 

used in the serv'ice, " the pote, tlie shovels, and the 
basons," are likewise expressly said to have been his 
work.* We may reasonably conclude that he had 
also the general superintendence of the internal 
decoration of the Temple, the carving of cedar and 
fir and olive, and the covering of the carved work 
with gold, as well as the incrustation of the wocxl- 
work in places with marbles and precious stones.f 
Whether we are to attribute to him, or to others hLs 
compatriots, the entire series of Solomon's works — 
the house of the forest of Lebanon,| with its "four 
rows of cedar pillars and cedar beams upon the 
pillars," the throne of judgment, carved in ivory 
and overlaid with the purest gold, guarded by lions 
upon its six steps,§ and the " porch for the throne 
where he might judge "|| — is, perhaps, doubtful; 
but the predominant judgment of the best critics 
appears to be that in all these and other works of 
the time we have, if not Phoenician workmanship, at 
any rate Phoenician influence.^ The general prefer- 
ence of wood to stone for building, and especially of 
cedar ; the ornamentation by pomegranates and 
gourds and palms and lilies, Syrian products ; the 
use of isolated pillars, etc., all point to Phoenicia, 

* Ibid, verse 45. Compare 2 Chron. iv. 16, where 'we are told 
"The pots also, and the shovels, and the fleshhooks, and all their 
instruments, did Huram make to King Solomon for the house of 
the Lord of bright brass." 

f See 1 Chron. xxix. 2, and 2 Chron. iii. 6. 

J 1 Kings vii. 2. 

§ Ibid. X. 18-20; 2 Chron. ix. 17-19. 

II 1 Kings vii. 7. 

^ See Kenrick, " Phoenicia," pp. 251-253. 



Date and Character of Phoenician Civilization. 55 

rather than to Egypt or Assyria, as the country 
which furnished the great Jewish monarch with his 
models, and supplied the "motives" or ideas of his 
various works and constructions. 

The exact character and degree of excellency of 
the architecture and glyptic or plastic art which the 
Phoenicians practised is, to some extent, open to 
question. The works of art still in existence, which 
can be ascribed with even a fair degree of proba- 
bility to the Phoenicians, are scanty in the extreme; 
and even if they were more numerous, we should 
still be scarcely justified in drawing any positive 
conclusions from data that are so uncertain. A few 
rock tombs of doubtful antiquity, and a single sar- 
cophagus of an Egyptian type,* constitute pretty 
nearly all the remains that the country itself has 
hitherto furnished ; and upon these it is evidently 
not safe to build any definite theory. If we might 
accept confidently the view of Mr. Layard,t that the 
entire series of embossed and engraved vessels which 
he discovered at Nimrud are " the work of Phoenician 
artists, brought expressly from Tyre, or carried away 
amongst the captives when their cities were taken by 
the Assyrians," we should have perhaps sufficient 
grounds for forming a judgment. The dishes, plates, 
bowls, and cups in question are in excellent taste, 
elegant in shape, delicately and chastely ornamented 
with fanciful designs representing conventional forms, 

* On the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, see the article on Zidon 
in Dr. Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. iii. p. 1850. 
f " Nineveh and Babylon," p. 192. 



56 Early Civilizations. 

or sometimes men and animals, and skilfully em- 
bossed by a process which is still employed by 
modern silversmiths.* Their positive attribution to 
Phoenicia would justify the highest estimate that has 
ever yet been formed of Phoenician artistic power 
and skill in metallurgy. But it must not be forgot- 
ten or concealed that it is conjecture only which 
assigns them to Phoenicia, and that there is perhaps 
equal reason for regarding them as the work of na- 
tive Assyrian artists.f 

Besides navigation, architecture, metallurgy, and 
embroidery, the Phoenicians excelled also at a very 
early date in the manufacture of glass, in dyeing, 
and perhaps in music. The Romans of imperial 
times believed that the honour of actually inventing 
glass belonged to the Phoenician city of Sidon ;X and 
though in this they were probably mistaken, since 
glass was known in Eg^-pt as early as the Pyramid 
period, § yet there can be no doubt that the Sidonians 
produced glass at a remote date, and were profi- 
cients in its manufacture. "They knew the effect 
of an addition of manganese to the grit of sand 
and soda in making the glass clearer. They used 
the blowpipe, the lathe, and the graver, and cast mir- 
rors of glass. They must also have been acquainted 
with the art of imitating precious stones, and colour- 

* " Xineveli and Babylon," p. 193, note. 

f See the author's " Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. pp. 459, 460 ; 
first edition. 

X See Plin. " H. X." xxxvi. 65. 

I Rawlinson's "Herodotus," vol. ii. p. 291, second edition; 
Wilkinson's " Ancient Egyptians," vol. iii. p. 88. 



Date and Charadcfi' of Phoenician Civilization. 57 

ing glass by means of metallic oxides. The ' pillar 
of emerald/ which Herodotus speaks of (ii'. 44) in the 
Temple of Plerculcs at Tyre, ' shining brightly in 
the night/ can hardly have been anything else than 
a hollow cylinder of green glass, in which, as at 
Gades, a lamp burnt perpetually." * What was the 
amount of excellence whereto they attained is uncer- 
tain ; but the fame of the Sidonian glass in early 
times would seem to imply that they surpassed the 
artists of both Assyria f and Egypt. 

The art of dyeing textile fabrics with the juice of 
the Murcx trunculus and Buceinum lapillusX is noto- 
riously one which the Phcenicians carried to a high 
pitch of perfection ; and " Tyrian purple " Avas every- 
where regarded as the most beautiful of all known 
hues. Various tints were produced by different 
modes of manipulating the dye, which, according to 
the process used, made the fabric whereto it was 
applied scarlet, bright crimson, purple, or even blue. 
The " crimson and purple and blue," in which Hiram 
was skilful to work (2 Chron. ii. 14), were probably 
all produced by the native dyers from the shell-fish 
in question. So peculiarly Phoenician was the manu- 
facture considered, that the ordinary colour result- 
ing from the dye received the name of phcenix or 
phoenikcos (Lat. puniceus), i. c, ''the Phoenician 

* Keni-ick, "Phoenicia," p. 249. 

f On Assyrian glass, see Layard, " Nineveh and BaTsylon," pp. 
196, 197, and the remarks of Sir D. Brewster in the same work, 
pp. 674-G7G. 

J This subject is well treated by Mr. Kenrick ("Phoenicia," 
pp. 207-247, and 25o-259j. 



68 Early Civilizaiions, 

coloiii." Metallic aud vegetable agents were, no 
doubt, ako employed ; but the use of the shellfish 
predominated, and alone conferred on the Phoenician 
d3'ers their great reputation. 

The Phoenicians of Sidon were declared by their 
native historian * to have invented music. As the 
invention belongs to antediluvian times (Gen. iv. 21), 
this claim must of course be disallowed ; but the 
musical taste of the people is sufficiently indicated 
by the fact that they gave their name to instruments, 
which the Greeks received from them and retained 
in use for centuries. A particular kind of l}Te or 
cithern was known, as least as early as the time of 
Herodotus,t by the name of phcemix. It was usually 
enclosed by the two horns of an or\'x, or large ante- 
lope, which were probably joined near their upper ends 
by a tranverse bar of wood, from which the strings 
were carried to the bottom. Another instrument 
was known as the lyro-phcenix or lyro-phcenikion, % 
which differed probably from the phcenix by having 
at its base the shell of a tortoise, or some other 
hollow contrivance, intended to act as a sounding- 
board. It is not unlikely that the scientific cultiva- 
tion of music among the Jews, which belongs espe- 
cially to the time of David and Solomon, § was a 

* Sanchoniathon, ed. Orelli, p. 32. 

t Herod, iv. 192. 

J The lyro-phoenix (?.vpo<t>olvt^) is mentioned by Athenaeus 
("Deipnosoph." 175 D., 183 D. ; the lyro-phcenikion {?.vpo(!>oivi- 
Kiov) by Pollux ("Onomast." iv. 59). 

^ See "Dictionary of the Bible," ad. voc. " Music," vol. ii. p. 
443. col. i. 



Date and Character of Phoenician Civilization. 69 

result of tlie close and friendly intercourse which 
then existed between the court of Jerusalem and that 
of Tyre.* 

But the great glory of the Phoenicians, and the 
plainest mark of their early civilization, is their 
invention of alphabetic Avriting. Other nations — 
notably the Egyptians and Babylonians — had antici- 
pated them in the invention of a method whereby 
articulate sounds were represented to the eye by 
forms and figui'es. But the systems which these 
nations introduced and employed were not alpha- 
betic ; they were cumbrous and complicated, unapt 
for ordinary or extensive use, and such as to require 
for their mastery a special and almost professional 
training.f Both employed a large number of ideo- 
graphs, or signs of ideas; both used numerous 
determinatives ; % both had a redundancy of signs for 

* See 2 Sam. v. 11; 1 Kings v. 1—18, ix. 11—27; 1 Chron. 
xxii. 4 ; 2 Chron. ii. 3—16, viii. 18, ix. 21. 

f M. Lenormant well observes, with respect to the Egyptian 
•writing — " Elle constitute sans contredit le plus perfectionn6 des 
systfemes d'^criture primitifs qui commencerent par le pur iddo- 
graphisme, mais combien ce systiime est encore grossier, confus, et 
imparfait ! Que d' obscurit^s et d' incertitudes dans la lecture ! 
Que de chances de confusions et d'erreurs, dont une etude frbs- 
prolongee et une grande pratique pouvaient seules preserver ! Quelle 
extreme complication." [Manuel d'ffistoire Ancienne, vol. iii. p. 
100.) And he concludes that a system of writing so complicated, 
the mastery of which required so long an apprenticeship, could 
not be very widely spread among the mass of the people, but must 
have been the almost exclusive possession of professional scribes, 
who formed a class apart from the rest of the nation. 

J Determinatives are signs prefixed to a word, or added after it, 
in order to show what kind of word it is ; whether, for instance, it 



60 Early CimlizcUions. 

one and the same sound ; both employed certain 
signs sometimes in one, sometimes in another man- 
ner.* In one respect the Babylonian and Egyptian 
methods differed, and the latter approached to the 
verge of being an alphabetic system. The Baby- 
lonian characters did not represent the elementary 
sounds of human articulation,t but stood for complete 
syllables, for a consonant with a vowel, either before 
or after, or for the combination of two consonants with 
a vowel between them; the Egj-ptians proceeded 
beyond this ; they went so far as to decompose the 
syllable, and possessed signs which were "letters" 
in the exact modern sense. But they never wrote 
with these signs exclusively. Their system was 
from first to last a jumble, in which symbolic and 
determinative signs M'ere mixed up with phonetic 
ones, and in which the phonetic ones were of two 
classes, alphabetic and syllabic, in which, moreover, 
the ideographic signs might take an accidental 
phonetic value at the commencement of cei-tain 
words, and the alphabetic and syllabic characters 
might also be employed ideographically. It was 
left for the Phoenicians to seize on the one feature 
of Egyptian writing, which was capable of universal 

is the name of a god, of'a man, of a place, of a month, of a metal, 
etc. For their use in Egyptian, see Lepsius's " Alphabet Hiero- 
glyphique," Planche, A., Nos. 5 and 6. For their use in Babylonian 
and Assyrian, see Oppert's "Expedition Scientifique en Mesopo- 
tamie," vol. ii. pp. 88 — 92. 

* That is, sometimes phonetically, sometimes ideographically. 

f If there is an exception, it is in the case of the vowels, which, 
being syllables, had signs assigned to them. 



Date and Character of Plianiiciari Civilization. 61 

application to disentangle it from the confused 
jumble of heterogeneous principles with which it was 
bound up, and to form a system of writing in which 
there should be no intermixture of any other method. 
To do this was to take a step in advance greater than 
any which had been previously taken ; it was, as has 
been well said, " to consummate the union of the 
written and spoken word, to emancijjate once for all 
the spirit of man from the swaddling-clothes of 
primitive symbolism, and to allow it at length to 
have its full and free development, by giving it an 
instrument worthy of it, perfect in respect of clear- 
ness, of elasticity, and of convenience for use." * 

The complicated and cumbrous systems of the 
Babylonians and Egyptians could never have become 
general or have been of any great service to man- 
kind. The method adopted by the Phoenicians 
rapidly proved its excellence by showing itself fruit- 
ful and overspreading the earth. It is one of the 
chief marks of genius to see to the roots of things, to 
discern the one in the many, and to grasp the simple 
principle, which is alone of universal applicability. 
This mark of genius the Phoenician showed. The 
form of writing which, according to a universal tradi- 
tion, t was invented by them, possessed the quality of 
simplicity in perfection, and was no sooner discovered 
that it began to spread. Adopted readily by the 

* Lenorniant, " Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne," vol. iii. p. 110. 

t <'Plin. " H. N." V. 12 ; Mela. i. 12 ; Diod. Sic. v. 24 ; Tacit. 
"Ann." xi. 14 ; Lucan. " Pharsalia," iii. 220, 221 ; Clem. Alex. 
"Strom." i. 16; etc. 



62 Early Civilizations. 

neighbouring nations, it was soon carried far ana 
wide over the iVsiatic continent, and under slightly 
modified forms is found to have been in use from 
the shores of the Indian Ocean to those of the Eux- 
inc, and from the xKgean to the remotest parts of 
Hindostan. Nor was it content with these con- 
quests. It crossed the sea which separates ^Vsia from 
Europe, was carried to Crete, to Thera, to Greece, to 
Sicily, to Italy, and to Spain. It also made a lodg- 
ment on the African seaboard, and ere many cen- 
turies were gone by, prevailed from the borders of 
Egypt to the .Vtlantic Ocean. Accepted by the two 
greatest peoples of antiquity — the Greeks and Ro- 
mans — it passed from tliem to the nations of North- 
ern Euroj^e, and has thus become the system of al- 
most the whole civilized world. 

Such then was the character of Phoenician civili- 
zation. With regard to its date, we are not aware 
that in modern times any very remote antiquity has 
been claimed for it. The Avriters who exalt beyond 
all reasonable measure the antiquity of Eg}'pt are 
content -svith a very moderate estimate for that of 
the Phoenicians. No traces of the Phoenician cities 
are found in the early Egyptian monuments, which 
give in great detail the geography of Syria, * and it is 
thought likely that the people itself did not settle on 
the coast of the INIediterranean, or even reach SjTia, 
until about B.C. 2400 or 2300. f A native tradition, 

* See Lenormant, " Manuel," toI. iii. p. 9. 
t Ibid. p. 11. 



Date and Character of Phcenician Civilization. 63 

reported by Herodotus,* assigned the building of 
the great Temple of Hercules (Melkarth) at Tyre, 
which was probably coeval with the cityf, to about 
B.C. 2750, or from three to four centuries earlier. 
But it is urged that this estimate was one based on 
generations, | and that therefore it is not to be de- 
pended on. It should also be noted that authorities 
of considerable weight contradict the statement made 
to Herodotus. Josephus, for instance, says that 
Tyre was foimded two hundred and forty years only 
before the building of Solomon's Temple, § which 
would make the date of the settlement (according 
to the commonly received chronology) B.C. 1252. 
Again, Justin, or rather Trogus Pompeius, whom he 
copied, lays it down that the year of the foundation 
was that which immediately preceded the year of the 
capture of Troy,|| which he probably placed about 
B.C. 1200.^ Tyre, however, was certainly built before 
the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan under 
Joshua, since it is spoken of as a well-known place in 
the important work which bears Joshua's name** — 

* Herod, ii. 44. 

f So said the Tyrians themselves — 'Ecpaaav ofia Tvp(p o'lKi^ofiivi} 
Kal TO Ipev Tov Qeov ISpvd^vai, ("Herod." l.s.c.) 

J Lenormant, "Manuel/' vol. iii. p. 9. 

§ "Ant. Judd." viii. 3. 

II Justin, xviii. 3 : " Ppst multos annos Sidonii 

navibus appulsi Tyron urbem ante annum Trojanse 

cladis condiderunt." 

][ The date of Erastosthenes "was B.C. 1184; that of Castor and 
the Parian marble B.C. 1209 ; that of Herodotus and Thucydides, 
B.C. 1250. 

** Josh. xix. 29 : "And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and 
to the strong city of Tyre." 



64 Early Civilizations. 

the " Domesday Book," as it has been called, of the 
Hebrew nation. That entrance can scarcely be 
dated later than B.C. 1400,* so that Tyre must cer- 
tainly have existed in the fifteenth century before 
our era. As Sidon was, according to all accounts, 
considerably more ancient than Tyre, we must allow 
at least another century for the period of Sidon ian 
preponderance — an estimate which will make the 
old Phoenician capital date from at least B.C. 1550 — 
1500. 

We do not think there are any sufficient grounds 
for throwing back the origines of the Phoenicians, 
or, at any rate, of Phoenician civilization, to a time 
anterior to this. All the necessities of the case 
are met by such a date as B.C. 1550. The Phoe- 
nician civilization represented by Homer must 
have existed prior to B.C. 1000, and is imagined 
by the poet to have been, as he represents it, 
two or three centuries earlier. The Jew ish records 
do not exhibit the civilization in detail until the 
eleventh century B.C. ; nor does the use of the 
phrase "Great Zidon," in Joshua, t if we regard 
civilization as implied in it, carry back the flourish- 
ing condition of the nation much beyond B.C. 1400. 
The monuments of Egypt furnish, we believe, no 
evidence of Phoenician art or commerce anterior to 
the eighteenth dynasty — B.C. 1500 — 1300. We are 

* Bunsen and Lepsius maintain the lower date of B.C. 1280 ; 
but it is impossible to reconcile their views with the statements of 
Scripture. 

f Josh. xi. 8. 



Date and Character of Phcenician Civilization. 65 

inclined to believe that the original emigration of 
the Phoenicians from the shores of the Persian Gulf 
to those of the Mediterranean* may have taken 
place as far back as B.C. 1800, or even earlier ; but 
we see no indication of their having become a com- 
mercial, or a manufacturing, or a literary people, 
until, at least, three centuries later. To sum up, we 
agree with the conclusion to which Mr. Kenrick 
came in 1855 : — " The commencement of the period 
of Phoenician commercial activity cannot be his- 
torically fixed; it may ascend to the sixteenth or 
seventeenth century B.C. ; it may be several centuries 
earlier."t But we incline, on the whole, to prefer 
the latest date which he mentions, and are disposed 
to regard the sixteenth century B.C. as that which 
saw the first appearance of the Phoenicians as a 
civilized and civilizing nation. 

* See Herod, i. 1, vii. 89; Justin, xviii. 3, sec. 2; Strab. xvi. 
p. 1090; and compare the author's "Herodotus," vol. vi. pp. 
196, 197. 

f "Phoenicia," p. 340. 

P 



CHAPTER y. 

ON THE CrVILIZATIOKS OP ASIA MINOR — PHRYGIA, 
LYDIA, LYCIA, THE TROAS. 

Claim made by the Phrygians to an extreme antiquity — Their 
military power, about B.C. 1300 — Character of their civilization 
— Period which it covers, from about B.C. 900 to B.C. 565 — An- 
tiquity of the Lydian monarchy — Account of Herodotus — His 
third, or Mermnad d^'nasty — His second or Heraclcid dynasty 
— His first dynasty, mythic — Lydian civilization not traceable 
further back than about b.c. 900 — 850 — Chief features of the 
civilization — Coinage — Trade — Glyptic art — Tombs of the kings 
— Flourishing period of Lydia, from b.c. 850 to b.c. 550 — Civil- 
ization of Lydia, remarkable — Beauty of the sculptures — In- 
dications of refinement — High position of women — Early 
civilization of the Troas — Character of the civilization as shown 
by recent excavations — Leading features of Aryan civilization. 

A INIONG the nations which claimed to have ex- 
-^-^ isted from the remotest times,* and which 
even ventured to disj)ute the palm of antiquity with 
Egyptjf it is somewhat surprising to find the small 
and not very distinguished state of Phr}'gia. 
Phrygia was an inland tract, occupying the central 
portion of Asia Minor, which is an elevated plateau, 

* See Pausan. i. 14, § 2; Apuleius, " Metaph.," xi. 5; Arrian, 
Ft. 46 ; Schol. ad Apollon. Rhod. iv. 261 ; Claudian, " Eutrop.," 
ii. 251, etc. 

•j- Herod, ii. 2. 

66 



Civilizations of Asia Minor. 67 

bounded north and south by mountain-chains, and 
intersected here and there by rocky ridges. From 
what date the Phrygian people had really been settled 
in this region is exceedingly uncertain. They had 
congeners in Thrace,* and were believed by some to 
have immigrated from Europe into Asia within 
historical memory.f But it is doubtful, on the 
whole, whether this migration has any solid grounds 
to rest upon ; and quite certain that, if a fact, it 
must be one belonging to very remote times, long 
anterior to the dawn of history. The interior of 
Asia Minor is known as Phrygia to Homer,| and 
no hint is given by him of its inhabitants being 
newly come into the region. Priam had in his 
youth helped them when they were attacked by the 
Amazons, and speaks of them as if they w^ere then 
(about B.C. 1300) the most powerful people of the 
Peninsula.§ Their owm traditions appear to have 
made them autochthones, or aboriginals ; and it would 
seem that they believed the re-peopling of the earth 
after the flood to have begun in their country. || Of 
course no great stress can be laid on such a tradition ; 
but it is incompatible with any knowledge on their 
part of being recent immigrants into their territory. 

* The Briges, whose name was another form of Phryges. (See 
Herod, yii. 73 ; Steph. Byz. ad voc. Bpiyec.) 

I Xanthus Lydus said that the migration had taken place sub- 
sequently to the Trojan AVar (Fr. 5). 

X " Iliad," iii. 184. 
§ Ibid. ii. 185—190. 

II Steph. Byz. ad voc. 'IkSviov. Compare the Phrygian coins 
which represent the Deluge(Mionnet, "Descriptions des Medailles," 
vol. iv. pp.231— 227; and " Bible Educator," vol. i. pp. 33—35.) 



68 Early Civilizations. 

The civilization of the Phrygians was not of a 
high order. They were better known in the 
remoter times for their warlike qualities than for 
any progress which they had made in the useful or 
ornamental arts. Homer celebrates their martial 
ardour,* and the skill with which they managed 
their chariots,t but says nothing of their occu- 
pations in peace. Other writers note their pro- 
ficiency in boxing.| As time went on, however, 
they developed a civilization, the impulse towards 
which may have been given from without, but 
which had features that were peculiar. They sculp- 
tured rock-tombs unlike any found elsewhere, and 
adorned them with an elegant patterning, accom- 
panied by inscriptions. § They invented a musical 
st}'le of a stirring and martial character, which 
was adopted as one of their main styles by the 
Greeks. 1 1 They applied themselves, if we may 
believe Diodorus,^ to nautical matters, and for 
the space of tsventy-five years held the command 
of the Mediterranean Sea. One of their tribes** 
distinguished itself in metallurgy, and from their 

* $op/ciif ai ^piiyat; ff)'e koX 'AcKavto^ dcoidfj^, T^?,' ff ^ AdKaviTjq. 
fikfiaaav S^vafiivL fid^^ecBat. Horn. " Iliad," ii. 862, 863. 

f ^piyaq, avipaQ aJoAoitcJXoi'f. " Iliad," iii. 185. 

% Theocrit. " Idyll." xxii. 75—130; ApoUon. Rhod. i. 937— 954; 
Apollod. " Bibliothec," ii. 5, § 9. 

§ See Texier, "Asie Mineure," vol. i. p. 155; and for the 
inscriptions, cf. the author's " Herodotus," vol. i. p. 547, second 
edition. 

II Grote, "History of Greece," vol. ii. p. 402 (ed. of 1862). 

^ Ap. Euseb. " Chron. Can.," i. 36. 

** The Dactyli of Mount Ida. (See " Phoronis," Fr. 5.) 



Civilizaiions of Asia Minor. 69 

wonderful skill acquired the reputation of being 
magicians. In connection with their music, they 
composed odes and hymns, which they used in their 
religious services, and which must have had con- 
siderable merit, if they really " stimulated the devel- 
opment of lyric and elegiac composition" among 
the Greeks of Asia. * 

It will scarcely be argued at the present day that 
Phrygian civilization began at a very early date. 
We cannot really trace the nation further back 
than about B.C. 1300, for their name is absent from 
the Bible, and from the early cuneiform and hiero- 
glyphical inscriptions. Homer is the most ancient 
authority for their existence ; and Homer, as above 
remarked, represents them as a warlike, but scarcely 
as a civilized, people. Their written characters are 
evidently derived from the Phoenician, f and were 
probably communicated to them at the time of their 
naval supremacy, or about B.C. 900 — 875. Their 
rock-sculptures are most likely later than this. The 
kind Midas, whose tomb and inscription still remain 
at Doganlu, near the ancient Cotyseum, is probably 
the monarch of the name whom Eusebius J made a 
contemporary of Hezekiah (b.c. 726 — 697). He is, 
perhaps, the same mth the Midas whom Herodotus 
mentions as the first foreigner to send offerings to 
Delphi ; § and he possibly may be the Mita whom 

* So Mr. Grote ("Hist of Greece," vol. ii. p. 403). 
j- See the author's Herodotus," 1. s. c. 
X "Chron. Can.," ii. p. 321. 
§ Herod, i. 14, 



70 Early Civilizations. 

Sargon speaks of as one of his West-Asian antago- 
nists.* It is not clear that a Phrygian moruirchy 
had existed very long before this. In the Homeric 
times no king is mentioned ; and the traditional 
Gordia.s, the founder of the kingdom, f if he be a 
real personage, may have been the father of this 
Midas, and have ascended the throne about B.C. 750. 
The most flourishing period of Phrygia must be 
placed between B.C. 750 and B.C. 5G5. For centuries 
anterior to B.C. 750 it had been an important military 
power — probably the chief power of Asia Minor ; but 
we have no evidence of its condition at this period, 
and cannot say whether it was civilized or barbarous. 
The history of Lydia is carried back by ancient 
writers very considerably beyond that of Phrygia. 
According to Herodotus, J the country had been 
ruled by three dynasties in succession before its 
conquest by Cyrus (b.c. 554) — the first of them 
sprung from a certain Lydus, son of Atys ; the next 
descended from the Grecian Hercules, and known as 
Heracleids; the third descended from Gyges, son 
of Dascylus, and known as Mermnads. To the 
Mermnad dynasty he assigned 170 years ;§ to the 
Heracleids 505 years ; || to the d}Tiasty which 

* See "Ancient Monarcliies," toI. ii. p. 422, first edition, and 
compare Sir H. Eawlinson's note in the author's "Herodotus," 
vol. i. p. 131, note 6, second edition. 

f Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 3; Justin, xi. 7. 

X Herod, i. 7—13. 

§ This number is obtained by adding together the years as- 
signed to the several kings. It is probably in excess, since it 
involves an avero.ge of thirty-four years to a reign. 

II Herod, i. 7. 



Civilizations of Ada Minor. 71 

preceded tlie Heraclcids ho could assign no definite 
duration, — their origin was lost in the mists of 
antiquity, falling into the remote period when 
history melts into fable and legend. A settled 
monarchy had thus, according to the belief of 
Herodotus, existed in Lydia from a date at least as 
early as B.C. 1400 ; for we can scarcely allow to his 
first dynasty a less period than tAVO centuries. The 
views of Herodotus are borne out to a certain extent 
by notices in other writers. Diodorus said * that 
the Lydians had held the command of the Mediter- 
ranean for ninety-frvvo years — from B.C. 1182 to B.C. 
1090. Xanthus, the Lydian, who wrote the history 
of his native country in Greek during the lifetime 
of Herodotus, appears by his fragments to have 
recognized the thrcQ dynasties of that writer,t and 
to have claimed for the Lydian kingdom at least as 
high an antiquity.J Homer does not throw much 
light on the subject. He does not use the name of 
"Lydians " at all ; but it is generally agreed that 
the Meones, whom he brings from Mount Tmolus 
to the assistance of Priam,§ represent the Lydian 
people. 

* Ap. Euseb. "Chron. Can." i. 36. 

t See the "Fragments" in C. MuHer's " Fragmenta Histori- 
corum GrEecorum," vol. i. pp. 36-43 ; and compare the frag- 
ments of Nicolaus Damascenus in the same work, vol. ui. pp. 380 
—886. This latter writer almost certainly followed Xanthus. 

% Xanthus made a Lydian general found Ascalon (Fr._23) 
which was a flourishing town in the time of Joshua (Judges i. 18) 
—about B.C. 1500. 

? "Iliad," ii. 864, 865. Herodotus tells us that the Lydians 
were originally called Meones (i. 7). 



72 Early Civilizations. 

It has commonly been allowed that Herodotus's 
third, or Merinnad, dynasty is historical.* Gyges, 
its first monarch, was contemporary with the 
Greek poet Archilochus, who mentioned him in his 
writings.f He sent magnificent offerings to Delphi, 
which were seen by Herodotus, and which the priests 
called " Gygian." % Recently his name has been 
found in the inscriptions of the contemporary 
Assyrian monarch, Sardanapalus,§ who says that 
Gyges sent him presents, and accepted for a time 
the position of an Assyrian tributary. There is thus 
no shadow of doubt that a powerful and civilized 
monarchy was established on the west coast of Asia 
Minor at least as early as the beginning of the 
seventh centur}\ 

With regard to the second, or Heracleid, dynasty, 
there is more doubt. That a family distinct from 
that of the Mermnads ruled in Lydia before the 
accession of Gyges may be pronounced certain ; and 
the continuous list of six kings, preserved by Nicolas 
of Damascus, 1 1 and taken by him most probably 
from Xanthus, seems to desers^e acceptance as his- 
torical. But beyond this all is uncertain. We do 
not know what authority the Lydian informants of 
Herodotus had for their statement that the second 

* Thirlwall, "History of Greece," toI. ii. p. 158; Grote, 
" History of Greece," toI. ii. p. 408. 

f Herod, i. 12 ; Arist. "Khet." iii. 17. 

X Herod, i. 14. 

§ See Mr. G. Smith's " History of Assur-bani-pal," pp. 64, 71, 
and 73. 

II See the "Fragm. Hist. Gr.," vol. iii. pp. 380—386. 



Civilizations of Asia Minor. 73 

dynasty contained twenty-two kings in a direct 
line, whose reigns conjointly made np the nnmber 
of 505 years. The statement itself is exceedingly 
improbable ; * and it seems on the whole unlikely 
that the Lydians of the fifth century B.C. were in 
possession of authentic records and of an exact 
chronology reaching back between 700 and 800 
years. Their estimate can scarcely have been any- 
thing better than a rough guess at the time that the 
(so-called) Heracleid dynasty had lasted. It may 
easily have been something worse. It may have been 
an attempt to support by an apparent synchronism 
the idea of a connection between the royal houses of 
Assyria and Lydia, dating from the thirteenth 
century B.C., which soine of the Lydians seem clearly 
to have asserted. f But this supposed connection is 
probably a pure fiction, J the offspring of national 
vanity, without any foundation in fact. If the 
chronology was really invented to bolster up 
this figment, it does not deserve a moment's con- 
sideration, but may be consigned at once to 
oblivion. 

As for the first Herodotean dynasty, its non- 

* A continuous descent from father to son for twenty-two 
generations, without any failure of male offspring, or even any 
descent to a grandson, is very unlikely. 

f The supposed genealogy of the first Heracleid king, who was 
said to have been "son of Mniis and grandson of Belus," proves 
this. 

X There is no trace in the Assyrian inscriptions of any con- 
nection between Lydia and Assyria prior to the time of Gyges. 
Assyrian influence does not previously extend beyond Cilicia, 
Cappadocia, and perhaps South-eastern Phrygia. 



74 Early Civilizations. 

liistorical character has been almost universally 
admitted.* The kings assigned to it are clearly 
mythical personages, belonging, not to the nation's 
history, but to its Pantheon. Manes is the heros 
eponymus of the !Meones, or Maeoncs ; Atj's and 
Cotys are gods ; Lydus and Asies are again epony- 
mous heroes; Meles is an ideal founder of the 
capital. Plistory begias at the earliest with the 
Heracleids ; but scarcely with Agron, who is not 
more real than Brute the Trojan, or than Hengist 
and Horsa, sons of Witgils, and great-grandsons 
of Odin. We cannot trace the Heracleids further 
back than about B.C. 850 ; the dynasty may 
have commenced some centuries earlier, but we 
really hiow nothing of Lydia before the ninth 
century. 

From this time, however, if not even earlier, the 
Lydians appear to have been civilized. The wealth 
which Gyges boasted descended to him from the 
Heracleid kings, who doubtless washed the sands of 
Pactolus, and worked the mines of Tmolus for many 
generations. Commercial activit}' must have com- 
menced and have made much progress under their 
sway, if, as seems tolerably certain, the invention of 
coined money was made by the Lydians dm-ing the 
time of their sovereignty.! This invention implies 

* Heeren, " Manual of Ancient History," p. 478, E. T. ; Grote, 
"Hist, of Greece," vol. ii. p. 408; Volney, " Recherches sur 
I'Histoire Ancienno," vol. i. p. 306 ; P. Smith, " Ancient History," 
vol. i. pp. 252, 253, etc. 

f If the Lydians invented coined money, as asserted hy 



Civilizations of Asia Minor. 75 

a high degree of niercantile intelligence, and can 
sciirocly have been made until commercial transac- 
tions with foreign nations had become both numerous 
and intricate. Herodotus tells us that the Lydians, 
as far as he knew, were the first to engage in retail 
trade as a profession ;* and among the nations of 
Western Asia they were noted for industry, for 
mental activity, and for a readiness to hold inter- 
course with foreign countries. They were skilled 
in music,t and originated a style of their own, 
w^hich the Greeks regarded as soft and effemi- 
nate. They claimed to have invented a variety 
of games at a very remote period.| They were 
ship-builders, and did not shrink from the perils 
of long voyages.§ In glyptic art their early 
coins show them to have made some progress, 
for the animal forms upon these coins have 
considerable merit. || They were well acquainted 
with the art of squaring and polishing hard stone 
and marble. If the rock-sculptures existing in 

Herodotus (i. 94), Xenoplianes of Colophon (ap. Pol. ix. 83), and 
others, they must have done so before the time of Pheidon I., who 
introduced coined money into Argolis. But Pteidon I. flour- 
ished about B.C. 750, or half a century before Gyges. 

* Herod, i. 94. 

f On the Lydian music, see Mr. Grote's "History of Greece," 
vol. ii. p. 402-407 ; and compare Professor Donkin's article in 
Smith's " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," ad. voc. 
MusicA. 

J As dice, huckle-bones, and ball. (See Herod, i. 94.) 

i So Herodotus, l.s.c. Compare the statement of Diodorus 
(ap. Euseb. "Can. Chron," i. 36), that they once held the com* 
mand of the Mediterranean. 

II See tlie author's " Herodotus," vol. i. p. 507. 



76 Early Civilizations. 

their country* are to be ascribed to them, we must 
give tliem credit for some grandeur of conception, as' 
well as for a power of executing such works under 
difficulties. 

A grandeur of conception is also evidenced by the 
most remarkable of all the Lydian works which are 
still extant. The barrow, or tumulus, is a somewhat 
rude and common construction, requiring no great 
mechanical skill, and possessing little impressiveness, 
unless it is of vast size. The Lydians having adopted 
this simple form, which appears also in the neigh- 
bouring Troad,t for the tombs of their kings, gave 
dignity and majesty to their works by the scale on 
which they constructed them. The largest of them 
all, the famous " tomb of Alyattes," Herodotus com- 
pares with the monuments of Egj-pt and Babylon.| 
It was a conical mound, above a thousand feet in 
diameter, emplaced upon a basement of hewn stone, 
and crowned with five stelce, or pillars, bearing in- 
scriptions. It covered more space than the Great 
Pyramid, but can scarcely have had so great an 
elevation. In its centre it contained a sepulchral 
chamber, eleven feet long, eight broad, and seven 
high, formed of large blocks of white marble highly 
polished.§ It stood on the summit of a range of 
limestone hills which skirts the valley of the Hermus 

* Texier, " Asie Mineure," vol. ii. p. 304; Hamilton, "Re- 
searches in Asia Minor," vol. i. p. 50. 

■f Schliemann's "Troy and its Remains," p. 178, and plate 
opposite. 

X Herod, i. 93. 

§ See the author's "Herodotus," vol. i. p. 184, note 6. 



Civilizoiions of Asia Minor. 77 

on the north, and is still " a conspicuous object on 
all sides." * 

Herodotus speaks as if this tumulus had in his 
day stood alone. It is scarcely possible, however, 
that this was really so. The monument stands now 
in the midst of a necropolis of similar tombs, all of 
which are seemingly of at least equal antiquity. 
Modern travellers have counted more than sixty of 
these tumuli ; and among them are three or four f 
but little inferior in size to the " tomb of Alyattes." 
These are, in all probability, the tombs of other 
(previous) Lydian kings, whose works Alyattes de- 
termined to outdo when he raised his great sepul- 
chre. The size and number of the tumuli render 
this Lydian necropolis a most impressive sight. " It 
is impossible," says Mr. Hamilton, | a traveller 
rarely moved to admiration, " to look upon this col- 
lection of gigantic mounds, three of which are dis- 
tinguished by their superior size, without being struck 
with the power and enterprise of the people by 
whom they were erected, and without admiring the 
energies of the nation who endeavoured to preserve 
the memories of their kings and ancestors by means 
of such rude and lasting monuments." 

Lydian civilization belongs, then (so far as ap- 
pears), to the three centuries commencing B.C. 850, 
and terminating B.C. 550. Like Phrygian civili- 
zation, it was (apparently) of home growth, only 

* Hamilton, vol. i. p. 146. 

■j- Chandler, " Tour in Asia Minor," p. 302. 

X "Researches," vol. i. p. 146. 



78 Early Civilizations. 

very slightly affected by the influence of Eg^^pt, 
or of Assyria, or even of Phoenicia. The chief 
mark which is left behind was the invention of 
coined money, whereby it gave an impetus to trade 
and commerce that can scarcely be too highly ap- 
preciated. In other respects it was not a civili- 
zation of a high order. It did not affect literature, 
or science, or even art, otherwise than slightly. It 
probably, however, had some refining and soften- 
ing: influence on social intercourse and manners. 
Though the character of the Lydians for luxury 
and effeminacy belongs especially to later times,* 
to the period when they had become subjects of the 
Persian or Macedonian monarchy, yet we may 
trace, under the independent kingdom, the germs 
of this soft temper. Anacreon, who lived at the 
time of the Persian conquest, and can scarcely have 
lived long enough to note a change of character pro- 
duced by subjection, pointedly remarked upon it. f 
It was alluded to by Sappho, | his earlier con- 
temporary. Herodotus, in his story of Gyges, in 
his account of Lydian manners during the reign 
of Alyattes, and in his description of the court of 
Croesus, implies it. § Lydia must have played an 
important part in polishing and humanizing the 

* See Grote, " Hist, of Greece," vol. ii. p. 405; and compare 
Herod, i. 155, 157 ; ^scliyl. '■ Pers." 41 (a.3po6iaiToi Aidoi) ; Atlie- 
naeus, " Depin." xv. p. 690. C; Suidas ad voc. KapiKT/. 

•f Anacreon (100) uses the -word ?.vdo~ad^(, •' Lydian-tempered," 
for Tidv-aBijq, " soft- tempered." 

X Sapph. Fr. 54, ed. Schneide-.vin. 

g Herod, i. 8—12, 29, and 93. 



civilizations of Asia Minor. 79 

Greeks, to whom they were for a century and 
a half the main representatives of Asiatic civili- 
zation. 

In the south-western corner of Asia Minor we 
have traces of a third civilization, which, though 
somewhat later than the two that we have been 
considering, is so united to them by locality, and so 
near to them in respect of time, as to render its 
conjunction with them in this review of early 
civilizations natural, if not necessary. Lycia 
extended along the southern coast of the pen- 
insula from long. 28° 40' to 30° 40', comprising the 
fertile valleys of the Calbis and Xanthus, together 
with a large quantity of picturesque mountain 
country. It was inhabited by various warlike 
tribes, who maintained their independence* down 
to the time when Cyrus, having conquered Crossus 
(b.c. 554), commanded his general, Harpagus, to 
comj^lete the subjugation of Asia Minor. Harpagus 
reduced the Lycians after encountering a desperate 
resistance, t and apparently received as his reward 
the satrapy, or rather sub-satrapy,J of Lycia, which 
continued to be held by his descendants for eighty 
or a hundred years as a hereditary fief. During 
this period we find a style of architecttire and of 
glyptic art existing in the country, which is very 

* Herod, i. 28. 

t Ibid. i. 176. 

X Lycia, according to Herodotus (iii. 90), was included with 
.^olis, Ionia, Caria, and Paniphylia, in the first satrapy of Darius. 
Sub-satraps, however, were common in Persia (Xen. " Hell." iii. 
1, § 10; .Elian. "Hist. Var." xii. 1, etc.). 



80 Early Civilizations. 

surprising.* The Lycians either carve themselves 
sepulchral chambers out of the solid rock, or build 
themselves tombs of large masses of squared stone, 
in each case fashioning their sepulchres after the 
form of either a temple or a house, and adorning 
them with bas-reliefs, which approach nearly to the 
excellence of the best Greek art. These early 
Lycian sculptures furni.^h a most curious problem. 
They are so Greek in character as to suggest 
strongly the idea of Greek influence. But they are 
accompanied by Lycian inscriptions, and they 
belong apparently to a time when Persia, and not 
Greece, was mistress of the territory.f The question 
arises. Did art make the leap from the sculptures 
of Assyria to those of Lycia in Asia, without the 
help of the Greeks? and was Greece indebted to 
Lycia for the great bulk of those high qualities 
which are usually regarded as exclusively charac- 
terizing the artistic productions of Hella? If so, 
the Lycians deserve to stand on a pedestal among 
the Asiatic nations,^ and to be regarded as con- 

* For the Lycian art and architecture, see the admirable works 
of Sir C. Fellows, entitled "A Journal written during an Excur- 
sion in Asia Minor," and "An Account of Discoveries in Lycia." 
Compare also the Travels of Forbes and Spratt. 

f See especially the matured views of Sir C. Fellows, as stated 
in his "Lycian Coins" (1855), pp. 18, 19. 

J It has been suggested to me that the Cypriots, or Greeks of 
Cyprus, were pei'haps a link between Assyria and Lycia ; but 
as at present advised, I am inclined to think that the Cypriot 
remains, discovered by General Di Cesnola and others, are con- 
siderably later than the Lycian. (See Dr. Birch's remarks in the 
"Transactions" of the Biblical Archaeological Soc. vol. iv. p. 20.) 



Civilizations of Asia Minor. 81 

stituting a most important link in the long series 
whereby the torch of knowledge has been handed on 
from age to age, and the gains made in early times 
by primitive Asiatic races have become the heritage 
of Europe and the common possession of modern 
civilized nations. 

Nor are the Lycian sculptures important only as 
indicating the high artistic excellence to which the 
nation had attained. They showed in the details of 
dress and furniture an advanced state of upholstery 
and of textile industry,* which we should certainly 
not have expected to find among a people so little 
known and so seldom mentioned by ancient writers.! 
We must conclude from "the reliefs assigned to the 
middle of the sixth century B.C. that the Lycians 
were already, at the time of the Persian conquest, on 
a par with any other Asiatic nation, in the comforts 
and luxuries of life, while they excelled all other 
Asiatics in artistic merit and genius. 

It is in accordance with the general idea which we 
thus obtain of Lycian civilization, to find that the 
position of women in Lycia was much higher than 
that usually assigned to the weaker sex by the Orien- 
tals. Citizenship and nobility were transmitted in 
Lycia by the female line ; and men, in tracing their 
genealogies, gave the list of their female, and not of 

* See especially the chairs, footstools, and dresses on the 
" Harpy Tomb," now in the British Museum. 

I We mean "ancient" in a strict sense. From the time of 
their connection with Rome (b.c. 188) the Lycians are frequently 
mentioned ; but they had then lost their Asiatic charactet, and 
become thoroughly Hellenised. 

G 



82 Early Civilizations. 

their male ancestors.* Moreover, tlie Lycian sculp- 
tors freely exhibited the forms of women in their 
bas-reliefs, representing them as unveiled before 
men, and as present with them at banquets.f 
Herodotus, in close agreement with the monuments, 
notes this fact of the Caunians,| who are proved by 
the inscriptions of their country to have been a mere 
branch of the Lycian people.§ 

Tlio three civilizations of which we have hitherto 
treated in this chapter belong most probably to the 
space between B.C. 850 and B.C. 450. If they ascend 
any higher, it is impossible, for want of records, to 
trace them. AVe may, however, gather from Homer, 
and from certain modern researches, that in the 
north-western corner of the Peninsula a civilization 
of a somewhat low tj-pe was established on the banks 
of the Scamander some four or five centuries earlier. 
Whether Dr. Schliemann's discoveries are to be 
regarded as having brought to light the veritable 
city whereof Homer sang or no, at any rate they 
prove the existence of metallurgic and ceramic skill, 
and of a certain amount of ingenuity and taste in 
ornament at a very remote date, prior to the in- 
troduction of letters, 1 1 and while flint and stone 

* Herod, i. 173. 

f See especially the bas-reliefs on the tomb of Zala, in the 
British Museum, which, though latish, have still a strong Lycian 
character about them. 

+ Herod, i. 172. 

^ Fellows, " Lycian Coins," p. 5. 

II We are wholly sceptical as to Dr. Schliemann's " eighteen 
inscriptions" (Troy and its Remains," p. 373). They have been 



civilizations of Asia 3Iinor. 83 

instruments were still employed to a large extent,* 
in the district where Troy must have stood — the 
broad plain bounded by hills, which is watered by 
the two streams of the Scamander and the Simois. 
If not the actual relics of the city of Priam, they 
indicate probably what the relics of that city would 
be if we were to find them, and what the character 
of its civilization was. We cannot agree with Dr. 
Schliemanu that his discoveries reveal " a great 
civilization and a gi^eat taste for art." What we 
find is a knowledge of metallurgy sufficient to pro- 
duce cups, vases, ornaments, and implements, some 
of which are cast, some wrought by the hammer, 
some brought into their actual shape by a fusing 
together of their pieces ; an acquaintance with the 
method of hardening copper by uniting it with an 
alloy of tin; t ^ power of producing terra cotta jars 
of a good quality, and as much as two feet in height ; 
a tolerable taste in personal ornament, especially 
shown in female head-dresses, in bracelets, and in 
earrings ; | a fair skill in masonry ; and a very 

interpreted as Chinese (ibid. p. 51,) as written in the Cyprian 
character from left to right (ibid. p. 366), and as written in the 
same character from right to left (ibid. p. 368). It is finally con- 
fessed (p. 309) that they are not interpreted or deciphered at all. 
To us they appear a mere rude patterning, in no essential respect 
different from the markings allowed to be patterns. 

* " Troy and its Remains;" pp. 21, 22, 94, 112, etc. 

f Ibid. p. 361. The alloy is less than was ultimately found to 
be best. The tin should stand to the copper as one to ten. In the 
" Trojan" specimens analyzed it is at most as one to eleven ; at 
least, as one to twenty-five. 

X "Troy and its Remains," pp. 335-340. 



84 Early Civilizations. 

moderate power of imitating animal forms.* On 
the other liand, \vc note in the entire series of remains 
a general clumsiness of shape, and a style of orna- 
mentation which is rude, coarse, and chiUUah. In no 
remains of antiquity have we seen less elegance than 
in the thirty-two pages of "whorls" with which Dr. 
Schliemann's work closes. The patterning, where it 
is imitative at all, imitates animals as children do — 
with dots for heads, and lines for ears, body, tail, 
and legs; where it is merely conventional, it is 
clumsy, irregular, and without beautj\ The vases, 
cups, etc., are somewhat better. Occasionally the 
shapes are moderately good, but the great mass are 
either grotesque or clumsy. In the ornaments alone 
is there any approach to artistic excellence, and even 
these fail to justify the rajjtures into which they 
throw the discoverer, f 

It is not unlikely that a civilization of the charac- 
ter revealed to us by Dr. Schliemann's researches at 
Hissar-lik was spread widely over Asia ]Minor in 
times anterior to the Lydian, Phrj-gian, and Lycian 
developments. There are various remains of very 
primitive art in the country, J which are still un- 
classified, and which may belong to this early period. 
It is a marked characteristic of the art that it is of 
native growth, not the result of Babylonian, or 

* "Troy and its Remains," pp. 37, 150, 232, 237, 352, 353, etc. 

t Ibid. p. 335. 

+ See Texier, "Asie ^fineure," vol, i. pp. 222-224; Hamilton, 
" Researches," vol. i. pp. 382, 383, 393-395 ; " Transactions" of 
Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol.iv. pp. 336-346. 



Civilizations of Asia Minor. 85 

Assyrian, or Egyptian, or Phoenician influence. It 
is, in fact, Aryan art, and the civilization which it 
accompanies and indicates is Aryan civilization. 
That civilization is characterized by imagination and 
progressivcuess in religion, by a tendency towards 
freedom in politics, by an elevated estimate of woman, 
by a general activity and industry, and by a high 
appreciation of art, a constant inventiveness, and a 
straining after ideal perfection. It was only in 
European communities that these tendencies fully 
worked themselves out ; but their germs may be seen 
in these early Asiatic efforts, when the Aryan race, 
in its infancy, was trying its powers. 



CHAPTER VI. 

ON THE CIVILIZATIONS OF CENTRAL ASIA — AjsaV' 
RIA, MEDIA AND PERSIA, INDIA. 

Civilization in Central Asia — Supposed antiquity of the Assy- 
rian Empire — View of Ctesias — More moderate chronology 
of Berosus and Herodotus — Cuneiform monuments fix about 
B.C. 1500 for commencement of Assyrian independence — 
Flourishing period begins B.C. 1300 — General character of 
Assyrian civilization — Architecture — Sculpture — Minor orna- 
mental arts^First beginnings of Iranian civilization — Sup- 
posed date of Zoroaster — Earliest portions of Zendavesta not 
before b.c. 1500 — Character of the early civilization — Fresh 
impulse received about B.d. 850 — Greatest development between 
B.C. 630 and B.C. 450 — Leading features of the architecture and 
sculpture — Decoration of palaces — Literary cultivation — 
Habits of life — Indie civilization nearly coeval with Iranic — 
Four periods of Sanskrit literature — Chronology of the periods 
— Civilization begins about B.C. 1200 — Character of the civili- 
zation as indicated by the Vedic writings. 

TTTHILE the Aryan civilizations, described in the 
' ' last chapter, were developing themselves peace- 
fully side by side, in the extreme west of the 
Asiatic continent, the region which juts out to- 
wards Europe, and is known by the name of 
Asia i\Iinor, the more centi'al portion of the Con- 
tinent — the ]\Iesopotaniian Plain, the great Iranic 
Plateau, and the Peninsula of Hindustan — was the 
scene of a struggle, not always peaceful, between 



dmlizations of Central Asia. 87 

three other types of human progress and advance- 
ment, which in those parts contended for the 
mastery. Two of these were, like the West- Asian 
civilizations, Aryan, while one, the Assyrian, was 
of an entirely different character. It is this last to 
which we propose to give the foremost place in the 
present chapter, not that we should assign it a 
priority of beginning over the other two, but 
inasmuch as it reached earliest its full development, 
and so belongs on the whole, to a more remote 
period in the world's history. 

The Assyrian empire is regarded by some writers 
as having commenced above 2000 years B.C.* 
Ctesias declaredf that a thousand years before the 
Trojan War a great chief, Ninus, had founded 
Nineveh, had established his dominion from the 
shores of the ^gean to the sources of the Upper 
Oxus, and had left his throne to his descend- 
ants, who held it through thirty generations for 
above thirteen centuries. The date of Ctesias for 
the Trojan War| was probably about B.C. 1200 — 
1190; so that he must have meant to place the 
commencement of the Assyrian power about B.C. 
2200. This view was long followed by writers on 
ancient history,§ by whom the authority of Ctesias, 

* Clinton, " Fasti Hellenici," vol. i. p. 263, sqq. ; RoUin's 
" Histoire Ancienne." vol. ii, pp. 12-14. 

t Ap. Died. Sic. ii. 21, 22. 

X See Clinton, 1. s. c. 

^ As by Cephalion, Castor, Nicolas of Damascus, Trogus Pom- 
peius, Velleius Paterculus, Josephus, Eusehius, Moses of Chorene, 
Syncellus, Dean Prideaux, Freret, Rollin, and others. 



88 Early Civilizations. 

who passed seventeen years at the Court of Su.sa, 
and had access to tlie Persian archives, was regarded 
as paramount. There have l)een, however, at all 
times historians to whom the Assyrian chronology 
of Ctesias has seemed extravagant and unreal, who 
have thought little of his authority,* and have 
lowered his date for the establishment of the 
Assyrian empire by nine hundred or a thousand 
years. Statements in Herodotus and in Berosus 
could be adduced in favour of the more moderate 
computation ;t and it accorded better than that of 
Ctesias with the scattered notices contained in the 
Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, the shorter chronology 
has at all times held its ground against the longer 
one ; and having approved itself to such writers as 
Volney, Heeren, B. G. Niebuhr, and Brandis, has 
in the present century been the view most generally 
accepted by historical critics. 

The question, however, might have remained an 
open one for all time, either side of it being 
arguable, and the balance of probability appearing 

* Among the ancients, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Arrian ; among 
the moderns, Scaliger, Niebuhr, and Mure, have detected and 
denounced the ill-faith and charlatanry of Ctesias, who seems to 
have had an actual love of lying. 

f Herodotus (i. 95) placed the foundation of the Assyrian em- 
pire 520 years before the revolt of the Medes, which event he 
placed in the latter half of the eighth century B.C. Berosus (Fr. 
11) made the Assyrians acquire preponderance over Babylon 526 
years before the accession of Pul, who was contemporary with 
Menahem (2 Kings xv. 19), and must therefore have reigned to- 
wards the middle of that century. Both notices point to a com- 
mencement of the empire in the course of the 13th century B.C. 



Civilizations of Central Asia. 89 

to different minds to incline differently, had not the 
discovery and decipherment of the cuneiform records 
come in to determine it. By their aid the con- 
nected histories of Assyria and Babylonia can now 
be traced back continuously, and with a chronology 
tliat, if not exact, is at least approximate, to the 
middle of the fifteenth century B.C.* It is now 
made clear f that, so far from there having been at 
this date a vast Assyrian empire, which for seven 
hundred and fifty years had ruled over all Asia, from 
the Mediterranean and xEgean to the banks of the 
Oxus and the Indus, Assyria was really, in B.C. 
1500 — 1400, a weak state, confined within narrow 
boundaries, and only just emerging from Babylonian 
tutelage, its earlier rulers having been called patesi, 
or " viceroys," and its monarchs at this period 
having only just begun to assume the grander and 
more dignified title of " kings of countries." | The 
Assyrian empire does not commence till a century 
and a half later, B.C. 1300, when Tiglathi-Nin 
(perhaps the Ninus of the Greeks) took Baby Ion, § 
and established the predominance of Assyria over 
Lower as well as Upper Mesopotamia. We cannot 
date much earlier than this the commencement of 

* See the author's " Ancient Monarchies," vol. ii. pp. 49-56, 
2d edit. 

f M. Lenormant says emphatically, and with good reason, 
" En effet des monuments positifs ne nous permettent plus 
aujourd'hui de douter que la monarchie Assyrienne n'ait d^but^ 
dans le quinzifeme siecle avant notre ^re." ("Manuel d'His- 
toire Ancienne," vol. ii. p. 56.) 

X See the Records of the Past," vol. v. p. 81. 

I Ibid. p. 85. 



90 Early Civilizations. 

that peculiar form of Semitic civilization which is 
associated with the idea of Assyria, partly from the 
accounts of ancient writers,* but mainly from the 
recovered treasures of art and literature ^hich line 
the walls and load the shelve.'? of our museums. 

The civilization of the Assyrians was material 
rather than spiritual. Its main triumphs were in 
architecture, in glyptic and plastic art, in metal- 
lurgy, gem-cutting, and manufactures, not in 
philosophy, or literature, or science,! properly so 
called. According to some, its architecture went to 
the extent of producing edifices of a magnificence 
scarcely exceeded by the grandest buildings of any 
age or country — edifices four or five stories in 
height, of varied outline, richly adorned from base 
to summit, and comraandingly placed on lofty 
platforms of a solid and massive character. The 
restorations of Mr. Fergusson, adopted by Mr. 
Layard,! present to the eye Assyrian fa9ades whose 
grandeur is undeniable, while, if the stj'le and 
luxuriance of their ornamentation are somewhat 

* See especially Diod, Sic. ii. Compare Ezek. xxiii. 14-16. 

•}■ In engineering science, •which is a practical matter, the 
Assyrians made considerable progress. They were ■well ac- 
quainted with the principle of the arch, and could span -with it a 
space of fourteen or fifteen feet; they constructed tunnels 
through the solid rock, sluices, dams, and drains. They knew the 
use of the pulley, the lever, and the roller. They quarried and 
moved, with a full sense of security, masses of stone with which 
modern builders would scarcely venture to meddle. (See Layard, 
" Nineveh and Babylon," pp. 105-112.) 

X See the coloured print, which stands first in Mr. Layard's 
"Monuments of Nineveh," second series, and the frontispiece to 
his " Nineveh and Babylon." 



Civilizations of Central Ada. 91 

barbaric, yet the entire eflfect is beyond question 
splendid, striking, admirable. If these representa- 
tions are truthful, if they really reproduce the 
ancient edifices, or even convey a correct impression 
of their general character, we must pronounce the 
Assyrian arch itectiu'e to have attained results which 
the best architects of the present day could not 
easily outdo. Even if we hesitate to accept as 
ascertained fact conclusions which are in reality the 
ingenious conjectures of a fertile imagination, we 
must still allow that the actual remains sufficiently 
indicate a grandeur of conception and plan,* an 
appreciation of the fine effect of massiveucss, and 
a variety and richness in ornament, which go far 
to show that the Assyrians were really great as 
builders, though it may be impossible, Avith such 
data as we possess, to restore or reconstruct their 
edifices. 

If the remains of Assyrian architecture are such 
as to preclude an exact estimate of the merit to 
which the Assyrians are entitled as builders, with 
respect to their glyptic art it is quite otherwise. 
Here the remains are ample, and, indeed, super- 
abundant. The museums of London, Paris, and 

* Mr. Fergussoii says with truth, "The imperial palace of 
Sennacherib is, of all the buildings of antiquity, surpassed in 
magnitude only by the great palace-temple of Karnak ; and -when 
we consider the vastness of the mound on which it was raised, 
and the richness of the ornaments with which it was adorned, it 
is by no means clear that it was not as great, or at least as ex- 
pensive, a work as the great .palace-temple at Thebes." (See his 
"Handbook of Architecture," vol. i. p. 176). 



92 Early Civilizations. 

Berlin contain tlie spoils of tlie great ^Mcsopotamian 
cities in sucii profusion that no one acquainted with. 
them can lack the means of forming a decided 
opinion upon the artistic power of the people. Even 
such as are without the leisure or the opportunity 
of visiting these rich depositories and seeing the 
sculptures for themselves, may form a very tolerable 
judgment of them from the excellent works which 
have been published on the subject, as especially 
those of Mr. Layard and M. Botta.* The author 
of the present work has also done his best to assist 
the public in forming correct views by placing before 
them the main features of Assyrian art in a con- 
densed form in his " jNIonarchy of Assyria." f Mr. 
Vaux, in his " Nineveh and Persepolis," and various 
wTiters in the " Dictionary of the Bible " and the 
" Bible Educator," have worked in the same direc- 
tion; and the result is a very wide acquaintance 
with the products of Assyrian artists, if not a very 
exact critical appreciation of their merits. % 

* The two folios of Mr. Layard, entitled " Monuments of Nine- 
veh, First Series," and "Monuments of Nineveh, Second Series," 
are works of great merit, highly creditable to English private 
enterprise. The " Monument de Ninive " of M. Botta has all the 
magnificence and luxe which naturally results from the French 
system of state subventions. 

•{■ Forming part of his "Ancient Oriental Monarchies" (Lon- 
don, Murray, 1871, second edition). 

J It is to be hoped that Englishmen generally form their esti- 
mate rather from the sculptures themselves in the British Museiun, 
than from that coarse travesty of them which is to be seen in the 
"Assyrian Court" of a certain suburban building. (See "An- 
cient ]\Ionarchies." vol. i. p. 362). 



Oimlization^ of Central Ada. 93 

It may perhaps be allowed to the present writer 
to insert here, instead oi' a new criticism, the estimate 
which he formed of Assyrian glyptic art fifteen years 
ago, when fresh from a five years' study of the sub- 
ject. "In the Assyrian sculpture it is the actual," 
he said,* "the historically true, which the artist 
strives to represent. Unless in the case of a few 
mythic figures connected with the religion of the 
country, there is nothing in the Assyrian bas-reliefs 
which is not imitated from nature. The imitation 
is always laborious, and often most accurate and 
exact. The laws of representation, as we under- 
stand them, are sometimes departed from; but it 
is always to impress the spectator with ideas in ac- 
acordance with truth. Thus the colossal bulls and 
lions have five legs, but in order that they may be 
seen from every point of view with four; the ladders 
are placed edgeways against the walls of besieged 
towns, but it is to show that they are ladders, and 
not mere poles ; walls of cities are made dispropor- 
tionately small, but it is done, like Raphael's boat, to 
bring them within the picture, which would other- 
wise be a less complete representation of the actual 
fact. The careful finish, the minute detail, the 
elaboration of every hair in a beard, and every stitch 
in the embroidery of a dress, reminds us of the 
Dutch school of painting, and illustrates strongly 
the spirit of faithfulness and honesty which pervades 
the sculptures and gives them so great a portion of 
their value. In conception, in grace, in freedom and 

* " Herodotus," vol. i. pp. 496, 497, first edition. 



94 Early Cimlizaiions. 

correctness of outline, they fall undoubtedly far 
behind the inimitable productions of the Greeks j 
but they have a grandeur, a dignity, a bold- 
ness, a strength and an appearance of life which 
render them even intrinsically valuable as works of 
art; and, considering the time at which they were 
produced, must excite our surprise and admiration. 
Art, so far as we know, had existed previously only 
in the stiff and lifeless conventionalism of the Egyp- 
tians. It belonged to Assyria to confine the con- 
ventional to religion, and to apply art to the vivid 
representations of the highest scenes of human life. 
War in all its forms — the march, the battle, the 
pursuit, the siege of towns, the passage of rivers and 
marehes, the submission and treatment of captives — 
and the " mimic war " of hunting, the chase of the 
lion, the stag, the antelope, the wild bull, and the 
wild ass — are the chief subjects treated by the 
Assyrian sculptors ; and in these the conventional is 
discarded; fresh scenes, new groupings, bold and 
strange attitudes, perpetually appear; and in the 
animal representations especially there is a continual 
advance, the latest being the most spirited, the most 
varied, and the most true to nature, * thouarh 

* The hunting scenes from the palace of Ashur-bani-pal (Sar- 
danapalus of the Greeks) are the most perfect specimens of 
Assyrian glyptic art. They are to be seen in the basement room 
devoted to Assyrian art in the British Museum. Sir E. Landseer 
was wont to admire the truthfulness and spirit of these reliefs, 
more especially of one where hounds are pulling down a wild ass. 
(" Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. p. 517.) Professor Rolleston has 
expressed to me his admiration of a wounded lioness, in the same 



Civilizcdlons of Central Asia. 95 

perhaps lacking somewhat of the majesty and 
grandeur of the earlier.* With • no attempt to 
idealize or go beyond nature, there is a growing 
power of depicting things as they are — an increased 
grace and delicacy of execution, showing that Assy- 
rian art was progressive, not stationary, and giving a 
promise of still higher excellence, had circumstances 
permitted its development." 

To their merit as sculptors and architects, the 
Assyrians added an excellent taste in the modelling 
of vases, jars, and drinking-cups, a clever and 
refined metallurgy, involving methods which, till 
revealed by their remains, were unknown to the 
modernSjt a delicacy in the carving of ivory and 
motlier-of-j)earl, a skill in gem-engraving, glass- 
blowing and colom-ing, brick-enamelling, furniture- 
making, and robe-embroidering,J which place them 
beyond question among the most advanced and 
elegant of Oriental peoples, and show that, from a 
material point of view, their civilization did not 
fall very greatly behind that of the Greeks. Com- 
bined with this progress in luxury and refinement, 
and this high perfection of the principal arts that 
embellish and beautify life, their sculptures and 

series, where the paralysis of the lower limbs, consequent upon an 
arrow piercing the spine, is finely rendered. (Ibid. p. 512.) 

* See Layard, " Monuments of Nineveh," First Series, p. 3 ; 
and compare "Ancient Monarchies," vol. i. p. 345. 

f Layai-d, "Nineveh and Babylon," p. 191, note. 

% For details the writer must once more refer to his "Assyrian 
Monarch," where the entire subject of Assyrian art and manu- 
facture is carefully worked out. (See ch. vi.) 



96 Early Civilizations. 

their records reveal mucli wliieh revolts and disgusts 
— savage ijunisliiuents, brutalizing war customs, a 
debasing religion, a cruel treatment of prisoners, a 
contempt for women, a puerile and degrading super- 
stitioiLsncss* — teaching the lesson, which the present 
age would do well to lay seriously to heart, that 
material progress, skill in manufactures and in arts, 
even refined taste and real artistic excellence, are no 
sure indications of that civilization which is alone 
of real value, the civilization of the heart, a condition 
involving not merely polished manners, but gentle- 
ness, tenderness, self-restraint, purity, elevation of 
mind and soul, devotion of the thoughts and life to 
better things than comfort or luxury, or the cultiva- 
tion of the aesthetic faculties. 

Iranic civilization, or that of the Medes, the 
Persians, and (perhaps we should add) the Bactrians, 
is supposed by some modernsf to have origniated 
as early as B.C. 3784. Others| assign to it the 
comparatively moderate date of B.C. 2600 — 2500. 
The writer, however, who is most conversant with 
the early Iranic writings, and most competent to 
judge of their real age. Dr. Martin Hang, does not 
think it necessary to postulate for his favourites, the 
Iranians, nearly so great an antiquity. Haug sug- 
gests§ the fifteenth century B.C. as that of the most 

* For proofs of this, see " Records of the Past," vol. i. pp. 133 — 
135, and vol. v. pp. 169—176. 

f See Baron Bunsen, " Egypt," vol. v. p. 77. 

J Lenormant, " Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne de I'Orient," vol. 
ii. p. 307. 

^ Haug, " Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and 
Religion of the Parsees," p. 225. 



Civilizations of Central Asia. 97 

primitive Iranic compositions, which form the chief, 
if not the sole, evidence of an Iranic cultivation 
prior to B.C. 700. 

The question is one rather of linguistic criticism 
tiian of historic testimony. The historic statements 
that have come down to us on the subject of the age 
of Zoroaster, with whose name the origin of Iranic 
cultivation is by general consent regarded as inti- 
mately connected, are so absolutely conflicting that 
they must be pronounced valueless. Eudoxus and 
Aristotle* said that Zoroaster lived 6,000 years 
before the death of Plato, or B.C. 6348. Hermippusf 
placed him 5,000 years before the Trojan War, or 
B.C. 6184. Berosus declared of him that he reig-ned 
at Babylon towards the beginning of the twenty- 
third century before our era, J having ascended the 
throne, according to his chronological views, about 
B.C. 2286. Xanthus Lydus,§ the contemporary of 
Herodotus, and the first Greek writer who treats of 
the subject, made him live six hundred years only 
before the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, or B.C. 
1080. The later Greeks and Romans declared that 
he was contemporary with Darius Hystaspis,I| thus 
making his date about B.C. 520 — 485. Between 
the earliest and the latest of the dates assigned by 

* Ap. Plin. "Hist. Nat.," xxx. 2. 
t Ibid. 

J Berosus, Fr. 11, compared with Syncellus, " Clironographia," 
p, 147. 

I Xanth. Lyd., Fr. 29. 

II Agathias, p. 117 c. ; Arnob. i. 52; Clem. Alex. "Stromata," 
i. p. 357; Apuleius, "Florid." ii. p. 231. 

H 



98 J^arly Vivilizaiioiis. 

these authorities, the difference (it will be seen) is 
one of nearly six tJiousand years ! 

Modern criticism doubts whether Zoroaster ever 
lived at all, and regards his name as designating a 
period rather than a person.* The period intended 
is that of the composition of the earliest portions of 
the Zendavesta. To these portions, which are poems, 
and in the original bear the name of Gathas, Haug 
(as we have already stated) assigns as the most 
probable date about B.C. 1500. We see no reason 
for doubting the soundness of this expert's judg- 
ment, and we incline, therefore, to regard Iranic 
civilization as having commenced somewhat earlier 
than Assyrian. 

Of this primitive civilization, whereof the seat 
seems to have been Bactria, rather than Media or 
Persia, we possess no actual remains, no tangible or 
material evidences. The only existing proofs of it 
are the Zendic writings ; and the only notion of it 
which we can gain is that derivable from a careful 
study of these writings, or rather of their most 
ancient portions. From these we. gather that the 
primitive Iranians were a settled people, possessing 
cities of some size, that they were devoted to agricul- 
ture, and fairly advanced in the arts most necessary 

* Bunsen ■waives "the personality of the prophet" ■when he is 
discussing the date of Zoroastrianism ("Egypt's Place," vol. iii. 
p. 471). Lenormant inclines to regard Zoroaster as a person, but 
confesses that his existence is " enveloped in an obscurity ■which 
■will probably remain for ever impenetrable" (" Manuel d'Histoire 
Ancienne," vol. ii. p. 308). Niebuhr consigns him altogether to 
the region of myth (" Kl. Schriften," vol. i. p. 260). 



Civilizations of Central Asia. 99 

for human life. They had domesticated certain 
animals, as the horse, the cow, and the dog. They 
knew how to extract an exhilarating liquor from the 
Soma or Honia plant, the acid Asclepias or SaiTo- 
stema viminalis. They lived peaceably together, and 
recognized the supremacy of law. They had formed 
the conception of poetry, and, while some could 
frame, the generality could appreciate the beauty 
of metrical compositions. Above all, they had a 
religion, which was surprisingly pure and elevated,* 
consisting mainly in the worship of a single su- 
preme God, an all-wise, all-bounteous Spirit, Ahura- 
mazda. 

The cultivation thus begun about B.C. 1500 in the 
far-oif and little-known Bactria, received a fresh 
impulse towards the middle of the ninth century 
B.C., when the Iranians first came into contact with 
the Assyrians, f Migratory movements had by this 
time brought the Medes into the district which 
thenceforth bore their name, and having thus 
become neighbours of the Assyrians, whose civili- 
zation was already advanced, they could not but 
gain something from their novel experience. Among 

* Lenormant says, with truth, " La doctrine de Zoroastre est 
sans contredit le plus puissant effort de 1' esprit humain vers le 
spiritualisme et la vdrit^ m^taphysique, sur lequel on ait essay^ 
de fonder une religion en dehors de la revelation et par les seules 
forces de la raison naturelle : elle est la doctrine la plus pure, la 
plus noble, et la plus vols de la verity parmi celles de I'Asie et 
de tout le monde antique, a part celle des H^breux, bas6e sur la 
parole divine." (" Manuel," vol. ii. pp. 308, 309). 

f The contact appears in the cuneiform remains of this century. 
("Ancient Monarchies," vol. ii. pp. 101-116). 



100 Early Civilizations. 

the chief gains made was probably that of writing. 
The wedge was adopted as the element out of which 
letters should be composed, and an alphabet was 
formed far less cumbrous than the Assyrian sylla- 
barium, whereby it became easy to express articulate 
sounds by written symbols, and so to give jxirma- 
nency to the transient and fleeting phenomena of 
ordinar}' spoken language. 

Further advances were made between the end of 
the seventh and the middle of the fifth century B.C. 
about which time Iranian cultivation reached its 
greatest development. The Medes first (b.c. 630), 
and the Persians afterwards (b.c. 560), attained to 
the leading position among the Oriental nations, and, 
inheriting the power, entered also into possession of 
the accumulated knowledge and civilization of the 
earlier masters of Asia. They did not, however, 
simply continue the past, or reproduce what they 
foimd existing. In the remains of Median and 
Persian times found at Hamadan (Ecbatana), 
Behistun, Istakr (Persepolis), Xakhsh-i-Rustam, 
and Murghab (Pasargadse), we have evidences of 
Iranian art and architecture, which are most remark- 
able, and which give the Medo-Persic people a very 
important position in the history of sesthetic culture. 
While adopting one or two leading features of 
building and ornamentation from their Semitic pre- 
decessors, the Iranic races in the main gave a vent 
to their own native genius and fancy, and the 
consequence was that they introduced into the world 



Civilizations of Central Asia. 101 

a wholly new architecture,* a style of high relief not 
previously attempted, and a method of decoration 
altogether their own, excellently well adapted to the 
character of their climate and country, f 

The Iranic architecture was characterized, in the 
first place, by simplicity and regularity of design, 
and in the second by the profuse employment of the 
column. The buildings have for the most part a 
symmetry and exactness resembling that of Greek 
temples. I They were emplaced on terraces formed 
of vast blocks of hewn stone, § and were approached 
by staircases of striking and unusual design. Double 
porticoes of eight, twelve, or sixteen columns gave 
entrance into pillared halls, where the columns were 
sixteen, thirty-six, or (in one instance) as many as 
one hundred in number. Originally the pillars may 
have been mere wooden posts, || such as are com- 
monly used in the domestic architecture of most 
nations where wood is plentiful. These, Avhen wealth 
flowed in, it became the practice to overspread with 
thin sheets of the precious metals.^ But after a 

* Mr. Fergusson disputes this. He is of opinion that the Per- 
sian architecture was, in the main, a mere copy of the Assyrian, 
differing only in the substitution of stone pillars for wooden 
posts ; but the use of wooden posts by the Assyrians is " not 
proven." 

f See Loftus, " Chaldsea and Susiana," p. 375. 

X See the representation, "Ancient Monarchies," vol. iii. p. 
289 ; and compare Rich's " Persepolis," p. 244. 

§ Some of these at Persepolis are as much a,^ fifty feet long, and 
from seven to ten feet broad. (See Flandin " Voyage en Perse," 
vol. i. page 77.) 

II This seems to have been the case at Ecbatana ("Ancient Mo- 
narchies," vol. ii. page 265). ][ Polyb. x. 27, § 10. 



102 Early Civilizations. 

while the Iranic architects, having to erect palaces 
in (ILstricts where wood was scarce, conceived th6 
idea of substituting shafts of stone for the original 
wooden posts, and carried out their notion so success- 
fully that at last they were able to poise in air 
pillars sixty-four feet high, having beautifully 
slender shafts, rich bases, and capitals of an elegant, 
but perhaps somewhat too elaborate, composition. 
The halls constructed on these supports extended 
over so vast an area that moderns have found no 
existing constructions with which they could compare 
them but the most ambitious of European cathedrals. 
Speaking of the Chohl Minar, or Great Hall of 
Xerxes, at Persepolis, Mr. Fergusson says : " We 
have no cathedral in England that at all comes near 
it in dimensions ; nor, indeed, in France or Germany 
is there one that covers so much ground. Cologne 
comes nearest to it ; . . . but in linear horizontal 
dimensions the only edifice of the middle ages that 
comes up to it is Milan Cathedral, which covers 
107,800 feet, and (taken all in all) is perhaps the 
building that resembles it most, both in st}'le and the 
general character of the effect it must have produced 
on the spectator." 

For the ornamentation of their buildings, exter- 
nally, and to some extent internally, the Iranians, 
imitating their Semitic predecessors, employed sculp- 
ture. They did not, however, follow slavishly the 
pattern set them, but in important respects improved 
upon their models. They adopted generally a style 
* Fergusson, " Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis," pp. 171, 172. 



Civilizations of Central Asia. 103 

of much higher relief than that which had prevailed 
in Assyrian times, sometimes almost disengaging 
their figures from the background,* sometimes 
carvino- theai both in front and at the side, so that 
they did not fall far short of being statues.f They 
gave to their human heads great dignity,| and 
imparted to some animal forms§ a life and vigour 
never greatly surpassed. In variety and grace, how- 
ever, they cannot be said to have equalled the Assy- 
rians; and it is in their architecture, rather than 
in their glyptic art, that they give evidence of real 
originality and genius. 

Their internal decoration of palaces was especially 
admirable. "Such edifices as the Chehl Minar at 
Persepolis, and its duplicate at Susa — where long 
vistas of columns met the eye on every side, and 
the great central cluster was supported by lighter 
detached groups, combining similarity of form with 
some variety of ornament ; where richly-coloured 
drapiugs contrasted with the cool grey stone of the 
building, and a golden roof overhung a pavement of 
many hues;"|| where a throne of gold under a 
canopy of purple stood on an elevated platform at 

* See the representation, " Ancient Monarchies," vol. iii. p. 
334, which is taken from a photograph. 

f Ibid, page 296. 

% The casts in the British Museum, taken from the Persepolitan 
sculptures, show this sufficiently. The sculptures themselves are 
still in siti^ for the most part. 

^ As especially those of bulls and lions. (See " Ancient Mo- 
narchies," vol. iii. p. 339, and compare Flandin, "Voyage eu 
Perse," vol. i. p. 126.) 

II See " Ancient Monarchies," vol. iii. p. 328. 



104 Early Civilizations. 

one end,* backed bv " hangings of \vliitc and green 
and blue, fu.stenwl witli c-(»rd.s of wliite and i)urple to 
silver rings," attached to the "pillars of marble ;"t 
where carpets of dazzling brightness lay here and 
there upon the patterned floor, and through the inter- 
stices of the hangings were seen the bright blue sky 
and the verdant prairies and distant mountains of 
Khuzistan or Farsistan — mast have been among the 
fairest creations with which human art ever embel- 
lished the earth, and beyond a doubt compared 
favourably with any edifices which, up to the time of 
their construction, had been erected in any country 
or by any people. It was in these glorioas buildings 
that Iranian architecture culminated; and there is 
reason to believe that from them the Grecian archi- 
tects gained those ideas, which, fructifying in their 
artistic minds, led on to the best triumphs of Hellenic 
constructive art, the magnificent temples of Diana 
(Artemis) at Ephesus,]: and of Minerva (Athene) on 
the Acropolis of Athens. 

Of Iranian literary cultivation, not much is known. 
There are no portions of the Zendavesta which can 
be positively assigned to the space between B.C. 900 
and B.C. 330. The inscriptions of this period§ are 
dr>" documents, and as compositions have little merit ; 

* See "Ancient Monarchies," vol. iii. p. 291. 

f Esther i. 6. 

J See the " Ephesos " of Professor Curtius, recently published. 

I These will be found in Sir H. Rawlinson's " Persian Cunei- 
form Inscriptions." published in the "Journal" of the Royal 
Asiatic Society, vols, x., xi., xii., and in the " Altpersische Keil- 
inschriften " of Spiegel (pp. 5-45). 



Civilizations of Asia Minor. 105 

but lapidary literature is rarely of an attractive kind. 
•\Vc are told that the Per.siaus of the Achsemeniau 
times (B.C. 560—330) had among them historians and 
poets;* but the productions of these early authors 
have perished, and we have no account of them that 
is to be depended on. Perhaps it is, on the whole 
most probable that in the great work of Firdausi f 
we have, in the main, a reproduction of the legends 
with which the antique poets occupied themselves 
and so may gather from his pages a general idea of 
the style and spirit of the early Persian poetry. 

In manners and general habits of life the Iranians 
did not differ greatly from the Assyrians. Their 
original religion was indeed of a high tj^e, but it 
became corrupted as time went on,t and ultimately 
sank into a mere debasing and sensualistic nature- 
worship. § Their war customs were less brutal than 
those of their predecessors, but their system of pun- 
ishment was almost equally savage ; |1 they had the 
same low estimate of women ; they were cruel and 
treacherous, voluptuous, luxurious, given to drunken- 
ness \ Western Asia was perhaps better governed 
under their sway than it had ever been previously ; 
* Herod, i. 1; Ctes. ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 32, | 4; Strab. xv. 3, 
a 18 ; Dina ap. Athen. Deipn. xiv. p. 633, d. , • . „ ^f 

t ihe « Shahnameh," or " Book of the Kings," a good idea of 
whicli may be gathered from the account and translations of 

^\ Thfcrrruption had begun as early as the time of Herodotus 

(Herod, i. 131). ... ^ 

§ See "Ancient Monarchies," vol. m. pp. 360, 3bl. 

II Ibid. pp. 246, 247. 

\ Herod, i. 133; Strab. xv. 3, ? 20: Duns Sto. Fr. 13. 



106 Early Civilizations. 

but there was still much in their governmental sys- 
tem that was imperfect, and that iell short even of 
what is possible under a despotism. Their civiliza- 
tion may be pronounced to have been, on the whole, 
more advanced than that of the Assyrians ; it had a 
moral aspect ; it was less merely material ; but the 
highest qualities of real civilization were absent from 
it, and it cannot be said to have laid the world at 
large under many obligations. 

Indie civilization is supposed to have commenced 
about the same time with Iranic. There are so 
many points of resemblance between the ancient 
hymns of the Rig-A^'eda and the Gathas, allowed to 
form the most ancient portions of the Avesta, that 
it is almost impossible for persons familiar with both 
to assign them to periods yevy fur apart. The 
ancestors of the Medes and Persians on the one hand, 
and of the Hindoos upon the other, appear to have 
left their primitive abode about the same time, and 
to have embodied their earliest religious thoughts 
soon after they separated in poems of the same cha- 
racter. Thus, there is a general agreement among 
literary critics as to the near connection in date of the 
two literatures. With regard, however, to the actual 
period, great diversit}^ of opinion prevails, the same 
variety of views * obtaining in respect of the earliest 

* Bunsen, whose date for Zoroaster is B.C. 3784, assigns the 
" oldest Yedic songs " to the period between B.C. 4000 and B.C. 3120 
(" Egypt's Place," vol. iii. p. 573, compared with p. 564). Lenor- 
mant, who places Zoroaster between B.C. 2600 and B.C. 2500, 
believes the earliest portions of the Vedas to have been written 



Civilizatiotis of Central Asia. 107 

Yedas as M^e have already shown to exist with 
respect to the Gathas of the Zendavesta. But here 
again the chief " expert " — the Avriter who has the 
largest acquaintance with the whole range of the 
Indian compositions, and with the general history 
of language — ^lias expressed himself, in moderate 
terms, as favourable to a date which is, compara- 
tively speaking, late. Professor Max Miiller, in his 
"Ancient Sanskrit Literature," lays it down that 
there are four periods of Vedic composition — the 
Chandas period, Mantra period, Brahmana period, 
and Sutra period ; and after an elaborate and ex- 
haustive discussion, of which it is impossible not to 
admire the candour and the learning, comes to the 
conclusion that the approximate date of each may be 
laid down as follows : — * 

Chandas period . . 1200 to 1000 B.C. 

Mantra period . . 1000 to 800 B.C. 

Brahmana period . . 800 to 600 B.C. 

Sutra period ... 600 to 200 B.C. 

Thus according to the highest living authority, the 
commencement of Vedic literature, and so of Indian 
civilization, need not be placed farther back than the 
beginning of the twelfth century B.C. 

The civilization which the writings of the Chandas 
period reveal is one of great simplicity, f Cities 

hetween B.C. 3000 and B.C. 2600 (" Manuel d' Histoire Ancienne," 
Yol. ii. pp. 313, 445, 497, and 572.) 

* See pp. 301 and 305. 

f "Ancient Sanskrit Literature," pp. 525-572. Compare Lenor- 
mant's " Manuel," vol. ii. p. 305 ; vol. iii. pp. 445-471. 



108 Early Civilizations. 

seem not to be mentioned; there is no organized 
political life ; no war worthy of the name ; nothing 
but plundering expeditions. Tribes exist under 
their heads, who are at once kings, priests, judges, 
and poets, and to whom the rest render obedience. 
Religion is a worship by hymns, and with simple 
offerings, as of honey, but scarcely yet with regular 
sacrifice. There is a power of metaj)hysif'al specula- 
tion which may perhaps surprise us, but which seems 
contrenital to the Oriental mind : and there is evi- 
dence of progress in some of the mechanical arts 
beyond what might have been expected. Ships are 
fiimiliar objects to the writers of the poems ; chariots 
are in common use ; the horse and cow are domesti- 
cated, and are sheltered in stables ; armour is wprn, 
and is sometimes of gold ; shields are carried in bat- 
tle; an intoxicating drink is brewed; dice have 
been invented, and gambling is not uncommon. 

As time goes on, this extreme simplicity dis- 
appears. * There are advances of various kinds. 
Cities are built and magnificent palaces constructed ; 
trades become numerous; luxury creeps in. The 
priests, ha\ang come to be a separate class, introduce 
an elaborate ceremonial. ^Slusic is cultivated ; writing 
is invented or learnt. But, after all, the material 
progress made is not very great. Indian ci\nlization 
is, in the main, intellectual, not material. Careless 
of life and action, of history, politics, artistic excel- 
lence, trade, commerce, manufacture, the Indians 
concentrate their attention on the highest branches of 

* "Ancient Sanskrit Literature," pp. 71-524. 



Civilizations of Central Asia. 109 

metaphysics, pouder on themselves and their future, 
on the nature of the Divine essence, on their own 
relation to it, and the prospects involved in that 
relationship.* They discuss and they solve the most 
difficult questions of metaphysical science; they 
elaborate grammar, the science of language, which 
is the reflected image of thought; they altogether 
occupy themselves with the inward, not with the 
outward — with the eternal world of mind and rest, 
not with the transitory and illusory world of outward 
seeming and incessant changefulness. Hence the 
triumphs of their civilization are abstract and diffi- 
cult to appreciate. They lie outside the ordinary 
interests of mankind, and are, moreover, shrouded 
in a language known to few, and from which there 
are but few translations. . It is said, however, by 
those whose acquaintance with the early Indian 
literatm'e is the widest, that there is scarcely a pro- 
blem in the sciences of ontology, psychology, meta- 
physics, logic, or grammar, which the Indian sages 
have not sounded as deeply, and discussed as elabo- 
rately, as the Greeks, t 

* Strabo, xv., 59 and 65; Max Miiller, pp. 18-32. 
f Lenormant, <' Manuel," vol. iii. pp. 625-639. 



CHAPTER VII. 

ON THE CIVILIZATION OF THE ETRUSCANS. 

Etruria the source of Early Roman civilization — Supposed date of 
the commencement of Etruscan power, B.C. 1000 or even b.c. 
1400 — Real date probably not before B.C. 6-30 — Most flourish- 
ing period from B.C. 620 to B.c- i>00 — Character of Etruscan 
civilization — .Vrchitecture — Its massiveness — Walls — Towers — 
Gateways — Sewers — Vaults — Tombs — ^Esthetic art — Statues — 
Bas-reliefs — Paintings —Bronzes generally — Candelabra — En- 
graved mirrors — Vases — Figures in clay — Etruscan music — 
General mode of life — Higher elements of civilization wanting 
— Characteristics of the government — Low morality — Small 
progress in science and literature. 

A MOXG early civilizations, one of the most re- 
-^^ markable is that of the Etrascaus. At a time 
"when the Romans and the Latins generally were in a 
condition but little advanced beyond that of savages, 
when Rome itself Avas a collection of mud huts, sur- 
rounded by a palisade, the Etruscan nation — spread 
over the greater part of Northern Italy — was in 
possession of fine cities, handsome buildings, richly- 
ornamented tombs, elegant dresses, music, painting, 
sculpture, and most of the u.seful arts, and even many 
of the refihements of life. " Rome," it has been well 
said,* " before her intercourse with Greece, was in- 
debted to Etruria for whatever tended to elevate and 

* Dennis, " Etruria," vol. i. pp. 21, 22. 
110 



Civilization of the Etruscans. Ill 

humanize her, for her chief lessons in arts and science, 
for many of her political and most of her religious 
and social institutions, for the conveniences and en- 
joyments of peace, and the tactics and a])pliances of 
war — for almost everything, in short, that tended to 
exalt her as a nation, save her stern virtues, her 
thirst of conquest, and her indomitable courage, 
which were peculiarly her own." The Romans them- 
selves, notwithstanding their intense national vanity, 
acknowledged this debt to some extent, and admitted 
that they derived from the Etruscans their augury, 
their religious ritual, their robes and other insignia 
of office, their games and shows, their earliest archi- 
tecture, their calendar, their weights and measures, 
their land-surveying, and various other elements of 
their civilization. But there is reason to believe 
that their acknowledgments fell short of their obli- 
gations, and that Etruria was really the source of 
the whole early civilization of Rome, until the time 
came when — during the second Samnite war (b.c. 
323-303 — she was brought into contact with the 
luxury and refinement of the Greeks. 

It is difficult to fix exactly the date at which 
Etruscan civilization commenced. Some of the most 
distinguished of modern historical critics * have main- 

* K. 0. Muller, in his " Etrusker " (iv. 7, 8, and " Einleitung," 
2, 2), makes the commencement of the Etruscan era b.c. 1044. 
Niebuhr, in his " Roman History," carries back the date to 
B.C. 1188 (vol. i. p. 138, E. T.). Mr. F. Newman, in his "Regal 
Rome," while abstaining from any mention of a date, lays it 
down that "the Etruscans, in all civilizing art, were exceedingly 
in advance of the other nations of Italy," and " belonged to the 
era of Phoenicia and ofEgypV^ (p. 97). 



112 Early Cio'dizatloiui. 

taincd that the great power, and with it the artistic 
eminence and social progress of this people, is to be 
carried back to a period anterior to B.C. 1000, and 
that, consequently, their civilization is to be regarded 
as parallel with that of the Phoenicians, of the 
Assyrians, of the early Iranians, and of the early 
or Vedic Indians. A theory has even been started 
recently * which would require us to enlarge this date 
considerably, and to regard the Etruscans as already 
one of the most powerful of European nations in the 
centuiy between B.C. 1400 and B.C. 1300. But, on 
the whole, it seems to be most probable that the 
people did not greatly distinguish itself or come pro- 
minently into notice among the nations of the earth 
before the sixth, or at furthest the seventh, century 
B.C. There is no mention of the Etruscans in 
Homer. The earliest Greek writers in whose works 
the name occurs are Hesiod and Pindar among the 
poets,t and among the prose wTiters, Hecataeus, Hel- 
lanicus, and Herodotus. % In Hesiod (about B.C. 750) 
the use of the term is vague, designating the inhabit- 
ants of the Italic peninsula generally rather than any 
particular nation. § It is not until about B.C. 550 

* See the "Revue Arch^ologique " for 1867, and compare 
Lenormant, "Manuel d'Histoire ancienne de I'Orient," vol. i. 
p. 429, and the " Contemporary Review " for 1870, pp. 92 — 94. 

t See Hesiod. "Theogon," 1. 1015; Find. " Pyth," i. 72 (Ed. 
Mommsen). Simonides, ■writing about the same time as Pindar, 
also mentions the Tyrsenians or Etruscans (Fr. 93, Ed. Gaisford). 

% See Hecat. Fr. 25 ; Hellan. Fr. 1 ; Herod, i. 94, 166, etc. 

§ Agrius and Latinus " rule over all the illustrious Tyrsenians." 
Compare Dionys. H. "Ant. Rom.," i. 25, -who says that the Greeks 
confounded the Etruscans, Latins, Oscans, and Bruttians under 
the general name of Tyrrhenians. 



Oivilizution of tlie Elruscaiis. 113 

that the Greeks become familiar with the real Etrus- 
can people, who at that time hold, aud had held for 
perhaps a ceutuiy,* a species of maritime supremacy 
in the Western Mediterranean, where they had 
become celebrated for their naval skill and their 
piratical habits. With the conclusions which we 
thus derive from Greek literature agree fairly 
the Roman traditions, which place the great 
devolopmeut of Etruscan power in the second 
and third centuries of the city, or about B.C. 
620-500. 

The general character of Etruscan civilization has 
been already indicated ; but the reader will probably 
expect a more detailed account of it. The standard 
works which describe it fully f are not very accessible ; 
nor do our musemns enable us to form a very exact 
notion of its nature. Beyond a copious display of 
what are called, somewhat loosely, " Etruscan vases," 
they contain little that bears upon the subject. The 
main monuments indicative of its character are in 
fact irremovable. They consist of massive walls, gate- 
ways, sewers, subterraneous tombs, rock-sculptures, 
and mural paintings inseparable from the stone- work 
which they decorate. They exist mainly on the sites 
of the ancient cities of Etruria, or in the cemeteries 
of the Etruscan people, and have, in comparatively 

* See Ephoriis, Fr. r)2, 

t Such as In2:hii'anii, " Monumenti Etriisclii," 7 vols. 4to ; 
Micali, "Storia desili antichi popoli Italianj," 3 vols., and "Monu- 
menti Inediti ;" Abeken, "Mittel-Italien;" Dempster, "DeEtrur. 
Rea;.," 3 vols, folio, etc. Even Denni.<!, "Cities and Cemeteries of 
Etruria," 2 vols. 8vo., 1848, is a book not found in all libraries. 

I 



114 Early Oivitizations. 

few instances, been torn from their natural resting- 
places to adorn the museums of Europe. 

Etruscan architecture is remarkable for its mas- 
siveness. The chief remains of it are found in the 
walls and gates of cities, in sewers, bridges, vaults, 
and tombs. Etrascau town walls are of extraordi- 
nary strength and grandeur. They are of two kinds.* 
In the more northern parts of the country, where the 
rock is difficult to be hewn, being limestone, hard 
sandstone, or travertine, they are composed of huge 
blocks, tending to be rectangular, but of various 
sizes and irregular arrangement, with small pieces 
often inserted into the interstices of the larger blocks. 
This is the case at Volaterrse, at Populouia, at 
Rusellse, and elsewhere. The blocks of stone in this 
style of building t are often eight or ten feet in 
length by three, four, and even five feet high. In 
the more southern districts, where the common 
material is tufo, a volcanic rock very easily worked, 
the masonry is of squared stone, and is very regular, 
but not particularly massive. Two styles are used. 
Sometimes the courses are similar, the blocks all ex- 
posing one of their long sides to the view; sometimes 
the wall is built in alternate courses, in the style 
which has been called €mpIecton,t the ends of the 
stones being exposed in one course, and the sides in 
the other. The blocks in this masonry have com- 

* See Dennis, vol. i. "Introduction," p. Ixiii. 
f Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 151, 2-49, etc. One block measured by Mr. 
Dennis was 12 feet 8 inches long by nearly 3 feet broad. 
J Vitruv. ii. v. 8, § 7. 



Civilization of the EtrusGans. 115 

monly a length of nearly four feet, with a height and 
width of two.* 

Etruscan walls are occasionally flanked by towers,t 
which are of square construction, and project exter- 
nally to a distance of twelve or fifteen feet. The 
walls are sometimes, even at the present time, forty 
feet high.| In thickness they vary greatly. Where 
they are built throughout of solid stone, their width 
is commonly not more than six or seven feet ; but in 
cases where the solid masonry is confined to an 
internal and an external facing, the intervening 
space being stuffed with rubbish, the width is some- 
times as much as sixteen or seventeen feet.§ The 
circumference is not, commonly, great, but in one 
instance has been calculated to exceed four miles. || 

In the earlier times Etruscan gateways were mere 
square openings in walls, guarded on either side by 
a stone doorpost, and covered in at top by a flat 
stone or wooden lintel ; but after a while the use of 
the arch was introduced, and the gateway became 
an imposing feature. The arch was carried to a 
height of above twenty feet ; the voussoirs and key- 
stone were massive ; an external moulding, in some 
instances, added dignity and richness, while an 
ornamentation by means of human heads in bold 

* Dennis, vol. i. p. 88. 

t Ibid. vol. i. pp. 133-135 ; vol. ii. pp. 271-273. 

J Ibid. vol. ii. p. 151. Thirty feet seems to be a common 
height. (Dennis, vol, ii. pp. 154, 249, 272, etc.) 

§ This is the case at Volaterrte (Dennis, vol. ii, p. 155). 

II See Micali's " Antichi popoli Italiani," vol. i. p. 141, and vol. 
ii. p. 209. Compare Gori, " Mas. Etrus." vol. iii. p. 32. 



116 Early Oivilizaiions. 

relief introduced an element of interest or mystery. 
At the same time, for greater security, gateways 
were doubled. A short passage, of a very solid 
construction, led from a first archway to a second, 
where a second gate impeded the entrance of assail- 
ants ; and a cataracta, or portcullis, could be lowered 
immediately behind the first gate, so th^t their 
retreat was cut off, and they were made prisoners. 
Interesting specimens of gateways thus guarded 
remain at Volatcrrse, in the Porta all' Arco, and the 
Porta di Diana, which have been well described by 
Inghirami.* 

The remains of sewers are found on the sites of 
almost all Etruscan towns; but the most perfect 
specimen of Etruscan skill in this respect is the 
Cloaca ^Maxima at Rome, which is still in an excellent 
state of preservation.! This is a culvert formed by a 
triple arch of the most massive character, the inner 
diameter of the innermost arch being fourteen feet, 
and the outer diameter of the outermost arch thirty- 
two feet. It was carried from the site of the old 
Forum to the Tiber, in a slightly circuitous course, 
a distance of about seven hundred yards, and may 
be ascended by a boat when the Tiber is low, the 
distance from the level of the water to the crown of 
the inner arch being at that time about six feet. 

It is doubtful whether Etruscan bridges were 

^ See the " Monumenti Etruschi," toI. iv. pp. 160, et seq. 

f For representations, see the article on the Cloaca in Dr. 
Smith's " Diet, of Antiquities," p. 299 ; and that on Eome in the 
same gentleman's "Diet, of Greek and Roman Geography," vol. 
ii. p. 815. 



Civilization of the Etruscans. 117 

ever arched. Most probably they consisted of sim- 
ple piers of stone, carried up a certain height from 
either side of the stream to be crossed, and then 
united by planks stretched from pier to pier, and by 
others connecting the piers with roadways upon 
either bank. A specimen, believed to contain Etrus- 
can work,* still exists at Vulci, where three pro- 
jecting buttresses of red tufo, much weather-worn, 
are embedded in masonry of a different age and 
material, and united by arches of Roman construc- 
tion. It is thoughtf that these buttresses, or piers, 
originally stood alone, and sustained a horizontal, 
and perhaps movable frame of woodwork, like that 
which is known to have existed for many ages at 
Rome, in the case of the Pons Sublicius. 

Etruscan vaults are of two kinds. The more 
curious, and probably the most ancient, are fake 
arches,! formed of horizontal courses of stone, each 
a little overlapping the other, and carried on until 
the aperture at the top could be closed by a single 
superincumbent slab. Such is the construction of 
the Regulini-Galassi vault at Cervetri, the ancient 
Caere, which is twenty yards in length, though less 
than five feet in breadth, and only a little above six 
feet high. But it is far more common to find in 
Etruria vaults perfectly arched in the ordinary way 
with voussoirs, or wedge-shaped stones. § These are 

* Dennis, vol. i. p. 401. 

f Lenoir in the " Ann. Inst." for 1832, p. 261.^ 

:j: Dennis, vol. ii. p. 46. 

g Ibid. pp. 376, 441, 488, etc. 



118 Early CivUizaiions. 

neatly fitted to each other, and are generally unce- 
mented. The blocks composing them vary from 
seven or even eight feet in length to two or three feet, 
and from a width of ten inches to a foot and a half. 
It is probable that these vaults were in most in- 
stances intended for tombs ; but the more ordinary 
tombs of the Etruscans were chambers, hewn out of 
the rock, often of a considerable size, so as almost to 
resemble houses, and sometimes with external facades 
of a highly ornamental character. The "temple- 
tombs" at Xorchia are especially remarkable.* A 
wall of rock is hewn into a representation of two 
temples — Doric in general character, but with pecu- 
liar features. Each rose up into a pediment, which 
was richly adorned with sculpture, while below, on 
the entablatures, were ffuttce and triglyphs. The 
entablatures were each of them supported by at least 
six square pillars, detached from the rocky face 
behind them ; and thLs rocky face was — ^at least in 
one instance — decorated with a splendid bas-relief 
(representing a procession of strange figures de- 
cidedly archaic and Etruscan), the effect of which 
was heightened by a delicate colouring, still to be 
traced upon the background, and, in places, upon 
the figures. The interiors of the Xorchia temple- 
tombs are mean; but elsewhere the sepulchral 
chamber had often considerable magnificence. In 
some the jjlan of a house was closely followed.f A 

* For a representation, see Dennis, vol. i. p. 243 ; and for a 
full description see the same writer, vol. i. pp. 249-255. 
f Ibid. vol. ii. p. 32. 



Civilization of tlie Etruscans. 119 

flight of descending steps gave entrance into a vesti- 
bule, on either side of which were chambers {tri- 
clinia)', beyond, a doorway led into the principal 
chamber, or atrium, out of which opened further 
triclinia. The ceilings were carved into an imita- 
tion of beams and rafters crossing each other ; arm- 
chairs, with footstools attached, stood against the 
walls, from which weapons or other articles were 
suspended. In pther cases the tomb consisted mainly 
of a single large chamber, which was ornamented 
with paintings or with inscriptions. The '* tomb of 
the Tarquius," at Cervetri, is thirty-five feet square, 
and supported by two massive pillars in the middle;* 
that of the Caecinffi, at Volaterrse, is circular, sup- 
ported by a single pillar, and with a diameter of 
forty feet.t The paintings in the tombs most com- 
monly represent banqueting scenes ; but encounters 
with wild beasts and other hunting scenes, represen- 
tations of fabulous animals or of games and sports, 
and scenes from the mythology, are not uncommon. 
The colours are in some instances faded, but in others 
as vivid as when first laid on. Occasionally, but 
very rarely, X sculpture takes the place of painting, 
and reliefs, representing men and horses, and wild 
beasts in combat or devouring their prey, cover the 
walls of the sepulchral chambers, extending from the 

* Dennis, vol. ii. p. 43. 

f Inghirami, " Monument! Etrusclii," vol. iv. p. 85. 

J As atTarquinii on the tomb called " La Mereareccia " (Gori, 
" Mus. Etrusc," vol. iii. p. 90), at Cervetri in the '< Grotto del 
Triclinio" (Dennis, vol. ii. p. 35), and at Chiusi (ibid. p. 375, 
note). 



120 Early Civilizations. 

floor to the ceiling, and giving great richness to the 
apartments. 

The aesthetic art of the Etruscans comprises sta-, 
tiiary, painting, engraving, modelling in clay, and 
casting and chiselling in bronze. Except in tlie case 
of rccinnbent figures on tombs, their statuary is not 
often " in the round." Some ten or a dozen erect 
figures, in stone or marble, mostly mutilated, have 
been found, which, Avith more or less of j)rol>ability, 
may be pronounced Etruscan. They have seldom 
much merit. Some are exceedingly quaint and 
archaic in character, as the lady figured by Mr. 
Dennis in his first volume ; * others have not much 
to distinguish them from Roman work. Recumbent 
figures on sarcophagi are common. They are in 
general stiff, and have a conventional air ; all lean 
on their left elbow, and have the right arm stretched 
along the body ; the right hand commonly holds a 
goblet. The execution is for the most part somewhat 
coarse, and there is evidence of a want of artistic 
feeling in the fact that originally the figures were 
wholly covered M'ith paint. On the other hand we 
are told that in some cases the heads are in excellent 
taste, the faces being "full of character," and the 
features occasionally " Grecian." t 

The bas-reliefs are of a higher order than the 
statues. They are almost always vigorous, and 
though sometimes quaint and even grotesque in por- 
tions, are never wanting in life, spirit, and action. 

* Page 422. 
f Dennis, vol. i. pp. 446, 447. 



Civilization of the Etruscans. 121 

The subjects represented seem to be most commonly 
Greek; but there is uo close imitation of Greek 
models, and the beauty and grace which characterize 
the production of the Hellenic artists are never 
reached. The reliefs, moreover, like the statues, 
appear to have been disfigured by a coarse, unnatu- 
ral, and inharmonious colouring, which must have 
greatly detracted from their merit as works of high 
art. 

Etruscan paintings are said to fall into four classes.* 
Those of the earliest period present Egyptian and 
Babylonian analogies. They are wholly religious, 
deities or mythological emblems being the only sub- 
jects represented. The drawing is stiff and rigid; 
the drapery adheres closely to the form ; the figures 
are in bad proportion, limbs and bodies being unduly 
elongated ; and the artist seldom ventures to repre- 
sent his figures otherwise than in profile. Quaint 
and strange animals, chimseras, sphinxes, gorgons, 
griffins, centaurs, belong especially to this stage; 
four-winged deities are common ; the flowers and 
foliage are of unnatural shapes, and the colouring 
is strange and unpleasant. In the second period, 
"Etruscan art stepped out of the conventionalities 
which confined it, and assumed a more energetic 
character — more like the Greek than the Egyptian, 
yet still rigid, hard, and dry, rather akin to the 
^ginetic than the Attic school, displaying more force 
than beauty, more vigour than grace, better intention 
than ability of execution, an exaggerated, not a 

* Dennis, "Introduction," pp. Ixxviii — Ixxxiii. 



122 Early Civilizations. 

truthfu\ representation of nature."* This second 
period was iblJowed by a third, in which the Etras- 
can artists became the servile imitators of the Greeks, 
whose works they copied, and whose entire manner 
they adopted, so that it is difficult to distinguish 
between the productions of the two peoples. Finally, , 
there was a period of decadence, in which di'awing 
became careless, composition over-complex, attitudes 
affected, and ornament too much sought after. Art 
"forgot her sublime and godlike simplicity, to trick 
herself out in meretricious embellishments." Purity 
and chasteness of design and delicacy of execution 
disappeared. The time of perfection was gone by, 
and Etruscan painting entered upon the period of 
corruption and decay. 

Among the most curious and artistic of all the 
productions of Etruria are the bronzes. These include 
a great variety of articles, such as couches, tripods, 
caskets, cauldrons, shields, censers, helmets, cuirasses, 
daggers, spear-heads, arrow-heads, vases, ewers, and 
the like; but the most remarkable are the statues, 
the candelabra, and the engraved disks or mirrors. 
The bronze bust of an Etruscan lady, found in a 
tomb at Vulci, and figured by Dennis twice,! is 
among the most curious specimens of their early art 
w^hich has come down to us. It is not cast, but 
formed of thin plates of bronze hammered into shape, 

* Dennis, " Introduction," p. Ixviii. 

f In vol. i. p. 423, and vol. ii. p. 536. A very quaint bronze 
statuette of a somewhat similar character is figiired by Micali 
(" Antichi Monumenti," p. xv.). 



Civilization of the Etruscans. 123 

and finished with the chisel. The features are re- 
pulsive, the right arm is ill modelled, and the bust 
is too small for the head; but the archaic and 
native character of the whole is most interesting, and 
the pedestal is exceedingly handsome. It is adorned 
with figures in three rows, the top and bottom rows 
containing processions of lions, while the intermediate 
one exhibits sphinxes, human figures, and bigae. 
Altogether, the work is one of the most characteris- 
tic that we possess. It shows traces of Egyptian, and 
perhaps of Assyrian influence, * but is manifestly a 
genuine native product, and must belong to an early 
period. The bronze statues of the later times are 
very different. Ordinarily they are cast in clay, and 
imitate Greek models, but have very little merit. 

Ancient art has produced few things more elegant 
than Etruscan candelabra. The Athenians are said to 
have imported them in the time of Pericles, f and the 
museums of Europe contain several of extraordinary 
beauty. % The base is commonly a tripod, composed 
of three legs of animals, or of three human forms 
bent backwards. The stem rises to a great height, 
and is twisted or fluted ; sometimes it springs from 
one statuette, and is surmounted by another; fre- 

* Compare Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," p. 190, where 
the resemblance of the figures on the pedestal to those on bronzes 
found at Nineveh is noted. 

f AthenDeus. "Deipnosophist," i. 22, p. 28, and xv. 18, p. 700, 
I Two in the Museo Gregoriano at Rome, and one in the Mu- 
seum of Volaterrae have special merit. They are figured by 
Dennis, vol. ii. pp. 204 and 514. (Compare also vol. i. " Intro- 
duction," p. Ixx.) 



124 Early Cimlizations. 

quently it is ornamented by figures of animals, which 
seem to be climbing up it. At the top there is a 
cup for a lamj), often decorated with figures of birds. 

The engraved mirrors of Etruria are curious, but 
less interesting than the paintings on vases and 
tombs. They are either pear-shaped or circular, 
and contain, generally within a wreath of leaves, some 
scene from the Greek or the native mythology, * or 
some representation of Etruscan life and manners. 
Occasionally the drawing has an elevation and per- 
fection which leaves nothing to be desired ; but more 
commonly the style is mediocre, being either rude 
and coarse, or affected and negligent; belonging 
either to the infancy of art, or to its decay and de- 
crepitude. 

In fictile art the Etruscans equalled, if they did 
not even excel, any other nation. Granting that a 
veiy large number of the vases discovered in the 
coimtry, which are to be counted by hundreds, or 
even thousands, in all the great collections of Europe, f 
were importations from Greece, or from the East, yet 
still there can be no reasonable doubt that many — 
the majority probably — were of native manufacture. 
Peculiarities of stj^e attach to the vases of each 

* See Mr. Isaac Taylor's "Etruscan Researches," p. 104, and 
the Frontispiece to Mr. Dennis's " Etruria." On the general 
subject of Etruscan mirrors the standard work is Gerhard's 
"Etruskische Spiegel," which is richly illustrated. 

t The Museo Gregoriano at Rome contains four rooms of vases; 
the Museo Campana is also rich in them ; the Volaterrae Museum 
has above four hundred ; but it may be doubted whether the 
British Museum collection is excelled by any foreign one. 



Civilization of the Etruscans. 125 

locality; many have Etruscan inscriptions; whore 
the iuscription is Greek, it is often mis-spelt in such 
a way as to indicate that the artist was a foreigner. 
Add to tliis that many varieties of form are found in 
Etruria Avhich do not exist elsewhere, and the con- 
clusion is inevitable that, however large the importa- 
tion, there was also a native manufacture ; and that, 
in fact, wherever originated, the art of making and 
painting vases was carried to a higher pitch of 
development iu Etruria than in any other locality. 
If, then, we regard the vessels found in the tombs 
as mainly, or, at any rate, as largely Etruscan, we 
cannot fail to admire the skill and taste of the 
people as exhibited in their production. The 
varieties are almost infinite, the forms always taste- 
ful, sometimes exquisite, the patterns charming, the 
paintings spirited. If, as is probable, the most meri- 
torious are pure Greek, still, in the remainder there 
is enough of taste and skill to indicate a very high 
degree of artistic excellence, and to excite our sur- 
prise and admiration. 

Besides their vases, the Etruscans modelled figures 
in clay, which have often considerable merit. One 
of Adonis, in the Museo Gregoriano, is greatly 
admired.* Figures of gods — especially the Noven- 
siles — are common. There are others of women, of 
children, and even of infants, all beautiful in their 
way, modelled with good taste and carefully finished. 
The animal heads, in which the rhyta, or drinking- 

* Dennis, " Etruria," vol. ii. p. 496 ; Abeken, " Mittel-Ita- 
lien," p. 367. 



126 Early Civilizations. 

cups, ordinarily terminated, are also excellently ren- 
dered.* 

We are told that the Etruscans had considerable 
skill in music. The trumpet was generally regarded 
by the ancients as of their invention ;t and the vases 
often represent bands of trumpeters, fifcrs, and 
harpers, who play apj)arently in concert. The 
double-pipe is also common in the paintings ; the 
tambourine, flute, and Pan's-pipe appear occasion- 
ally ; and castanets are frequent. Dancing usually 
accompanied the music, and in this both sexes par- 
ticipated ; but the dancers seem, in all cases, to 
have been jjrofessionals, whose servrices were hired, 
the employment being deemed a low one, in which 
those who wished to be thought respectable must not 
participate. 

In physical comfort and luxury, in the elegance of 
their houses, the richness and variety of their dress, 
the magnificence of their personal ornaments, the 
beauty and taste of their furniture, the grandeur of 
their processions, the splendour of their banquets, 
the multitude of their sports and games, the 
Etruscans can scarcely have been surpassed by any 
contemporary, or, indeed, by any ancient nation. 
The paintings show us banqueting scenes, where 
figures, male and female, clothed in richly-em- 
broidered garments, recline on elegant couches 

* For a representation, see Dennis, vol. i., "Introduction," p. 
99. 

f ^Eschyl. " Eumenides," 1.570; Sophocl. "Ajax," 1. 17; 
Tirg. ".En.," yiii. 526 ; Died. Sic, v. p. 316 ; Strab., v. p. 220; 
Sil. Ital., ii. 19 ; Athen., " Deipn.," iv. p. 184 ; Pollus, iv. 11, etc 



Uivilization of the J^truscans. I'll 

under flowered coverlets, feasting to the sound of 
lyres and pipes; a multitude of handsome slaves, 
magnificently apparelled, stand around, some waiting 
their master's orders, others replenishing the silver 
goblets from the wine-jars on a sideboard hard by; 
while a train of dancers, male and female, clad in 
gauzy robes, and wearing chaplets of myrtle, or rich 
jewels, entertain the feasters with their lively steps 
and graceful movements, some of them piping as 
they dance.* Ancient authors tell us that the 
Etruscans indulged in banquets of this description 
twice a day.f It was characteristic of the Etruscan 
manners that women took their place at the board by 
their husbands' side, and shared the banquet, unless 
it was one where the drinking was to be carried to 
excess. 

In the higher elements of civilization, in religious 
ideas, in law and government, in morality, and 
again in science and literature, there is no reason to 
believe that the Etruscans ever made any great 
advance. Their religion was a low form of natm'e- 
worship combined with Shamanism, or a belief in 
the magical powers of their diviners (haruspices), 
and with a cult of the deceased spirits of each man's 
family.l It was disgraced by gloomy rites, extreme 
superstition, and the iniquity of human sacrifice.§ 

* Compare Dennis's " Etruria," vol. i. pp. 282—293, 

t Diod. Sic, v. p. 316 ; Atlien. "Deipn.," iv. 13, p, 153. 

% See Mr. Isaac Taylor's " Etruscan Researches," pp. 86 — 93. 

§ Human sacrifice is represented on the remains in a way that 
shows it was practised. (See Dennis, vol. i. p. 447 ; vol. ii. p. 97, 
note.) There can be little doubt that the Romans took the custom, 



128 Early Civilizations. 

The divinities worshipped were viewed as maleficent 
rather than beneficent, as objects of fear rather than 
of love. The priests, as their ministers, were regarded, 
witli an awful dread ; they " wielded the double- 
edged sword of secular and ecclcsiastic-al authority,"* 
crushed all free thought, and imj)osed upon the 
people the tyranny of a minute and all-pervading 
ceremonialism. Even the strong belief in a future 
life, which was a leading feature of the religion, did 
little to elevate it ; for tlie Etruscan's thoughts upon 
the subject were divided between a dread of the 
malignant demons, who would delight in torturing 
his soul, and tlic hope of a paradise of mere sensual 
enjoyment. 

In government, Etruria was a narrow oligarchy of 
a theocratic character. The Lucumones were at once 
the civil rulers, the landed proprietors, and the priests 
and augiu^ of the nation, alone acquainted with the 
will of heaven, and alone able, by appeasing angry 
gods, to avert disaster, and prevent national cala- 
mitj\ Under such a government class interests 
were of course solely considered ; and the condition 
of the bulk of the population was rude and depressed, 
not to say wTetched. There was no separation of the 
various functions of governors. The same men made 
the laws, imposed the taxes, administered the state, 
decided causes, and commanded armies. In one 
respect only did the Etruscans show any germ of 

■which they certainly practised in ancient times, from the 
Etruscans. 

* Dennis, vol. i. " Introduction," p. 1. 




J 



Civilization of the Etruscans. 129 

real political intelligence. At a time when the rest 
of Italy was divided up among a number of petty 
states, continually at war one with another, they 
formed a wide-spreading confederacy, which, though 
perhaps rather religious than civil, * yet succeeded 
in holding together the several communities, in pre- 
venting them from wasting each other's strength by 
internal struggles, and in uniting them under the 
pressure of external danger into a body possessing 
considerable strength and coherence. The federal 
idea, which in Greece scarcely bore any real fruit 
until after the time of Alexander, f was appreciated 
in Italy many centui'ies earlier, and, though not con- 
fined to the Etruscans, was apparently recognized 
by them more distinctly, and at an earlier period, 
than by any other Italic nation. 

But little can be said in favour of Etruscan mo- 
rality. The men bore a reputation, not merely for 
self-indulgent and luxurious habits, but for ac- 
tual gluttony ; f and the women are said to have 
been almost universally profligate. § We see by 
the representation in the tombs that dances of a 

* See Mr. Bunbury's article in Dr. W. Smith's "Dictionary of 
Greek and Roman Geography," i. v. Etruria ; vol. i., p. 864. 
(V. Political Constitution.) 

•j- In the Achfean and jEtolian Leagues the true federal idea 
•was carried out, not so in the early Boeotian, Thessalian, Ionian, 
Delian confederacies. See Mr. Freeman's useful work on "Fed- 
eral Governments." (When will he give us another instalment 
of it?) 

J Compare the "pinguis Tyrrhenns " of Tirgil (" Georg.," ii., 
193), and the " obesus Etruscus " of Catullus (xxxix. 11). 

? Plant. "Cistell.," ii. 3, 20 ; Theopomp. a;>. Athen. " Deipn.," 
xii. 3, p. 515 ; Horat. " Od.," iii. 10, 11. 
K 



130 • Early Civilizations. 

licentious description were witnessed without a blush 
by assemblages comprising both sexes. Nor was 
this looseness of manners compensated for by soft- 
ness of temper or gentleness of behaviour towards 
others. The Etruscans were proverbially harsh in 
their treatment of their serf population, * and often 
drove these wretched dependants into rebellion ; and 
the cruelties of which their pirates were guilty 
towards their imhappy captives are but too noto- 
rious, t 

What progress the Etruscans made in science and 
literature it is somewhat difficult to determine. 
They certainly possessed letters from a very early 
date, and seem to have derived them straight from 
Asia, not mediately through the Greeks. % We 
hear of their having produced a native literature, 
comprising, besides religious and ritual books, his- 
tories, tragedies, and poems ; § but the character of 
these works is unknown to us, and Ave can form no 
judgment of their merit. The drama, which the 
Romans derived from them, || was evidently of a 
rude and coarse character ; nor is it probable that 
their other literary efforts were much superior. 
Their engineering science was, it is clear, respect- 

* Martial, ix. 23, 4. 

•}■ Servius ad. Virg. " Mn.," viii. 479. 

I This has been denied (Miiller, " Etrusker,'' iv. 6, 1 ; Bun- 
bury, in Smith's Dictionary, etc.), but seems to me almost cer- 
tain. (See Fellows' " Lycia," page 442.) 

3 Polyb. ii. 17 ; Varro ap. Censorin. xvii. 6, and " Ling. Lat.," 
V. 55; Dionys. Hal. i. p. 17; Serv. ad Virg. ^' Md.." viii. 285; 
lucret. vi. 381, etc. 

II Liv, vii. 2. 



CivilizaUon of the Etruscans. 1^1 

able They constructed arches of a fair size, tun- 
nelled through rocks, gave their buildings vaulted 
roofs, raised into place vast masses ot stone and 
thus were able to form edifices of a most solid and 
permanent character. But it is not certam that 
they possessed any other science worthy of the name. 
Such astronomical knowledge as they enjoyed was 
probably obtained from Asia,* and was empirical 
rather than scientific. Their meteorology was vitiated 
by being accommodated to superstitious fancies, it 
is their art, not their science, which is their true 
glory, and which, almost alone, gives them their 
high plaee among the pioneers of civilization. 

* Niebuhr asserts the contrary (" Hist, of Rome/' vol. i. p. 137 
E. TO but adduces no grounds for his opinion He eve^as^^^^^ 
to the Etruscans a native "medicme" and native physics. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

ON THE CIVILIZATION OF THE BRITISH CELTS. 

Supposed high antiquity of Celtic civilization in Britain — Contra- 
dicted by Caesar, Strabo, Diodorus, and others — Account given 
by Caesar — Accounts of Diodorus and Strabo — Accounts of 
Tacitus — Theory that the civilized Celts were those of the 
interior, contradicted by Caesar — Conclusions of archaeologists 
on the subject — Monuments of the Celtic period — Cromlechs — 
Pottery — Tools and implements — Druid's circles — Stonehenge 
and Avebury — Amount of mechanical skill implied in these 
works not great — No astronomical knowledge implied in them 
— Low character of the Celtic civilization before the Roman 
invasion. 

A CONSIDERABLE antiquity has been claimed 
-^ by some -s^Titers for the civilization of the 
British Celts. The late Archdeacon Williams, a man 
of much acuteness and of considerable learning, main- 
tained, in more than one of his works,* that civiliza- 
tion had commenced in Britain as early as B.C. 1000, 
and that by the year B.C. 400 — three centuries and 
a half before the first invasion of our island by the 
Romans — the progress made was such as to entitle 

* See his "Gomer" (London, 1850), and also his ' Ecclesias- 
tical History of the Cymry" (London, 18443. 

132 



Civilization of the British Celts. 133 

the British race to a high position among the nations 
which then held possession of the earth. " Our 
memorials point," he said, " to eras and instances in 
which the civil arts and sciences were cultivated to 
an extent that would not have degraded (disgraced ?) 
the best ages of Greece and Rome."* The Britons, 
he thought, possessed, before the Romans came, an 
extensive literature in prose and verse, a refined 
science of music, a knowledge of astronomy based on 
the. use of telescopes, a great skill in mechanics, a 
good system of agriculture, considerable commerce, 
some acquaintance with metallurgy and medicine, a 
high moral teaching, an admirable code of laws, and 
a very fair appreciation of the science of politics, f 
He based his conclusions mainly on the view that 
the Welsh poems called " The Triads " might be 
relied upon as giving an authentic account of the 
early history of the nation,^ derived from ancient 
tradition, and committed to writing at least as far 
back as the fourth century before our era. He 
summed up his conclusions on the entire subject, 
very confidently, in the following words : " Thus it 
appears that our British ancestors, instead of being 
a nation of barbarians and savages, as they are too 
commonly represented, Avere really an enlightened 
people [at the time of the Roman invasion], far 

* " Eccles. History of the Cymry," p. 30. 

t Ibid. pp. 31—37. 

I See the "Preface to the Ecclesiastical History," p. yiii., where 
Mr. Williams says of the Triads, " Indeed they are the authorities 
"which may be said to impart to this work its peculiar character, or 
to form the basis on which it stands," 



134 Early Civilizalions. 

advanced in civilization and intellectual improve- 
ment."* 

The main objection to this view, which naturally 
occurs to every one on first becoming acquainted 
with it, is the fact that it Ls wholly irreconcilable 
with the account given us of Britain by Csesar, and 
confirmed by other writers, as especially Strabo, 
Diodorus, and Tacitus. Caesar tells us thatf the 
natives in his time were not generally agriculturists, 
but lived on milk and meat, and clothed themselves 
with skins. They dyed their skin with a blue tint 
made from woad, to give them a more terrible 
appearance in battle ; they wore their hair long, and 
shaved all their body except the head and the upper 
lip. They fought chiefly on horseback or from 
chariots, and attacked with howls, and shouts, \\\\h 
which they expected to frighten the enemy. Each 
man had a single wife ; but the members of a family, 
or of a village, held their wives in common. Their 
" towns " for the most part consisted of a space in 
the fastnesses of the woods, surrounded by a mound 
and trench, and calculated to afford them a retreat 
and protection from hostile invasion. They had 
no coined money, but made use, instead, of bronze 
or iron bars, of a certain fixed weight. They were 
divided into numerous pett}' tribes, often at war one 
with another, and entirely devoid of anything like 
unity or cohesion, even under the pressure of a 
foreign invasion. Their religion was apparently the 

* "Eccles. History," p. 38. 
f See the " Commentarii de Bello Glallico," v. 12 — 15. 



Civilization of the British Celts. 135 

same as that of the Gauls*— a dark and gloomy 
superstition, involving subjection to a priest-caste, 
the Druids, and requiring the continual sacrifice by 
fire of numerous human victims for the appeasing 
of the Divine anger.f Ca;sar is not aware that the 
Britons had a literature, or even letters ; he assigns 
them no science, unless science is included in the re- 
ligious knowledge, in which he regarded the British 
Dmids as excelling those of Gaul-t The only com- 
merce of which he speaks as having come to his 
knowledge is an importation into Britain of bronze. 

Diodorus and Strabo, who wrote in the reign of 
Augustus, confirm generally the statements of Caesar, 
but add various particulars. Diodorus describes 
the ordinary dwelling-places of the Britons as mere 
temporary establishments, formed in the forests 
by enclosing a space with felled trees, within which 
were made huts of reeds and logs, and sheds for 
cattle, "not intended to last very long."§ Strabo 
says the Britons were complete strangers both to 
agriculture and to gardening, and notes farther that 

* Ibid. vi. 13: " Disciplina in Britannia reperta, atque inde in 
Galliam translata." Ccesar's meaning would perhaps be doubtful, 
if we did not find, from later Roman writers, that Druidism 
flourished in Britain. 

f "Immani magnitudine simulacra habent, quorum contexta 
viminibus membra vivis hominibus complent: quibus succensis 
circumventi flamma exanimantur homines" ("De Bell. Gall." vi. 

X Cfflsar assigns some astronomical knowledge to the Gaulish 
Druids. " Multa de sideribus atque eorum motu," he says, " de 
mundi ac terrarum magnitudine, de rerum natura, de deorum 
immortalium vi ac potestate disputant et juventuti tradunt 
(Ibid. vi. 14). i Diod. Sic. V. 21. 



136 Early Civilizations. 

they fell behind most pastoral nations, inasmuch as 
they were unacquainted with the manufacture of 
cheese.* Diodorus ditfer.s from Strabo in represent- 
ing the bulk of the British nation as agricultural, 
and says they " stored the corn, which they grew, in 
the stalk, in thatched houses,"t which is perhaps 
his way of describing ricks. Both Strabo and Dio- 
dorus represent the BiitLsh trade as considerable. 
They speak of tin as largely exported by the Britons, 
who also made a profit by the export of slaves and 
dogs. They imported, according to Strabo, besides 
bronze, ivory bracelets, necklaces, and various small 
wares, including vessels of glass. 

The unsubdued Britons, whom Tacitus describes, 
were, according to his accounts, " barbarians," more 
ferocious than the Gauls.| They had the same 
religion as the Gauls, but were even deeper sunk in 
superstition.§ Their orgies took place in the depths 
of sacred groves, where the blood of human victims 
flowed freely from the altars, and the v.i\\ of the 
gods was discovered from an inspection of the still 
palpitating entrails.|| The disunion that had ren- 
dered the rest of the nation an easy prey to Rome's 
disciplined bands continued, and it was seldom that 
any two states could be induced to make common 
cause against a foreign foe.^ The style of warfare 

* Strab. iv. p. 138. f Diod. Sic. l.s.c. 

J Tacit. " Agricola," sec. 11. 
§ Ibid. Compare "Ann." xiv. 30. 

II "Cruore capsivo adolere aras et hominum fibris consulere 
Deos fas habebant." Tacit. "Ann." l.s.c. 
^ " Agricola," sec. 12. 



Civilization of the British Celts. 137 

iu vogue was rude and primitive ; the chief depen- 
dence was still placed on chariots ; tactics were 
ignored ; and every battle was an attempt to over- 
whelm the Romans by the mere preponderance of 
brute force. The arras of the Britons were con- 
temptible ; their swords were unduly long and had 
no points ; * the size of their shields was small ; 
and they were without breaat-plates or other de- 
fensive armour. Altogether the picture drawn is 
that of a race who, if not actual savages, are at 
any rate not very far removed from the savage 
condition, and of whom it is quite absurd to say 
that " they were really an enlightened people, far 
advanced in civilization and intellectual improve- 
ment." t 

Archdeacon Williams endeavoured to meet the 
argument drawn from the statements oi" Csesar, and 
supported by the general consensus of the classical 
writers, by asserting that the really civilized Celts 
had retreated before Caesar's time into the western 
parts of Britain, and that he consequently never 
came into contact with them, | but only with some 
comparatively barbarous tribes, wdio had recently 
invaded the island from the Continent. But it is 
unfortunate for this theory that Csesar ^limself 
distinctly states that the inhabitants of the part 
of Britain which he invaded were " the most civil- 
ized of all " (humanissimi), and that the tribes of 

* " Agricola," sec. 36. 

f Williams's "Eccles. Hist.," p. 38. 

i Ibid. p. 49. 



138 Early Civilizations. 

the interior were ruder and more backward.* It is 
also to be noted that his account is corroborated by 
the later Latin writers, f who distinctly show that" 
the Romans, as they advanced into the Island, fell 
in with races less and less civilized, until they came 
in Scotland to tribes whom they had a right to call 
absolute " barbarians," the Ottadini, Horestii, and 
Moeatae, who held the country north of the Tyne and 
Irthing. X 

Again, if, discarding the accounts of writers who 
(it may be argued) cared to know but little of a 
people in whom they felt no interest, we throw 
ourselves upon archaeological facts, and inquire what 
they have to tell us with respect to the condition 
of the British Celts prior to the Roman invasion, 
we shall find additional reason to misdoubt the 
views of the enthusiastic Archdeacon, and to con- 
clude that the ante- Roman civilization of Britain, 
if it deserv^es the name at all, was of a very low 

* " De Bell. Gall.,' v. 14. 

■j- Dean Merivale throws a slight shadow of doubt on Caesar's 
veracity, on the ground that the later writers, such as Dio Cas- 
sius and Tacitus, say nothing of " the painted bodies, the scythed 
chariots, the hideous sacrifices, and the revolting concubinage " 
of the Britons ("Roman Empire," vol. vi. p. 224, note). It 
must be^Uowed that they do not ; but is not the supposition that 
a hundred years of intercourse with the Romans themselves and 
■with the Romanized Gauls and Germans of the opposite coast had 
produced the change, a more probable explanation of the diffi- 
culty than one which taxes the great Julius with an intentional 
misrepresentation, designed to cover his own failures, and pre- 
vent them from being too jealously scrutinized ? 

1 See Dean Merivale's "Roman Empire," vol. vii., page 324 
(edition of 1865). 



Civilization of the British Celts. 139 

order. If we ask a temperate archaeologist * what 
ancient remains existing in our island may be 
reasonably assigned to the pre-Roman Celts, he 
will point in the first place to the class of mega- 
lithic monuments called " cromlechs," and say, 
" these are almost certainly pre-Roman ; " f next, 
he will point to a certain amount of pottery, chiefly 
sun-baked ; | and, thirdly, to various weapons, tools, 
and ornaments of stone, flint, spar, or bone, which 
he will say are probably to a large extent pre- 
Roman, though many, not distinguishable from the 
rest, may belong to Roman, or even to later times. § 
Finally, he will point, but very doubtfully, || to the 
great stones arranged in a circular form, and gene- 
rally known as " Druids' circles," which occur in 
various parts of England, more especially in the 
west and in the north, beginning with a diameter 
of sixty feet, and with stones about the height of a 
man, and culminating in the gigantic monuments 
of Avebury and Stonehenge, where the area is 
1,400 feet, and the height of the largest stones 
twenty or twenty-one feet. These, he will say, are 
probably Celtic ; but whether pre-Roman or not, he 
will scarcely venture to determine. 

* Such as Mr. Thomas Wright, from whose sensible work, "The 
Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon," the following remarks are for 
the most part taken. The quotations follow the edition of 1873. 

f Wright's " Celt, Roman, and Saxon," pp. 72 — 75. 

X Ibid. pp. 93—95. 

§ Ibid. pp. 4, 95—98, 116—118. 

II "It is remarkable," observes Mr. Wright, "that the only 
excavation within the area of Stonehenge, of which we possess 
any account, brought to light Roman remains'^ (p. 108). 



14U Early Civilizations. 

Now, if we allow all these remains, even the last, 
to be native Celtic — pro<luced, i.e., by the Celts them- 
selves without foreign assistance — what amount of 
civilization do they imply ? The cromlechs are 
sepulchral chambers of a very rude kind. They 
consist usually of four stones, three forming the 
walls of the chamber, while the fourth serves to 
roof it in, the remaining side being left open. There 
has been no shaping of the stones by art ; they are 
as they have come out of the quarry, or as they have 
been found on the earth's surface. The size and 
weight of the stones are considerable, but still not 
such as to imply any very great mechanical skill 
in those who moved them and emplaced them as 
they are found. Each cromlech was originally 
covered by a mound or barrow, which may in some 
cases have attained a height of fifty feet. Erections 
of this character are indications of a civilization 
very much below that of the Lydians * of the sixth 
centurv B.C., which (as we have seen) was not very 
advanced. 

The pottery of the Celtic Britons is remarkably 
coarse and rude. The shapes have little elegance ; 
the patterning is of the simplest kind, consisting of 
dots, parallel lines, crosses, and sometimes zigzags, 
which are scratched upon the surface, apparently 
with a pointed stick ; f handles, where they exist at 

* The present height of the barrow of Alyattes is about 150 feet. 
The sepulchral chamber enclosed within it indicates a civilization 
very much beyond that required to construct a cromlech. 

t Wright, p. 93. 



OivUization of the British Celts. 141 

all, are mere loops, intended probably to have cords 
passed through them by which the vessels might be 
suspended. Most of the vessels are merely sun- 
dried ; though some, found commonly in the more 
southern parts of P^nglaud, have been placed in a 
kiln and baked.* 

The weapons, tools, and ornaments found with the 
pottery above described, are for the most part either 
of stone or bronze. The stone tools and weapons 
are mostly merely chipped into shape ; but occasion- 
ally specimens are met with which must have been 
formed by some machine like a lathe. f The tools 
comprise axes, chisels, gimlets, and saws ; the 
weapons are chiefly spear-heads and arrow-heads. 
These last are sometimes beautifully finished. The 
bronze implements are most commonly of the class 
which has been denominated " celts," from the 
Latin celtk, "a chisel."| With these are found 
punches, gouges, and other similar tools, and also 
niunerous spear-heads and arrow-heads, with an 
occasional dagger or sword. The swords greatly 
resemble the Roman, and it is a question whether 
they were not imported from the Continent. In a 
few instances traces of armour have been found, and 

* Wright, p. 94. 

t Ibid. p. 98. 

J See Hearne's " Discourse concerning some Antiquities found 
in Yorkshire," printed as an appendix to the iirst volume of his 
edition of Leland's " Itinerary," where the name of "celtes" is 
first applied to these implements. The resemblance of the word 
to the ethnic name, Celt, has unfortunately given rise to the 
wholly mistaken idea that the implements are peculiar to that 
people. 



142 Early CimlizcUions. 

in one the breast of a skeleton was covered with a 
corselet of thin gold, embossed with an ornamentation 
resembling nail-heads and lines.* 

Finally, with regard to the " Druids' circles," we 
may set aside the smaller ones, which are at least as 
rude as the cromlechs, and which appear to have 
been mere supports, designed to prevent the giving 
way of barrows or sepulchral mounds, and confining 
ourselves to the consideration of the larger, such 
as Stonehouge and Avebur>', inquire, Is there any- 
thing in them which really implies great mechanical 
skill, or " a proficiency in the science of astronomy" ?t 
Now certainly they are in advance of the cromlechs. 
They " diifer from other Celtic stone ornaments in 
the circumstance that the stones have been hewn 
and squared with tools, and that each of the upright 
stones had two tenons or projections on the top, 
which fitted into notches or hollows in the superin- 
cumbent slabs."! The largest of the upright stones 
being twcnt^'-one feet in height, and these sustaining 
imposts of many tons in weight, the architects must 
have possessed the power of raising such vast masses 
to the height at which they are found, and of 
manipulating them at that height, so as to insert 
the tenons into the mortices. As, moreover, the 
quality of the stones is in many cases such as is quite 
unknown in the neighbourhood, there must have 

* See Wright, p. 10-5. 

f So Archdeacon Williams ("Eccles. History of the Cymrj, 
p. 36). 

X Wright, p. 79. 



Civilization of the British Celts. 143 

been possessed by the builders a power of conveying 
such masses by land — for water-carriage is out of the 
question — ^a very considerable distance, perhaps as 
much as thirty or forty miles.* These are the indi- 
cations that Stonehenge and Avebury give of mecha- 
nical knowledge and skill. We have to consider to 
what they amount. 

Now the conveyance of large masses of stone in a 
tolerably level country to a distance from the place 
where they were quarried, implies no very great 
mechanical knoAvledge — it is simply a question of the 
application to the proposed end of a large amount of 
muscular force, animal or human. Both the Egyp- 
tians and the Assyrians conveyed their colossal 
figures for considerable distances by the simple ex- 
pedient of placing them upon a wooden sledge, 
whereto they attached ropes, by means of which 
gangs of men dragged them to the point required, f 
The weight of the Assyrian colossi is estimated at 
from forty-to fifty tons, | that of the Egyptian is 
often very much greater. § The largest of the stones 
at Avebury and Stonehenge do not, it is probable, 
exceed half this weight. 

With regard to the raising of large stones into 
place, the Egyptians we know, elevated them by 

* A portion of the blocks at Stonehenge is thought to have 
been brought from Devonsliire (Wright, p. 83), there being no 
stone of tlie quality nearer than that county. 

j- See Layard's "Nineveh and Babylon," pp. 106-116. 

X Ibid. p. 110. 

I One Egyptian colossus is estimated by Sir G. Wilkinson to 
have weighed 887 tons! (" Ancient Egyptians," vol. iii. p. 331). 



144 Early Civilizations. 

means of niachin&s, * which must have resembled 
our own cranes ; but it is not necessary to suppose 
that meclianical appliances of this description were 
in use among the Celtic architects. More probably 
they employed inclined planes of earth or stone, up 
which the blocks were dragged, still on their sledges, 
and having in this way brought them to the required 
height, emplaced them by sheer muscular strength 
upon the uprights. The covering stones of cromlechs 
were doubtless raised into place by the same means, 
the mound being then continued above them, where- 
as at Stonehenge and Avebury after it had served its 
purpose it was cleared away. 

It would seem, therefore, that even the greatest 
of the Celtic monuments imply no more than a 
moderate amount of mechanical ingenuity in the 
people who constructed them. How they can be 
supposed to indicate "proficiency in the science of 
astronomy" it is difficult to conceive. Circles of 
thirty- stones indeed are found, in which a lively 
imagination may conjecture a reference to the lunar 
month. But on the whole it is only by a series of 
the most arbitrary and forced interpretations that 
either the numbers or the proportions can be argued 
to have an astronomical bearing. It is not unlikely 
that the circles were temples, and it is quite possible 
that in some of them the special object of worship 
may have been the sun ; f but beyond this we have 

* Herod, ii. 125. 

f The late Professor Phillips (of Oxford) informed me that, in 
the (lii'ection of the main avenue of approach at Stonehenge, and 



Oivilization of the British Celts. 145 

really no data for determining the aim or intention of 
the structures in question. 

On the whole, the conclusion seems forced upon us 
that the British Celts, though not absolute savages, 
had succeeded in developing only a very low type of 
civilization before the Roman conquest. They were 
not, perhaps, wholly ignorant of letters, but they 
made little use of them ; they knew something, but 
not very much, of metallurgy, of mechanics, of agri- 
culture, of the art of pottery ; they had domesticated 
horses and horned cattle ; they could weave ; they 
could construct chariots ; they had constructed a 
system of roads ; but they were wretchedly lodged 
and clothed ; their houses were of the meanest 
description ; they wore war-paint and sought to 
frighten a disciplined enemy by their cries and 
shouts; their religion was a debased and gloomy 
superstition ; their political organization was the 
weakest possible; their tombs, on which they be- 
stowed great pains, were rude and clumsy; their 
temples, if the so-called "Druids' circles" are the 
remains of temples, M^ere grotesque. We can see no 
sufficient reason for regarding the British Celts as 
more advanced than their kindred in Gaul,* whom 

in the position of certain detached stones with respect to the 
central triliths, he thought he saw the indications of solar 
worship. That the sun (Apollo) was worshipped by the Celts, is 
stated by Ciesar ("Bell. Gall." vi. 17). 

* In most respects the Gallic Celts were in advance of the 
British. They had cities, which were strongly walled, and which 
the Romans had to take by regular sieges (" Bell. Gall." vii. 17- 
18) ; they had extensive ironworks (ibid. vii. 22) ; they made use 
of letters (ibid. i. 29, vi. 14 ; compare Strab. iv. p. 181) ; they 

L 



146 Early CwilizatioTis. 

no "writer, so far as we are aware, claims to have been 
a civilized nation. 

built bridges over their rivers ("Bell. Gall." ii. 5); they had 
ships, in which they were in the habit of crossing the Channel 
between Gaul and Britain (ibid. iii. 8) ; they possessed a consider- 
able trade (8trab. iv. page 189; Diod. Sic. v. 22) ; they had a 
native coinage before Coesar's invasion (See Mr. Long's note, p. 
G9 of bis edition of the "Bell. Gall."); and they exhibited a 
general aptitude for practical avocations. On the other hand, 
their houses were almost as rude as those of the British Celts, 
being made of branches of trees and clay, and thatched with 
straw. (Vitruv. i. 1) ; their political organization was lamentably 
weak ; their religion was the same gloomy superstition which 
prevailed in Britain (•' Bell. Gall." vi. 13,14). They even looked 
to Britain as their original in.stnictress in religion, and sent their 
youths there to be taught the deeper mysteries of the Druidio 
cult. 



CHAPTER IX. 

RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY. 

General agreement in a modern chronology, except in the single 
case of Egypt — Extraordinary contrast — Question, one to be 
decided by evidence — Overwhelming evidence needed to establish 
very improbable conclusions — Extreme improbability of Egypt 
having been the only civilized country for two thousand years 
— Consideration of the evidence — Defects of the monumental 
evidence — Contradictions — Incompleteness — Admissions made 
by Brugsch — Evidence of ^lanetho — Doubt whether he is cor- 
rectly reported — Reasons why little reliance is to be placed on 
his numbers [a) as reported ; (h) as originally set forth — Mis- 
takes of Manetho — Absurdity of his general scheme — Recapitu- 
lation of conclusions — Their harmony with the chronology of 
the Septuagint — Tabular view of the chief conclusions arrived at. 

nnHE general result of the inquiry wherein we 
-*- have been engaged, would seem to be that, so 
far as civilization can be traced back historically, 
there is one country, and one country only, where the 
critical judgment of the present day is still in sus- 
pense, and some difficulty exists in reconciling the 
conclusions of historical and archaeological science with 
those moderate notions of the date whereto the j)ast 
history of our race extends, which till lately were 
almost universally held, and which are still generally 
maintained in educational text-books. Exasr^erated 
chronologies are common to a large number of 

147 



148 Early Civilizations. 

nations ; but critical examination has (at any rate in 
all cases but one) demonstratod their fallacy ; and 
the many myriads of years postulated for their past 
civilization and history by the Babylonians and 
Assyrians, the Hindoos, the Chinese, and others, 
have been shown to be pure fiction, utterly unworthy 
of belief, and not even requiring any very elaborate 
refutation. Cuneiform scholars confidently place the 
beginnings of Babylon about B.C. 2300,* of Assyria, 
about B.C. loOO.f The best Aryan scholars place 
the dawn of Iranic civilization about B.C. 1500,| of 
Indie about B.C. 1200.§ Chinese investigators can 
find nothing solid or substantial in the past of the 
"Celestials" earlier than B.C. 781, or at the furthest 
B.C. 1154.11 For Phoenicia the date assigned by the 
latest Encrlish iuvesticrator is " the sixteenth or seven- 
teeuth century before Christ."T[ The researches 
of Dr. Schliemann in the Troad give indications of 
the existence of a low t\-pe of civilization in that 
region, which may reach back to about B.C. 2000.** 

* Lenormant, " Manuel d' Histoire Ancienne del'Orient," toI.u. 
p. 22; G. Smith, "Notes on the Early History of Assyria and 
Babylonia," London, 1872, etc. 

f Lenormant, ■• Manuel," vol. ii. p. 55 ; Sayce in "Records of 
the Past,' vol. iii. p. 29, note 1. 

X Haug, "Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and 
Religion of the Parsees," p. 225. 

§ Max Miiller, " Ancient Sanskrit Literature," p. 572. 

II See an article hy Dr. Edkins in the October number of the 
" Leisure Hour" (1876), p. 653. 

^ Kenrick, "Phoenicia," p. 340. 

** Assuming that the rule of accumulation on the site of His- 
sarlik prior to the building of the Greek nium, about b.c. 700, was 



Results of the Inquiry. 149 

In the rest of Asia Minor we have no certain know- 
ledge of any civilization that has a greater antiquity 
than about B.C. 900.* In Europe, the simple and 
incipient civilization delineated by Homer must have 
existed before his time, and may have commenced 
as early as the Trojan epoch, which is probably 
about B.C. 1300 — 1200. No other European civiliza- 
tion can compete with this, the Etruscan not reaching 
back further than about B.C. 650 or 700,t and the 
Celtic, such as it was, being really subsequent to the 
occupation of England by the Romans. | A consensus 
of savants and scholars almost unparalleled limits the 
past history of civilized man to a date removed from 
our own time by less than 4,400 years, excepting in 
a single instance. There remains one country, one 
civilization, with respect to which the learned are at 
variance, there being wTiters of high repute who 
place the dawn of Egyptian civilization about B.C. 
2700, or only four centuries before that of Babylon, 
while there are others who postulate for it an anti- 
quity exceeding this by above two thousand four 
hundred years ! 

It is well remarked by Professor Owen, in an 
able paper, " On the Antiquity of Egyptian Civiliza- 

tolerably uniform, and taking B.C. 1250 as the most probable date 
for the capture of Troy by the Greeks, we are brought to a time 
a little anterior to b.c. 2000, or the first deposit of human remains 
upon the native rock. The uniformity, however, of the rate of 
accumulation is uncertain. 

* See above, ch. v. 

f Supra, page 112. 

X See the preceding chapter. 



150 Early CivUizaiions. 

tion/' * that " the value to be assigned to discrepant 
conehisions on a matter of scientific research, musi 
rest on the evidence ^v^th which such conehisions 
may be severally supported." Most certainly, no 
one would desire the decision to be made on any 
other grounds than these. The whole question Ls 
one of evidence, and to that point we shall pre- 
sently proceed to address ourselves; but there is one 
preliminary consideration to which we think it right 
to call the attention of our readers. 

The same amount of evidence is not sufficient to 
establish all conclusions. Very slight and weak 
testimony is enough for reasonable men, if the point 
to be established is intrinsically probable. Much 
higher and stronger testimony is necessary, if it is 
improbable. If it is verj' highly improbable, reason- 
able men will hesitate to accept the conclasion imless 
the evidence for it be well-nigh overwhelming. 

Now, in the present case, the conclusion sought to 
be established by the advocates of the " long chro- 
nology " is, we venture to say, very highly impro- 
bable. It is no less than to suppose one section of 
mankind to have stood for above tsvo thousand years 
on a totally different level from all other sections. 
It is to suppose settled government, law, order, high 
morality, art, science of a certain kind, to have 
existed for two thousand years in a single locality 
without spreading to other nations, without being 
imitated, without communicating itself; and this, 

* " Leisure Hour" for May, 1876, page 324. This paper is 
reprinted iu an appendix at the end of this work. 



Results of the Inquiry. 151 

not in a seqnestered island, not in a remote corner of 
the earth, but in a veritable " highway of nations," 
in a land which has always been a passage territory 
between east and west, between north and south, 
which stands in the closest connection with the 
fairest portions of the eastern world, and (as has 
often been said) " belongs to Asia rather than to 
Africa." What was the rest of mankind doing 
while Egyj^t stood at this proud eminence ? Why 
did they make no similar advance anywhere else? 
How came they, all of them, to rest content with 
their knives of flint and chert, their stone hammers 
and adzes, their ornaments of bone and shell, their 
huts of reeds and clay, or at best of sun-dried bricks ? 
Did they know nothing of Egypt during these 
twenty or five-and-twenty centuries? or did they 
look on without envy at the happy country in their 
midst, and make no effort to be like her ? To us 
nothing seems more unlikely, more inconceivable 
than two millenniums of high Egyptian civilization, 
including art, science, good government, a fair system 
of morality, and an elaborate social order, while all 
the rest of the world was sunk in darkness, had no 
history, no settled government, and only the first 
germs of art and manufacture. 

What, then, is the evidence upon which we are 
asked to accept this conclusion ? A vague idea is 
afloat that the long Egyptian chronology is borne 
out by the Egyptian monuments ; and even Pro- 
fessor Owen speaks of the " expanded ideas of time," 
which he entertains, as "deductions from lately- 



152 Early Civilizations. 

discovered inscriptions,''* as if the inscriptions were 
really the source from Avhich the long chronology 
proceeds. But it cannot be too often repeated that 
this is not the fact. Nothing is more certain, 
nothing is more universally admitted by Egypto- 
logers, than the absence from the monuments of any 
continuous chronology. f For the latter portion of 
the history, the Apis stelce, found by M. Mariette in 
the Serapeinii,! which give the age of each bull at 
his demise, and the regnal year of the king or kings 
coincident with the bull's birth and death, furnish 
valuable chronological materials ; but even these 
are incomplete, and for the earlier periods they fail 
entirely. All that the monuments supply for the 
time anterior to the eighteenth dynasty, consists of 
lists of kings,§ unaccompanied, for the most part, 

* "Leisure Hour," May, 1876, page 326. 

f Stuart Poole says, " The evidence of the monuments with 
regard to the chronology is neither full nor explicit." ("Diction- 
ary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 50G) ; Bunsen. " History is not to be 
elicited from the monuments ; not even its framework, chronology " 
("Egypt's Place," vol. i. p. 32); Brugsch, "It is not till the 
commencement of the twenty-sixth dynasty that the chronology 
is founded upon dates which are not much wanting in exactness" 
(" Histoire d'Egypte," 2me ed. p. 2-5) ; Mariette and Lenormant, 
" The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a regular Egyptian 
chronology is the circumstance that the Egyptians themselves 
never had any chronology at all" ("Manuel d" Histoire An- 
cienne," vol. i. p. 382). 

X See his work, " Renseignements sur les soixante-quatre Apis 
trouv(5s au Serapeum," Paris, 1855. 

§ There are tive such lists. One is that of the Papyrus Roll, at 
present in the Turin Museum, and known as the " Turin Papyrus," 
which was edited by Sir Gardner Wilkinson as early as 1840; 
another, in stone, brought from the great Temple of Karnak, may 



Results of the Irujuinj. 1^3 

by chronological data,* and all of them more or less 
imperfect.t These lists, moreover, were m no case 
compiled earlier than the time of the eighteenth 
dynasty, and they are thus but very slight evidence, 
even of the existence of the more ancient monarchs 
named in them. Moreover, they differ one from 
another very considerably, both in the names and ni 
the number of the monarchs whom they place on 
record, and it is only by an arbitrary preference of 
one of them to the rest, or by a still more arbitrary 
amalgamation, that a continuous list of the kings 
composing the dynasties can be made out. The 
monuments for the most part determine nothing as 
to the length of a king's reign ; they show some ot 
the kings to have reigned conjointly,t but do not 

be seen in the Bibliothl-que Nationale at Paris ; a tlurd also in 
stone, and known as the " Table of Abydos " .s m the tgypUan 
collection of the British Museum ; a fourth, known as the Table 
of Sakkarah," forms a portion of the Khedxve's collection at Catro 
the fifth, which has been called the " New Table of Abydos, i , 
I believe, still attached to the walls of the temple in which M. 

"^r Cl^ Pai^- is the only one of the fi^ lists which 

contain: any numbrrs. It is thought ^<> ^^^ ^^2:1^::^^ 
condition, the length of each kings reign ; but the numbers 
for the most V-riAnd^^^iv^erMe ^^^ .^ ^^^^ 

+ The Turin Papvrus consists o^ lu* i^'^c ' , „ , 

xle o'f Abylos" has lost ,we„.y out of the »y jm^ .«scr,be<i 
m it ■ the •• Ne» Table" is in better condition, but sti 1 is imper 

e„t ;„d mahes the eighteenth <'J-»\j/»"°'/»»''>-" ^^s" 
the twelfth. The " T.Me of S.l.k«.-»h" has only hflyeight kings, 
and, like that of Karnak. is re-arded as a selection. 
{ See Brugsch, " Histoire d'Egjpt," p. 83. 



154 Early Civilizations. 

tell us to what extent this practice prevailed ; and 
they leave wholly undetermined the question as to 
the extent to which kings of contemporary dynasties 
have been admitted into the lists. 

The result, so far as the monuments are concerned, 
may best be stated in the words of Brugsch :* 
" The difficulties in the way of determining the 
epochs of Egyptian history, instead of diminishing, 
increase from day to day. . . Perhaps, if the 
Turin Papyrus had been preserved to our times 
intact, we should have been able to establish the 
ancient chronology of Egypt. But at the present 
day no living man is cajmble of overcoming the 
difficulties which prevent the reconstruction of the 
canon. We lack the elements necessar}' for com- 
pleting the gaps, and supplementing the historical 
remains, more especially of the earlier djTiasties, 
these remains being too few and far between to be 
made use of with any success. ^loreover, it is 
certain that the lists of kings which have come 
down to us have been cooked to suit particular 
^^ews." 

The long Egyptian chronology has not, then, 
resulted from the monuments, and cannot base 
itself upon them. It has arisen, as Dr. Brugsch 
observes,! entirely from the trust placed in the 

* See Brugsch, " Histoire d'Egypte," pp. 27, 28. 

f Brugsch, having noted the remarkable diversity of views 
among the savants of Germany with respect to the commencement 
of monarchy in Egypt — a diversity (as he observes) of above 2,000 
years — ^appends the remark, " Les calculs en question sont bas^s 



Results of the Inquiry. 156 

statements of the Egjqjtian priest Manetho, or 
rather in those reports of his statements which have 
reached our time. According to these, the priest 
of Sebcunytus, writing about B.C. 250, claimed for 
the precedent Egyptian monarchy an antiquity of 
between five thousand and six thousand years.* 

Two questions here arise — 1. Is Manetho cor- 
rectly reported? and, 2. Are we bound to accept 
his statements as certainly true ? In a former 
chapter it has been argued that there is a reasonable 
doubt whether the Egyptian priest really intended 
his thirty dynasties of kings, the sum of whose 
joint reigns amounted to above 5,000 years, to be 
regarded as consecutive, and in no case contem- 
porary. I Only one modern savant % takes the view 
that they were really all consecutive. All the rest 
admit the principle of contemporaneity, and only 
differ with regard to the extent to which it pre- 
vailed. The '' long chronology " depends on denying 
contemporaneity, or reducing it to a minimum. If 
it is the fact that five or six of Manetho's dynasties 
were at times contemporary, § his numbers might be 
correct, and yet the 5,000 years might have to be 
reduced to 2,000. 

But can his numbers be considered correct ? In 
the first place, there are three versions of them, no 

sur les chiffers contenus dans les extraits de I'ouvrage du pretre 
Man^thou sur I'histoire de I'Egypte" ("Histoire," p. 24). 

* See above, p. 23. 

f Ibid. note. 

X M. Mariette 

§ As held by Wilkinson, Stuart Poole and even Bunsen, 



156 Early Civilizations. 

one of which has more external authority than the 
other two. In the second, where the monuments 
furnish any evidence at all, they contradict him 
frequently and vitally. Manetho gave to the three 
Pyramid kings reigns of sixty-three, sixty-six, and 
sixty-three — in all 192 — ^years, or only eight years 
short of two centuries. The Turin Papyrus re- 
places these numbers by six, six, and twenty-four — 
in all thirty-six years, or less than one-fifth of 
Manetho's total.* ^lanetho gave to the predecessor 
of the second Menkeres a reign of forty-four years ; 
the Turin Papyrus cuts the number down to eleven 
years, f JNIanetho assigned to the first Sesostris (of 
the twelfth dynasty) a reign of forty-eight years; 
the monuments give him, at the utmost, nineteen 
years. % Similar discrepancies occur in scores of 
cases, and the result is greatly to discredit Manetho's 
numbers as they have come down to us. As Brugsch 
observes : " Les chiffres de Manethon sont dans un 
6tat deplorable ; " and there exists no means of rec- 
tifying them. § 

Supposing, however, that we could recover the 
original Manetho, should we be bound to accept him 
as an authority from whom there could be no appeal ? 

* See Brugsch, " Histoire d'Egypte," p. 48. 

t Ibid. p. 50. 

J Ibid. p. 83. Manetho is not always so greatly in excess with 
respect to his numbers ; but on the whole he raises considerably 
the years of the kings' reigns, as given in the Turin Papyrus. 
That document favours the view that the average reign of an 
Egyptian monai-ch did not much exceed fifteen years. 

I " Histoire d'Egypte," p. 25. 



Results of the Inquiry. 157 

Siirel}- not. Manetho wrote about B.C. 280 — 250, 
or about 1,200 years after the accession of the 
eighteenth dynasty, about B.C. 1500. He professed 
to carry back the history of Egypt for some thou- 
sand or thousands of years before this. But what 
materials could he have for his history? Probably 
he had the same monumental listi? which Ave possess, 
and others similar to them. He may have had 
access to the Turin Papyrus in its unmutilated state; 
he may have been able to refer to other documents 
of the same ago. But there is no reason to think 
that he possessed contemporary memorials of the 
Middle or Old Empire, or knew anything more of 
them than the traditions which the monarchs of the 
eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties committed to 
writing, after a " shipwreck " of Egyptian civiliza- 
tion,* in which all was lost. He could, it would 
seem, only have guessed tiie duration of the Shep- 
herd dominion. The duration of the previous native 
empire 'must have been still more obscure. The 
Egyptians, when left to themselves, had "never had 
a chronology ;" t and documents like the Turin 
Papyrus, containing bare lists of kings with regnal 
years attached, could be of little value, except as 
showing what the monarchs of the nineteenth 
dynasty believed, or wished to be believed, as to the 

* Lenormant, " Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne do I'Orient," vol. i. 
p. 360: "Nous assistons done, sous la quinzieme et seizieme 
dynastie h un nouveau naufrage de la civilization Egyptienne." 

f Ibid. p. 322: "Les Egyptiens eux-memes n'ont jamais eu 
de chronologic." 



158 Early Oivilizaiions. 

past of their country. Extant contemporary monu- 
ments might present m certain instances the names 
of the kings, but would he unlikely to show either 
which kings of a dynasty ruled conjointly, or which 
dynasties were contenij)oraneous. Copious remains, 
and a careful study of them, would have been needed 
to determine such points as these. The "ship- 
wreck of civilization " immediately preceding the 
eighteenth dynasty caased the remains to be scanty ; 
the intense egotism of the monarchs would be un- 
favourable to anything like careful study of remote 
history. 

Again, Mauetho certainly failed to present a true 
vei'sion of the chronology subsequent to the eigh- 
teenth dynasty. Here Herodotus is sometimes more 
to be depended on than he.* But if the priest of 
Sebennytus could be mistaken in respect of this 
(comparatively speaking) recent period, is it not 
likely that he committed still greater errors with 
regard to times very much more remote ? 

Let it be further noted that Manetho's scheme of 
thirty dynasties of Egyptian kings, beginniug with 
Menes, with reigns of which the sum amounted to 
between 5,000 and 6000 years, was a part of a far 
larger scheme of mundane chronology which no 

* For instance, Herodotus gives Neco a reign of sixteen years, 
Manetho one of six years only ; but one of the Apis stelae men- 
tions Neco's sixteenth year. Again, Herodotus assigned to the 
Ethiopian dynasty, which Manetho makes his twenty-fifth, a 
period of fifty years. Manetho g;ive it forty for forty-four i years. 
Mariette and Lenormant, presumably following the monuments, 
give to the dynasty a term of fifty years. 



Results of the Inquiry. 159 

one thinks of accepting* — a scheme whereby the 
beginnings of Egyptian history were carried back 
to a date more than thirty thousand years anterior 
to the Christian era ! All moderns agree that the 
greater portion of Manetho's chronological scheme 
is untrustworthy; the dispute is only as to the 
point at which we may begin to place any reliance 
upon it. 

Upon the whole, we see no reason to retract the 
views which we have already expressed on the sub- 
ject of Egyptian chronology, which are briefly 
these : — 1. That the eighteenth (native) dynasty 
commenced about B.C. 1,500 ;f 2. That the Hyksos, 
or Shepherd period of foreign domination lasted, at 
the utmost, about two centuries and a half ; | com- 
mencing not earlier than B.C. 1750; and 3. That the 
native dynasties anterior to the Hyksos domination, 

* Manetho's scheme was as follows : 

Dynasties of Egypt. 



1. Reigns of the Gods 

2. Reigns of heroes 

3. Reigns of other kings . . . 

4. Reigns of 30 Memphite kings 

5. Reigns of 10 Thinite kings . 

6. Reigns of Manes and heroes . 

7. Reigns of the 30 dynasties . 



Years. 

13,900 

1,255 

1,817 
1,790 
350 
5,813 
5,000 (perhaps 5,075). 



Total . . . 29,925(perhaps 30,000). 

t B.C. 1520 (Wilkinson) ; b.c. 1525 (Stuart Poole) ; b.c. 1600 
(Birch). 

J See the arguments of Canon Cooke in the " Speaker's Com- 
mentary," vol. i. p. 447. 



160 Early Civilizaiions. 

many of which were contcmjiorary, may liave covered 
a space of 500, 600, or 700 years, thus reaching 
back to B.C. 2250, or possibly to B.C. 2450. In this 
way Babylon and Egypt would be, in their origin 
a.s kingdoms, about contemporary; the Pyramids 
would liave an antiquity of about 4,000 years; civili- 
zation would have taken its rise in Egypt in the 
course of the third millennium B.C., and would have 
rapidly advanced in certain directions, as it also did 
in Babylon,* while in others the progress made was 
small ; f the early civilizations of Phoenicia and Asia 
Minor would have followed on those of Egj'pt and 
Babylon, at no great interval ; civilization would 
from the fii*^ have shown its tendency to spread and 
communiciite itself; the earth would at no time have 
presented the spectacle of one highly-civilized com- 
munity standing alone for thousands of years in the 
midst of races rude and unpolished ; the progressive 
movement of civilization would have been upon the 
whole equable, uniform, and, if we may use the term, 
natural. 

Such are the chronological views which j^rofaue 
history, monumental and other, studied by itssif, 
seems to us on the w'hole to favor. We should 
maintain them had the Bible never been A^Titi;en, or 
had it been entirely devoid of all chronological 

* See above, p. 11. 

■\ When Professor Ovren says that the Sphinx of the Pyramids 
ii a " sculpture of exquisite art and finish " (" Leisure Hour" for 
May, 1876, p. 324), and the statue of Chephren one " that -will bear 
comparison with that of Watt, by Chantrey, in Westminster 
Abbey" (ibid. j). 325), I can only profoundly disagree with him. 



rev 
couci 



Results of the Inquiry. 161 

notices.* But we think it right* to call the attention 
of our readers, whom we presume to be believers in 

elation, to the fact that these views, while irre- 

.liable with the wholly unauthorized chronology 

of Archbishop Usher, harmonize admirably with the 
Biblical numbers, as they are given in the version 
called the Septuagint. 

We subjoin a tabular view of the chief chrono- 
logical conclusions at which we have arrived in the 
course of this inquiry : — 

B.C. 

about 
Date of the Deluge, according to the Septuagint . . .3,200 

Rise of Monarchy in Egypt (probably) 2,450 

in Babylon (probably) 2,300 

Earliest traces of civilization in Asia Minor (probably) 2,000 

„^,' • • ... 1,550 

Rise of Phoenicia ' 

. • .... 1,500 
" Assyria 

Earliest Iranic civilization (Zendavesta) 1.500 

. Indie " (Vedas) 1.200 

Hellenic " (Homer) ^'-^^ 

Phrygian and Lydian civilization commence 900 

Etruscan civilization commences 

,, li ... 600 

Lycian 

* Professor Owen seems to imagine that the curtailment of 
Manetho'8 numbers is a device of -Biblical critics," bent on 
forcing his chronology into an agreement with that of Scripture. 
But the curtailment began with the heathen writers, Erathos- 
thenes and Apollodorus, who lived under the Ptolemies in the 
third and second centuries before Christ. 



PART II. 



ETHNIC AFFINITIES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD, 

OR, 

TOLDOTH BENI-NOAH. 

A COMMENTARY ON THE TENTH CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 



PART II.— ON ETHNIC AFFINITIES. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE CHIEF JAPHETIC RACES. 

The genealogies of Scripture generally regarded as uninteresting 
— Their real importance— Special interest of those in the 10th 
chapter of Genesis— The names in the lists ethnic rather than 
personal— The chapter an " ethnographical essay "—Descend- 
ants of Japheth : Gomeb, or the Kimmerians (Cymry) ; Ma- 
gog, or the Scythians ; Madai, or the Medes ; Javan, or the 
Greeks (lonians) ; Meshech and Tubal, or the Moschi and 
Tibareni ; Tiras, or the Thracians— Summary— Comparison of 
these statements -with the views of modern ethnologists— Iden- 
tity of the Mosaic names with the chief divisions of the Indo- 
European race. 

FEW tilings are less interesting to the ordinary 
reader than the Scriptural genealogies. In 
reading them even the humblest disciple is tempted 
to question whether " all Scripture is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruc- 
tion in righteousness" (2 Tim. iii. 16), or whether 
there is not some portion of the Word which is un- 
profitable. Before the New Lectionary was intro- 
duced, it was not unusual for clergymen, when the 

second lesson was Luke iii., to conclude their read- 

165 



IGG Ethnic AJinilies. 

ing with verse 23. Yet not only are the genealogies 
of great importance historically, as marking strongly 
the vital truth, that the entire framework and narra- 
tive of Scripture is in every case real, not ideal ; 
plain and simple matter of fact, not fanciful allegory 
evolved out of the author's conscioasness ; but often 
these portions of Scripture, dry and forbidding as 
is their first aspect, will well repay a careful and 
scholarly study. They are like an arid range of 
bare and stony mountains, which, when minutely 
examined, reveals to the investigator mines of 
emerald or diamond. Only let Faith and Patience 
make the search ; and let the searcher bear in mind 
that, where all is dark to him, it may be reserved 
for future inquirers to let in upon the darkness a 
flood of light ; and let hira be careful not to dwarf 
down the majesty of God's truth to the puny 
standard of his own imperfect knowledge, which to 
the wise of another generation may seem but a 
sort of learned ignorance. 

It is proposed, in the present and some following 
chapters, to draw attention to the earliest of the 
postdiluvian genealogies — those contained in the 
tenth chapter of the Book of Genesis. It is believed 
that they belong, very decidedly, to the class of 
genealogical documents deserving study; that they 
contain within them, concealed beneath the surface, 
a very considerable amount of important historical 
and ethnological truth. 

The time is gone by when nothing more was seen 
in the list of names to be found in this chapter than 



Chief Japhetic Races. 167 

a set of personal appellations, the proper names of 
individuals. No one can read with any attention 
the following passage, even in its English dress 
without perceiving that the writer is bent rather on 
considering the connection of races than the descent 
of persons. "And Canaan begat Sidon his first- 
born, and Heth, and the Jebiisite, and the Amorite, 
and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and 
the Smite, and the Ai'vadite, and the Zemarite, and the 
Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the 
Canaanites spread abroad" (verses 15 — 18). The 
Hebrew scholar sees the same, long before he comes 
to this passage ; for he notes that the forms of the 
names are in many instances plui'al (Madai, Kit- 
tim, Dodanim or Rodanim, Ludim, Anamim, etc.), 
while in one remarkable instance he comes upon a 
dual form, which he at once recognizes as that of a 
country or people. " Mizraim " (verse 6) is the 
word elsewhere throughout Scripture uniformly 
translated " Egypt." It signifies in fact " the two 
Egypts " — the " upper " and the " lower " — the two 
countries whose character is physically so different 
that they have always been recognized as separate ; 
whence the monumental Egyptian kings wear upon 
their heads two crowns, and the hieroglyph for 
Egypt in the ancient writing is a double water- 
plant or a double clod of earth, representative of the 
two regions, the long narrow valley and the broad 
delta. 

Again, it is worthy of notice that the majority of 
the names in the chapter, if they occur elsewhere in 



168 Ethnic Affinities. 

the Bible, occur in an ethnic or else in a geogra- 
phic sense. Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, 
M&shech, Togarmah, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittiin, 
(=Chittim), CiL?h, Phut, Canaan, Sheba, Dedan, 
Elara, Asshur, Lud, Aram, Uz, Ophir, Havilah, are 
all of them in ever}- other place either countries or 
nations. We hear of " Gomer and all his bands " 
(Ezek. xxxviii. 6), of "the land of Magog" (ib. 
verse 2), of " the isles of Elishah " (Ezek. xxvii. 7), 
the "men of Dedan" (ib. verse 15), the "ships of 
Tarshish " (1 Kings xxii. 48), and the like. Asshur 
is usually translated in our version by "Assyria," 
Elam by "Persia," Madai by "the Medes" or 
" Media," Gush by " Ethiopia," Lud by " Lydia," 
Aram by " Syria." There is not one of the names 
above quoted that can even be imagined to be personal 
in any other place of Scripture, unless it be Canaan, 
which might have a personal meaning in G«n. ix. 
18—27. 

It may therefore be assumed, both from the cast 
of the passage itself, and from the light thrown on 
it by the rest of Scripture, that the object of the 
author of the tenth chapter of Genesis was to give 
us, not a personal genealogy, but a sketch of the 
interconnection of races. Shem, Ham, and Japheth 
are no doubt persons, the actual sons of the 
patriarch Noah ; but it may be doubted whether 
there is another name in the series which is other 
than ethnic. The document is in fact the earliest 
etlinographical essay that has come down to our 
times. It is a summary, like those which may be 



Chief Japhetic Races. 16% 

found in Bunsen's " Philosophy of History " or Max 
Miiller's " Survey of Ijaiif^uagcs," arranging the chief 
known nations of tlic earth into an ethnographic 
scheme. In examining it, we must remember that 
it is three thousand }'cars old, and that it was 
written by a Jew and for the Jews. We must 
therefore only look to find in it an account of the 
nations with which the Jews, at the date of its com- 
position, had some acquaintance. 

The genealogy opens with the statement that " the 
sons," or descendants, " of Japheth were Gomer, 
and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and 
Meshech, and Tiras" (verse 2). Can we identify 
the races intended under these various names, all 
or any of them ? 

Gomer. — Scripture tells us nothing further of 
Gomer, excepting that his armed " bands " should 
take part in an invasion of Judaea which was im- 
pending at the time when the prophet Ezekiel wrote 
his thirty-eighth chapter, which was probably about 
B.C. 600. They were to come in company with 
those of Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah, 
"from the north quarter" (Ezek. xxxviii. 2 — 6), 
^nd were to join in producing a great desolation, 
but were soon afterwards to suffer a reverse. Gomer, 
therefore, should be a warlike people, not averse to 
taking part in the raids of other nations, dwelling 
somewhere in the north country, or in the regions 
between Syria on the one hand and the Black Sea 
and Caucasus on the other, and powerful in these 
parts towards the close of the seventh century before 



170 Ethnic Affinities. 

our era. Xow these requirements are all met by a 
race which the Assyrians (iille<l Gimiri, or Kirniri, 
and the Greeks Kimraerii, who warred in north—, 
west Asia from about B.<'. G70 to 570,* and who, 
according to Strabo, t occasionally ravaged Asia 
Minor in conjunction w^ith a Thracian people called 
Treres, The Kimraerii dwelt originally in the broad 
plains of Southern Russia, the tract known as the 
Ukraine, but being dispossessed by the Scythians, 
they fled (or a portion of them fled) across the Cauca- 
sus into Armenia and Asia Minor. They there ra- 
vaged and plundered far and wide for about a centu- 
ry, warring with Gyges and Ardys, the Lydian kings, 
burning the temple of Diana at Ephesus % over- 
running Phrygia, § and even penetrating into the 
remote and mountainous Cilicia, through the 
passes of Taurus. || They have been probably 
identified with the Cimbri of Roman times, a por- 
tion of the great Celtic race, some of whose tribes 
were found in Britain when the Romans conquered 
it, and came to be called by them Cambri, and their 
country Cambria. The descendants of these Cambri 
still hold a portion of our country, and know them- 
selves by their old name of Cymry, utterly ignoring 
the name, which we English give tnem, of " "NYelsh." 

* See Herodotus, i. 15, 16, 103 ; iv. 11 ; and compare G. Smith's 
" History of Assurbanipal," pp. 65, 67, 72, 74, etc. 

■\ Strab. i. p. 90. 

\ Hesych. in voc. Kv-j Saute ; Eustath. Comment, ad. Horn. Od. 
xi. 14. 

g Eustath. ad. Hom. Od. l.s.c. : Euseb. Chron. Can. iL p. 324. 

II Callim. Hymn, ad Dian. 248-260. 



Chiej Japhetic Races. 171 

Others of the same stock maintained themselves for 
some centuries in the north, and gave to the moun- 
tainous district that harboui-ed them the appellation, 
which it still retains, of Cumberland. We may say- 
therefore, that Gromer probably represents the Celtic 
race under one of their best known and most widely 
extended names, and that the author of Genesis 
meant to include among the descendants of Japheth 
the great and powerful nation of the Celts. 

Magog. — Of Magog, or Gog (for the names seem 
to designate the same people*), nothmg can be 
concluded from the word itself. There is no recog- 
nized ethnic appellative with any pretension to 
importance that bears any near resemblance to either 
of the two terms. It appears, however, from Ezekiel 
(xxxviii. and xxxix.) that the race which these 
terms, as used by the Jews, designated, was one of 
remarkable power towards the close of the seventh 
century B.C. — that it led the expeditions in which 
Gomer participated, and pushed them as far as 
Palestine — ^that it dwelt, like Gomer, in the " north 
country" — that its weapon was the bow (Ezek. 
xxxix. 3) — and that its warriors were all horsemen 
(Ezek. xxxviii. 15). These notes of character pro- 
bably identify the people intended with the Euro- 
pean Scythians, who were the dominant race in the 
tract between the Caucasus and Mesopotamia for the 
space of nearly thirty years,t from about B.C. 630 
to B.C. 600; who invaded Palestine and besieged 

* See Rev. xx. 8. "Ma" is thought to signify "land." 
f Herod, i. 106, 130, etc. 



172 Ethnic Ajfinities. 

Ascalon in the reign of the Egyptian king, Psamme- 
tichus,* who fought ahnost wholly on horseback, 
and were famoas for their skill with the bow. 
Probably J therefore, the author of Genesis meant to 
include the Scyths of Europe, the conquerors of the 
Kinimerians, among the races whose descent he traced 
to the youngest of the sons of Noah. 

Madai. — With respect to the third name, Madai, 
there is no room for doubt. Except in this, and the 
corresponding passage of Chronicles (1 Chron. i. 5), 
the term, Madai, uniformly means — and is indeed 
translated uniformly, in the authorized and all other 
versions — " the Medes." The Medes called them- 
selves — or, at any rate, the Persians, their near 
kindred, called them f — " Madd" of which Madai is 
the natural Hebrew representative. There cannot 
be the shadow of a doubt, that, in placing " Madai " 
among the descendants of Japheth, the author of 
Genesis x. intended to notify that from that 
patriarch sprang the great and powerful nation of 
the Medes. 

Javax. — Here again the word itself is a sufficient 
index to the writer's meaning. Javan is the nearest 
possible expression in Hebrew of the Greek term 
wliich we render by " lonians," the original form of 
which in Greek was lafon-es. Why and how is 
uncertain ; but the fact is indisputable, that the 
Orientals used this term, universally, as the generic 

* Herod, i. 105. 

I See the " Behistun Inscription," col. i. par. 11 ^ 7 ; and 
passim. 



Chief Japhetic Races. 173 

name for the Greek race. The Assyrians called the 
Greeks of Cyprus the Yavnan; the Persians called 
those of Asia Minor and the ^gean islands, the 
Yuna. The terms "Greek," "Hellene," "Achaean," 
"Dorian," were unknown in Asia, or at any rate 
unused by the Asiatics generally, being superseded 
by the name " Ionian/' with which alone they were 
familiar. 

Tubal and Meshech, constantly coupled together 
in Scripture (Ezek. xxvii. 13 ; xxxii. 26 ; xxxviii. 
2, 3; xxxix. 1), seem to represent the two kindred 
races of the Tibareni and the Moschi, who dwelt in 
close proximity to each other on the northern coast 
of Asia Minor, in the days of Herodotus and 
Xenophon, and who at an earlier period were 
among the most powerful of the races inhabiting 
the interior. The Assyrian monarchs were for 
several centuries — from about B.C. 1100 to 700 — 
engaged in frequent wars with the Muskai and 
Tuplai, who then held the more eastern portion of 
the Taurus range, and the tract beyond it, known 
later as Cappadocia.* Here was the great Moschian 
capital, which even the Romans knew as Csesarea 
J/azaca.f The author of the Noachide gene- 
alogy, in all probability, intends to state that 
the two powerful races of the Moschi and the 
Tibareni were, like the Kimmerians, the Scyths 

* See the author's "Ancient Monarchies," vol. ii. pp. 312, 372, 
421, etc. 

f On the connection of the word " Mazaca" with " Meshech," 
Bee Josephus, "Ant. Jud." i. 6, § !• 



174 Ethnic Affinities. 

of Europe, the Medes, and the Greeks, of Japhetic 
origin. 

TiRAS. — This is the most obscure of all the names 
in the Japhetic list, since no other passage of Scrip- 
ture throws the least light upon it. Jewish tradi- 
tion, however, asserts that the Thracians are the 
people intended.* Etymologically, this is not per- 
haps altogether satisfactory, since the third root con- 
sonant of Thrace and Thracian ( Soj^xt^, dpfj^= Opf/x:;) 
is not s, but k.-f Geographically, however, the iden- 
tification is suitable enough ; and it may therefore 
be accepted, at any rate, till some more plausible 
explanation is offered. Thracian tribes occupied the 
greater portion of northern and central Asia Minor 
from a remote antiquity'. The Thynians and Bithy- 
nians were always admitted to be Thracians. | So 
were the Mariandynians, according to Strabo,§ and, 
according to others, the Paphlagonians. A strong 
Thracian character belonged to the Phrygians and 
Mysians, whose very names were, moreover, mere 
variants of those borne by purely Thracian tribes, 
viz., the Briges and Msesi. Thus the more ancient 
Hebrews might well include under the name of 
Thracians the chief tribes of Asia INIinor, the tribes 
which immediately adjoined upon the Moschi 
towards the west, just as Tiras immediately follows 

* See Josephus, "Ant. Jud." i. 6, | 1. 

X The k of QpijKT]^ Qpv^ passes into ss in the feminine form — 
Opycja or Qpdffna. 

X Herod, i. 28; vii. 75 ; Xen. Anab. v. 10, § 17; etc. 
2 Strab. vii. p. 427. 



Chief Japhetic Races. 175 

on Meshech in the genealogy. And the author of 
Grenesis x. may be understood to include among the 
descendants of Japheth the whole vast nation of the 
Thracians, which extended from the Halys, in Asia 
Minor, to the Drave and Save in Europe. 

Such are the conclusions to which the critical 
student naturally comes, when he examines the list 
of names in Gen. x. 2, in the light thrown on them by 
other passages of Scripture, by the context, and by a 
comparison of the words used with known ancient 
ethnic titles. In brief, the statement of the verse is, 
that a special connection of races united together 
the following peoples — the Cymry or Celts, the 
Scyths of Europe, the Medes or Aryans, the Greeks, 
the Thracians, and the comparatively insignificant 
tribes of the Moschi and Tibareni — that, in fact, 
these several races belonged to one stock, had one 
blood, were but the different branches of a single 
family. 

Now, here is a statement which may at any rate 
be compared with the results of modern ethno- 
graphical research. It is the object of ethnography, 
or ethnology, whichever we like to call it, to trace 
out, as far as the facts of history, of physiology, and 
of language permit, the interconnection of nations. 
Nations which are really one family should have a 
family likeness; tribes which grew up together 
must have once had a common language. If the 
Celts, the European Scyths, the Medes or Aryans, 
the Greeks and Romans (for these two cannot be 
separated), and the Thracians had a common 



176 Ethnic Affinities. 

descent, the fact should appear in a resemblance 
between their languages, and in a certain unity of, 
physical type. 

What then has ethnographical science, following 
a strictly inductive method and wholly freed from all 
shacklas of authority, concluded on the matter before 
us? A single passage from the greatest of modorn 
ethnologists will suffice to show. 

" There M'as a time," says Professor Max Miiller, 
" when the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans, the 
Slaves, the Greeks and Italians, the Persians and 
Hindoos, were living together beneath the same roof, 
separate from the Semitic and Turanian races." * 
And again, " There is not an English jur>^ now-a- 
days, which, after examining the hoary documents of 
language, would reject the claim of a common de- 
scent and a legitimate relationship between Hindoo, 
Greek, and Teuton. "f Ethnological science, we see, 
regards it as morally certain, as proved beyond all 
reasonable doubt, that the chief races of modern 
Europe, the Celts, the Germans, the Graeco-Italians 
and the Slaves, had a common origin Avith the prin- 
cipal race of Western Asia, the Indo-Persian. 

Now, this result of advanced modern inductive 
science, a result which it is one of the proudest 
boasts of the nineteenth century to have arrived at, 
is almost exactly that which Moses, A\Titing fifteen 
hundred years before the Christian era, laid down 
dogmatically as simple historical fact. For his 

* " Languages of the Seat of War," p. 30. 
t Ibid. 



Chief Japlietic Races. 177 

" Gomer," as already shown, represents certainly the 
race of the Celts, his " Javan " stands, beyond a 
doubt, for the Grieco-Italians, and his " Madai " 
(Medes), for the Aryans or Indo-Persians, while his 
" Magog " may well stand for the Slaves, and his 
" Tiras " for the Teutons, or Germans. But these 
two last points require, perhaps, a few words of 
proof. 

That the European Scyths, who overran Western 
Asia in the seventh century B.C., were a branch of 
the Indo-Germanic family, has been abundantly 
proved by Grimm in his " History of the German 
Language," published in 1848, Their kinship with 
the modern Slaves is implied in the statement of 
Herodotus (iv. 110 — 117), that they were closely 
allied in race to the Sauromatae or Sarmatians, whose 
identity with the Slaves is maintained by Niebuhr 
and Bockh.* This statement has, indeed, been called 
in question ; and it must certainly be admitted that 
the remains of the ancient Scythic language which 
have come down to us, though Indo-European, are 
not specially Slavonic. But, nevertheless, the state- 
ment of Herodotus remains — the authority of the 
writer is great — ^and the fact stated has never been 
disproved. At any rate, if the " Magog " of Moses 
does not exactly represent the nation of the Slaves, it 
probably includes them, for the Sarmatians, through 
whose country the route of the Scythians lay, no 

* Niebuhr, " Vortrlige iiber Alte Gescliichte," vol. i. p. 194; 
Bockli, "Corp. Inscript. Gr." Introduct. ad Inscript. Sarmat. pars. 
xi. p. 83. 

N 



178 Ethnic Affinities. 

doubt joined in their invasion, and the so-called 
Scythic hordes which held Western Asia for thirty 
years, are almost sure to have been, at any rate in 
part, Slavonic. 

That the Thracians were Teutons is not, perhaps, 
susceptible of proof; but it is the belief of many of 
the best ethnologists, and many arguments may. be 
adduced in favour of it. The Thracian tribe of the 
Getae seems to have grown into the great nation of 
the Goths, while the Daci (or Dacini) seem to have 
been the ancestors of the Danes. The few Thracian 
words which have come down to us are decidedly 
Teutonic, such as bnn, " town " (comp. G-erm. burg, 
Engl, borough) ; brig, " free " (comp. Gothic jreis, 
Germ. frci). There is also a resemblance between 
the Thracian customs, as described by Herodotus 
(v. 4 — 8), and those which Tacitus assigns to the 
Germans. 

To return — and at the same time, to conclude the 
presentchapter — whereas modern ethnological science, 
basing itself on the facts of language, lays it down 
as a grand discovery that one of the great families 
into which the human race is divided comprises the 
five divisions of 1. Indo-Persians or Aryans; 2. 
Celts ; 3. Teutons ; 4. Grseco-Italians ; and 5. Slaves 
— Moses, anticipating this discovery by a space of 
above three thousand years, gives as members of one 
family — 1. Madai, the Medes or Aryans ; 2. Gomer, 
the CS^mry or Celts; 3. Tiras, the Thracians 
(Teutons) ; 4. Javan, the lonians (Greeks) ; and 5. 
Magog, the Scythians and Sarmatialis (Slaves). The 



Chief Japhetic Baxies. 179 

only diiference between the two schemes is that 
Moses adds further a sixth race, Tubal, the Tiba- 
reni ; and a seventh, Meshech, the Moschi,— races 
which rapidly declined in power between B.C. 1100 
and 400, and which perished without leaving either 
a literature or descendants, * whence modern ethno- 
logical science takes no notice of them. 

* Some have found in the Moschi the founders of Moscow, and 
the ancestors of the present Muscovites. But this identification 
has no historical or ethnological basis, resting wholly on the 
similarity of the names. 



CHAPTER II. 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE JAPHETIC RACES, GOMER 
AND JAVAN. 

Comparative obscurity of the miuor details in the Mosaic 
genealogies — Subdivisions of Gomer and Javan — 1. OfGomer, 
three : Ashkenaz, an unknown race ; Riphath, also unknown ; 
ToGABMAH, or "people of Armenia" — 2. Of Javan, four: 
Elishah, or ^Eolian Greeks ; Tarshish, or people of Tarsus in 
Cilicia; Kittim, or Greeks of Cyprus ; Rodaxim, or Rhodians 
— Impossibility of determining why two only of the Japhetic 
races are subdivided — Importance of the principle of sub- 
division — Geographic position of the Japhetic races. 

THE grand outlines of the Mosaic ethnology are 
not hard to read ; but in the details there is, 
not uufrequently, very considerable obscurity. The 
names here belong often to the class of those which 
occur in no other independent passage of Scripture ; 
and in some instances the real original form of the 
name is doubtful. But, though these circumstances 
render interpretation difficult, and in some degree 
uncertain, they do not altogether preclude it. As 
the wanderer who passes through an unknown tract 
of country when the evening twilight is settling 
down upon it, while he sees but dimly, still sees 
to some extent, and acquires a certain amount of 
knowledge regarding the district which he traverses, 
so the student of these darker passages of the 
180 



Subdivisions of the Japhetic Races. 181 

Sacred Text may gatlier something of their mean- 
ing from cai'eful examination of them, albeit he is 
fain to acknowledge that in many respects he may 
have failed to grasp their true sense, and that even 
where he may have seized it, he has done so by 
conjecture, rather than by any process that admits 
of being clearly traced out and stated. 

With these preliminary remarks, we proceed to 
examine the, second step in the Mosaic account of 
the affiliation of nations. "And the sons of Gomer ; 
Ashkeuaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And tlie 
sons of Javan ; Elisliah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and 
Dodauim." — (Gen. x. 3, 4.) 

AsHKENAZ. — The Ashkenaz must in the time of 
Jeremiah have been located in the Armenian hisrh- 
land, or at any rate in its immediate vicinity, since 
they are joined by him with Minni and Ararat 
(li. 27). They were to accompany Cyrus to the 
siege of Babylon, which took place in B.C. 538. As 
neither Scripture nor profane history makes any 
other mention of any such people in these parts, I 
should incline to suppose them to be an obscure 
Cymric tribe, which, like Tubal and Meshech, 
decayed and came to nothing soon after the time 
of Jeremiah. It is possible, though far from certain, 
that we have traces of their name in the lakes,* 

* Two lakes in Asia Minor bore anciently the name of Asca- 
nius. One was in the eastern part of Bithynia, near Nicaea 
(Strab. vii. p. 389). It is now the Lake of Iznik. The other lay 
towards the south, in Southern Phrygia, or Pisidia fArrian, 
"Exp. Alex." i. 29 ; Herod, vii. 30). It is salt, and is known as 
Lake Chardak. 



182 Ethnic Affinities. 

and river, Ascanius in Asia Minor, and also in 
Scandia and Scandinavia ; but if so, we must regard 
those names as given by an early jxjpulation which 
had disappeared before our first historical knowledge 
of the tracts in question. 

RiPHATH. — This name is doubtful, for the read- 
ing of the Hebrew text in the parallel passage of 
Chronicles (1 Chr. i. 6) is Diphath, and neither 
name occurs in any other passage of Scripture. The 
Hebrew r and d are so similar in shape that they 
were constantly confused by the copyists ; and, 
where one has replaced the other in a proper name, 
it is seldom possible to decide which was the original 
form of the word. Here, indeed, as the Septuagint 
translators read " Riphath '' in both passages, we 
may perhaps assume that as most probably the true 
form. Of the Riphath, however, as a people, we 
know nothing ; * and we must be content to allow 
that the Mosaic record is here again — as in the 
preceding ease — incapable of comparison with the 
results of modern ethnology, since we do not know 
what race is intended. 

ToGARMAH. — The people thiis designated are 
mentioned twice by Ezekiel (xxvii. 14, and xxxviii. 
6) ; in the former passage as trading in the fairs of 
Tyre with horses and mules, in the latter as about 
to come with Gomer out of the north quarter 

* It has been proposed to connect Riphath with the Rhipsean 
Hills of Ptolemy, Damastes, and others, which some identify with 
the Carpathians (Knobel, " Volker-tafel der Genesis," p. 44). But 
the name Rhipaean (derived from pir?^, " a blast") is not ethnic. 



Subdivisions of the Japhetic Races. 183 

against Palestine. Neither passage does much to- 
wards fixing a locality, but both agree with the 
hypothesis, which has the support alike of etymo- 
logy and of national tradition, that the people in- 
tended are the ancient inhabitants of Armenia. 
Grimm's view * that Togarmah is composed of two 
elements, toka, which in Sanskrit is "tribe," or 
" race," and Armah (Armenia), may well be ac- 
cepted ; and the Armenian tradition f which derived 
the Haikian race from Thorgau, as it can scarcely 
be a coincidence, must be regarded as having con- 
siderable value. Now, the existing Armenians, the 
legitimate descendants of those who occupied the 
country in the time of Ezekiel, speak a language 
which modern ethnologists pronounce to be de- 
cidedly Indo-European ; and thus, so far, the 
modern science confirms the Scriptural account. It 
has not, however, as yet been shown that there is 
any special connection between Armenian and Celtic, 
which is what the mention of Togarmah among the 
sons of Gomer would lead us to expect. Perhaps 
further study of the Armenian language, especially 
in the more ancient of its extant forms, as in the 
" history " of Moses of Chorene, may reveal such 
a connection. Perhaps the connection may have 
existed without its being possible now to prove it. 
So many races from very ancient times found a 
refuge in the Armenian fastnesses, that we can well 
understand the original ethnic character of the true 

* See his " Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache," vol. ii. p. 825. 
f Mos. Chor. <' Hist. Armen." i. 4, § 9. 



184 Ethnic Ajfinities. 

Armenians having been submerged and lost before 
tlie rise of a literature, or at any rate of tliat litera- 
ture which has come down to us. 

Elishah. — Some have recognized in this name 
the Greek word Hellas, which, from about the date 
of the Persian war, was used to express the aggre- 
gate of the Greek race. But it is better, with 
Josej)hus, to explain the term as equivalent to 
JioAsT^, ^olians. The JEolians were one of the 
principal Grecian tribes : and though not loniaus 
according to Greek ideas, were yet closely akin to 
them, and are properly enumerated among the 
" sons " of Javan, when that term 'm used, as it is 
throughout the Old Testament, for the Greek 
people generally. The passage of Ezekiel, in which 
alone the word recurs, confirms the notion that 
the -<J^olians are intended (Ezek. xxvii. 7). It 
speaks of them as inhabiting the " islands " or 
maritime districts, which the tribe especially af- 
fected, and as supplying the Tyrians with the fa- 
mous purple dye [murex), which was abundant 
on many of the coasts where the ^olians were 
settled.* 

Taeshish. — Tarshish here can scarcely designate 
the remote Tartessus, which was probably not founde<l 
till after ISIoses's time, and ^"ith which the Jews seem 
first to have become acquainted in the reign of 
Solomon. It represents more probably Tarsus in 
Cilicia, which, though said by some to have been 

* See Virg. "Georg." i. 207 ; Athenaeus, " Deipnosoph.' iii. p. 
88; etc. 



Subdivisions of the Japhetic Races. 185 

founded by Sennacherib,* is not unlikely to have 
been an old settlement in which that monarch placed 
a body of new colonists. Tarsus was close to Kittiiu 
(Cyjn'us), with Avhich this passage immediately 
connects it. We are, indeed, nowhere told that it 
was peopled by Greeks till after the time of 
Alexander ; but there is reason to believe that there 
were Hellenes settled on the Cilician coast from a 
veiy remote date, as there certainly were in Cyprus. 
According to Abydcnus,t Sennacherib's colonization 
of Cilicia was resisted by certain Greeks, who engaged 
his fleet unsuccessfully, which they would scarcely 
have done unless they had considered Cilicia to belong, 
at least in part, to them. We may therefore regard 
Tarshish here as representing the people of Cilicia, 
or rather the Greek element in the population of 
that country, which may perhaps have been con- 
siderable. 

KiTTiM. — There can be little doubt that Kittim, 
or Chittim (as it is sometimes spelt in our version), 
was understood by the Hebrews to designate in an 
especial way the people dwelling in Cyprus. The 
ancient capital of that island Avas called by the Greeks 
" Kition," and its inhabitants were known as 
" Kitieis," or " Kittiaeans." In course of time, the 
word no doubt came to have a larger sense, being 
extended from Cyprus to the other islands of the 
-^gean, and from them to the mainland of Greece, 

* Polyhistor. ap. Euseb. " Chron. Can." i. 5; Abydenus ap. 
Eund. i. 9. 

f Euseb. " Chron. Can." i. 8. 



186 Ethnic AJinities. 

and even to Italy. But at the early date to which 
this genealogy belongs the word " Kittim " must 
almost certainly have been used in its primitive 
acceptation of " the tVpriots." Now it Ls generally 
stated by historians and ethnologists that the original 
population of Cyprus was Phcenician, and that the 
Greek element which holds a position of pre-eminence 
in the island during the historical times was imported 
into it at a comparatively late date, consistii^ of 
emigrants from Eurt)pean Hellas.* But all this is 
very uncertain. A\"hen Cyprus first comes before us 
in history, it is j)r^flominantly a Greek island. The 
Assyrians knew it, about B.C. 710, as " the land of 
the Yavnan or Yunan" i.e., of the lonians or Greeks. 
There is no trustworthy evidence of the time at which 
the Greek part of the population first settled in the 
island, nor any satisfactory proof that they were immi- 
grants from Europe. They may have been, at least 
in part, primitive settlers. The Greeks of P^urope, 
who regarded themselves as the product of their own 
soil {auToydous-, ■j-'^jzi's'c^), and supposed that all 
other Greeks elsewhere must of necessity' have sprimg 
from them, dated the foundation of Greek colonies in 
Cyprus from the time of the Trojan war, or about 
B.C. 1250, according to the earlier chronologists. 
We may conclude from this that all which the 
European Greeks really knew was that there had been 
persons of their race and name in Cyprus from the 
earliest times whereof they had anything like actual 

* Marm. Par. 26 ; Theopomp. Fr. Ill ; Clearch. Solens. Fr. 25 ; 
Strab. xiv. p. 971 ; etc 



Subdivisioiis of the Japhetic Races. 187 

knowledge. There were no real relations of mother- 
country and colony between any Cyj)riau town and 
any state of European Greece. If the stream of 
migration originally flowed into Greece Proper from 
Asia, it would be likely that some portions of the 
race would be left behind on the road. Of these 
primitive Asiatic Greeks, who were not colonists, and 
had not come from Europe, there are traces in vari- 
ous places, as in Magnesia under Sipylus, which was 
Greek, but anterior to the Ionian colonization, and 
in the town of the same name on the Maeander. May 
not the Greeks of Cyprus have been another such 
body of laggarts — a waif and stray from the main 
migration,* which pressed on from Asia into Europe ? 
DoDANiM OR RoDANiM. — Here again the manu- 
scripts vary. While the bulk of them have Dodanim 
in Genesis, almost all have Rodanim in the corre- 
sponding passage of Chronicles (1 Chr. i. 7). The 
Septuagint translators, however, in both places give 
Rhodii ['Footoc) ; and the Samaritan version, the next 
in antiquity to the Greek, agrees with it. Rodanim, 
therefore, may be assumed to be the true reading ; 
more especially, as it was an unfamiliar word, about 
which a copyist might doubt, whereas Dodanim 
(DO"n)? ^ ii^ere plural form of the well-known Dedan 

* Recent discoveries with respect to the Cypriot language 
strongly confirm this view. It is essentially Greek, both in 
grammar and vocabulary ; but it differs very widely from any 
form of the Hellenic with which we were previously acquainted, 
and has all the appearance of having split off from the common 
stock at a very remote era. (See the " Transactions of the Society 
of Biblical Archifiology," vol. i. pp. 153-172; vol. v. pp. 88-96.) 



188 Ethnic Affinities. 

(pi), would have in it nothing strange f)r prov(x;a- 
tive of doubt. But if this view is aeeepted, and the 
word is read as Rodanim, there can scarcely l)e a ques- 
tion that the Septuagint traiLslatoi-s have given us the 
true elue to the meaning. By " Rhodii " they cer- 
tainly meant the " Rhodians," or inhabitants of 
Jlhodes, the other great littoral island of Western 
Asia, which would naturally occur to the thoughts of 
a writer who had just sjwken of Cypras. Xow there 
is abundant evidence that the inhabitants of Rhodes 
were Greeks from an exceedingly early time. The 
very name of the island — the only name which it 
can be proved to have ever historically borne — is a 
word of Greek etymology which none but a Greek 
race would have given it. It is formed from the 
word rhodon ipboov), "a rose," and Rhodes {'Podo^) is 
"the Isle of Roses." Hence this flower was stamped 
upon the coins. Homer represents Rhodas as Greek 
before the time of the Trojan war ; * and indeed we 
have no indication of any other race than the Greek 
having ever had a hold upon the island. Rhodes 
too was in early times a colonizing, and so a famous 
power — one, therefore, of which some knowledge 
might naturally have reached the Avriter of the 
Pentateuch. 

What, then, has been the object of the writer in 
the two verses which we are considering ? He has 
selected two out of the seven races, which he had 
previously declared to have descended from Japheth, 
and he has subdivided them; or rather, he has 

* Horn. n. ii. 667. 



Subdivmons of the Japhetic Maces. 189 

particularized certain nations, known to himself and 
to those for whom he immediately wrote, as belong- 
ing to the races in question. Why he has taken two 
only of the races, and omitted the other five, we 
cannot say. Perhaps he was not acquainted with the 
ramifications of the others; or perhaps he regarded 
them as sufficiently well known to his readers. It 
is seldom possible to give a perfectly satisfactory 
account of a writer's omissions ; more esijccially an 
ancient writer's ; so many motives cause them, and 
so difficult is it for any one at the present day to 
throw himself back into the exact position and atti- 
tude of one who wa^ote in primitive times. 

Leaving aside, therefore, the question of what the 
writer has not told us, let us consider what it is 
which he has designed to teach in these two verses. 
First, then, he has indicated the principle of ethnic 
subdivision. He has noticed the fact that races, as 
they increase, subdivide; and thus, that, as mankind 
spread over the earth, there was a constant breaking 
up into a larger, and still a larger, number of nations. 
These nations were distinct, not merely politically, 
but linguistically, and so ethnically; for "by these 
were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, 
every one after his tongue" (verse 5). The author 
has thus prepared us for the fact of great multiplicity 
in language, a fact with which each year's experience 
makes us more and more largely acquainted; and at 
the same time he has prepared us for the far more 
curious and far less obvious fact, of the resemblance 
and connection between what appear at first sight to 



190 Ethnic AJinities. 

be completely distinct tongues. The science of eth- 
nology has found it necessary to speak of " mother," 
*' sister," and " daughter " dialects. Genesis x. telfi 
us of " mother," " sister," and " daughter " races. 
The harmony Is evident. Indeed it may Ix; confi- 
dently stated that tjjo gradual division of parent 
races into divei-se tribes, and the further suixlivision 
of these tribes into distinct ethnic unit*, is the only- 
theory of ethnology, which at once harmonizes with, 
and account^ for, the facts of language, as compara- 
tive philology reveals them to us. And this tlieory 
is that of Genesis x. 

Further, the writer here informs us, that there 
were within his knowledge three nations of Cymric 
and four of Greek origin. The Cymric races he 
plants in the highlands of Armenia, in the vicinity, 
at any rate, of the tract which was the great early 
home of the Cymric race in the times known to us 
through profane history. The Greek races he places 
in Cyprus, in Cilicia, in Rhodes, and in the adjacent 
coasts and islands, all which are either known to 
have been, or may reasonably be suspected to have 
been, at a very early date, peopled by Greeks. In 
neither case does he assert, nor are we to suppose, 
that the division which he makes is scientific or 
exhaustive. The author nowhere professes to give 
a division which is to particularize all the nations 
living upon the earth in his day. He singles out 
under each head certain races which were known to 
him and to his readers. These are, naturally enough, 
those of countries not far removed from Egypt and 



Subdivisions of the Japhetic Races. 191 

Palestine. The geographic limits of the Japhetic 
stem, as exhibited to us in verses 2 — 5, do not go 
beyond the Peloponnese towards the west, the coast 
of the Black Sea towai'ds the north, and the Caspian 
towards the east. We may well imagine that 
geographic knowledge did not extend further in 
Moses's time. Within the limits which we have 
indicated, all the chief Japhetic races seem to be 
mentioned. The ^oies in the Peloponnese and 
the adjacent regions, the Thracians north and east 
of these, in Europe and in Asia Minor, the Cymry 
on the northern shores of the Euxine, the Scythians 
in the tract between the Euxine and the Caspian, 
the Moschi and Tibareni in Cappadocia and Colchis, 
Cymric tribes in Armenia, the Medes in Azerbijan 
and Northern Persia, Phodian Greeks in Phodes, 
Cypriot Greeks in Cyprus, and Cilician Greeks in 
Cilicia, fairly cover the ground, and show no re- 
markable omission. The general teaching is, that 
the nations to the north and west of Mesopotamia 
and Syria were Japhetic, and that within the geo- 
graphic limits known to the writer they comprised 
seven principal races. Modern ethnological science 
in no ways conflicts with either of these statements. 
.On the contrary, so far as it is able to pronounce 
an opinion, it endorses the statements made, finding 
the facts of the case, so far as it is able to get hold 
of them, always consistent with, and sometimes very 
strikingly illustrative of, the Mosaic narrative. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE CHIEF HAMITIC RACES. 

Eaces descended from Ham : Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan— 
CusH represents the Ethiopians — Mizraim, the people of Egypt 
— Phlt, probably the " Pet " of the hicroglyphical inscriptions, 
a people of Nubia — Canaan, the ancient people of Syria and 
Palestine— Geographical proximity of these races — Modern eth- 
nology undecided in its view of them — Mixed character of the 
Egj-ptian language — Language of the Ethiopians only to be 
guessed from that of the purer tribes of Abyssinians — The 
Canaanites generally regarded as Semitic — Grounds of this 
belief examined — Nothing really known of the Canaanite lan- 
guage — General conclusions negative rather than positive. 

" A XD the sons of Ham ; Cush, and Mizraim, and 
-^ Phut, and Canaan " (Gen. x. 6). It is thus 
that the ancient genealogist, after enumerating the 
chief races descended from Japheth, proceeds with his 
ethnological table. From Ham, the second of the 
sons of Noah, were descended, according to him, 
four main races, which he designates respectivelv as 
" Cush," " Mizraim," " Phut," and " Canaan." Let 
us see if we can identify, either certainly or pro- 
bably, the races intended. 

CrsH. — The word " Cush " is, in the authorized 
version, for the most part translated by " Ethiopia." 
192 



Chief Hamitic Races. 193 

In this rendering our translators followed the old 
Latin version known as " the Vulgate," which here 
accords with the Septuagint. Now, Ethiopia, which 
is a Greek word, adopted by the Romans, designates 
(according to Greek and Roman notions) especially 
the country lying immediately to the south of 
Egypt, the modern Abyssinia ; and the Ethiopians 
are, especially, the people of this country, the pro- 
genitors of most of the modern Abyssinians. And, 
undoubtedly, this tract and people were included 
under the term "Gush" by the Hebrews, as is 
evident from Ezek. xxix. 10 (compare 2 Chron. 
liv. 9 ; xvi. 8 ; 2 Kings xix. 9 ; Isa. xx. 3 — 5 ; 
Dan, xi. 43; and Nahum iii. 9). But there are 
passages which show that the Hebrew application of 
the term, both geographically and ethnically, was 
considerably wider than this. The paradisaical 
" Gush," which was watered by the river Gihon 
(Gen. ii. 13), must have been in Asia, not in Africa. 
An Asiatic " Gush " is often indicated in Scripture, 
as where Ezekiel joins Gush with Persia (Ezek. 
xxxvii. 5), and where Isaiah couples it with Elam 
(xi. 11). This Asiatic Gush, apparently, embraces 
parts of Arabia (Gen. x. 7; Isa. xliii. 3; xlv. 14); 
of Mesopotamia (Gen. x. 8 — 10), and of the region 
still further to the eastward (Ezek. xxxviii. 5 ; Isa. 
xi. 11). The writer of the genealogy, therefore, 
probably intends to state, that the primitive inha- 
bitants of these various tracts, the Ethiopians proper 
above Egypt, a portion of the Arabians, the primitive 
Babylonians, and their neighbours to the eastward, 



194 Ethnic AJlnities. 

the Cissians, were among the descendants of Noah's 
second son, the patriarch Ham. 

MizKAiM. — It has been already observed in an 
earUer chapter (see page 167), that this word is a dual 
in form, and that it is the word which occurs in the 
original (with scarcely an exception) wherever we in 
our version have " Egypt." It has been conjectured 
that the true original reading in this place was 
" Mizrim " — " the Egyptians " — which is possible, 
though uncertain, and not of much importance. 
What is clear, is, that the writer intended to state 
that the Egyptians, of whom he was about to tell 
us so much in his histories of Abraham, Joseph, and 
Moses, were, like the Cushites or Ethiopians, descen- 
dants of Ham, sprung from the same source with 
the inhabitants of the Upper Xile valley, with whom 
they were in their after history so intimately con- 
nected. It is quite clear that this descent of the 
Egyptians from Ham was generally believed by the 
Jews, who callal Egypt " the land of Ham " (Psa. 
cv. 23, 27 ; comp. Ixxviii. 51), in distinct allusions 
to the patriarch. Whether the Egyptians themselves 
were aware of the descent is doubtful. They called 
their country Khem, or Khemi, which closely re- 
sembles " Ham ; " but perhaps the resemblance of 
the two names is accidental, Eg\"pt being called 
Khem, " black," simply to mark the colour of its 
soiL 

Phut — This term is somewhat obscure. The 
only passages of Scripture which throw any further 
light upon it are, Jer. xlvi. 9 ; Ezek. xx\di. 10 ; 



CkieJ Hamitie Races. 195 

XXX. 5 ; and xxxviii. 5 ; Nahum iii. 9 ; and, perhaps, 
Isa. Ixvi. 9. iu most of these places Phut is joined 
with tribes which are distinctly African; but iu 
two of them (Ezek. xxvii. 10, and xxxviii. 5), the 
accompanying nations seem to be Asiatic. The 
explanation of this may possibly be, that, as there 
were two Gushes, so there were two Phuts, one Asiatic 
and the other African — the African Phut being the 
original nation, while the Asiatic was an offshoot 
thrown out from it. But it is also possible that, in 
the two cases where Phut occurs in an Asiatic con- 
nection, the connection may be no sure sign of 
geographical proximity. In Ezek. xxvii. 10, all 
that is said is, that Tyre hired her mercenary troops 
from Persia, Lud, and Phut ; and in Ezek. xxxviii., 
where Persia, Cush, and Phut are said to have served 
in the army of Gog, mercenaries may again be 
intended. Thus it is doubtful whether there is 
really any Asiatic Phut in Scripture ; and our 
attention may be confined to the question of what 
nation is intended by the African Phut. Now here 
we may note, in the first place, that the nation 
appears to be one dwelling in immediate proximity 
to Egypt and Ethiopia, to one or other of which it 
is closely attached in every passage ; and, secondly, 
that it is one of those who serve in the Egyptian 
armies (Jer. xlvi. 9 ; Nahum iii. 9) with shield and 
bow.* If we now inquire from our Egyptian 

* The use of the bow by the Phut was probably noticed by 
Isaiah in ch. Ixvi. 19 ; where the present Hebrew MSS. have 
7^i3 i.e. Pul. Pul occurs as an ethnic title nowhere else in Scrip- 



196 Ethnic AJinities. 

sources of information, what nation answers to this 
description, we find a people called by the Egyptians 
Pet,* whose emblem was the unstrung bow, and 
who dwelt between Egypt and Ethiopia proper, in 
the region now called Nubia. Over this tract the 
Egyptian kings claimed dominion, and its people 
would nu doubt serve in their armies. Their special 
weapon was, as we may conclude from their emblem, 
the bow ; and there is thus little doubt that they 
are the people called " IMmt " (or " Put," Xahum 
iii. 9), by the Hebrews. 

Canaan. — There is no doubt at all with respect 
to the people which this term represents. They were 
the ancient inhabitants of Palestine and Lower Syria, 
the people who possessed the entire tract between 
the Mediterranean and the desert, from Hamath in 
the north to Gaza in the south, before Abraham with 
his Syrian colony entered the country. The land of 
Canaan, mentioned in the early Egyptian inscrip- 
tions no less than in Scripture,t derived its name 
from them. They yielded gradually to the encroach- 
ments of the Hebrews upon the south, and to those 
of the Assyrians and other Semitic nations to the 
north, and finally died out and disappeared, much as 

ture, ■\7lierea3 Phut or Put is common. Put (D13) was the read- 
ing of the Greek translators (LXX.), who render by ^ov6. And 
Phut is in three other passages connected with Lud — Jer. xlvi. 9 ; 
Ezek. xxvii. 10; xxx. 5. 

* See Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. ii. pp. 868, 869 ; 
and compare "Records of the Past," vol. ii. p. 32; vol. iv. p. 15; 
vol. vi. p. 26 ; etc. 

f See " Records of the Past," vol. ii. p. 51 ; vol. vi. p. 34 ; etc. 



Chief Hamitic Races. 197 

the Celtic population disappeared from our own 
country. During their most flourishing period they 
comprised six principal tribes — the Hittites, Hivites, 
Amorites, Jebusites, Perizzites, and Girgashites — 
besides many smaller ramifications. 

Thus the four main races which, according to the 
sacred genealogist, derived their origin from the 
patriarch Ham, may be identified, either certainly 
or very probably, with the Ethiopians (Asiatic and 
African), the Egyptians, the Pet, or ancient Nubians, 
and the people of Canaan. As he had assigned to 
the descendants of Japheth a particular geographical 
quarter and direction — the northern and the north- 
western portions of the world, as it was known to 
him — so he now assigns to the progeny of Ham 
a continuous region or tract, which lies wholly 
towards the south. Canaan, Egypt, Nubia, and 
Ethiopia — taken in its widest lise — are in a certain 
sense conterminous, and form the southern boundary 
of the world as known to the Hebrews. They stretch 
from the Mediterranean on the west, to the Persian 
Gulf and Indian Ocean towards the east, com- 
prising not merely Palestine and the Nile valley, but 
Southern Arabia, Babylonia, and Kissia. 

If it be asked now, what view does modern ethno- 
logy take of the relation borne to each other by the 
races to which the sacred genealogist thus assigns a 
common origin, the answer must be that, in this 
case, modern ethnology speaks with stammering lips, 
ambiguously and hesitatingly. " PhiJologers are not 
agreed as to an Hamitie class of languages." So little 



198 Ethnic Affimties. 

is known, in fact, of any of these languages but the 
Egyptian, that the (|uestiou has scarcely presented 
itself as yet to philologists generally as a probl&ra 
to be solved — Was there in the ancient world an 
Hamitic, as there was certainly a Semitic and a 
Japhetic group of languages? Still, there are some 
incjuirers who have turned their attention to this 
particular point; and the result of their investiga- 
tions appears to be, on the whole, confirmatory' 
of the ^losaic statement which we are here con- 
sidering.* 

The language of the ancient Eg}'ptians is tolerably 
well known to us from the remains of it existing on 
the monuments and in papyri, which it has been 
found possible to interpret by the help of the modern 
Coptic, and of the clue fm*nished by the Rosetta 
stone. Although in some respects it presents resem- 
blances to the class of tongues known as Semitic, yet, 
in its main characteristics, it stands separate and 
apart, being simpler and ruder than any known form 
of Semite speech, and having analogies which con- 
nect it on the one hand \\-ith Chinese, and on the 
other with the dialects of Central Africa. It is not a 
typical specimen of an Hamitic tongue, since it pre- 
sents the appearance of a language in which a 
native groundwork has been largely overlaid by 
a foreio-n accretion. But in its non-Semitic element 

o 

* See especially the articles on Caxaak, Cush, Ham, Mizraim, 
and Phut in Dr. Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," contributed 
by one of our best Egyptian scholars, Mr. Reginald Stuart 
Poole. 



Chief Hamitic Races. 199 

it furnishes a clue to the character of the ancient 
Hamitic tongue, and helps us to pronounce on the 
Hamitic or non-Hamitic character of other more im- 
perfectly known forms of speech. 

The language of the ancient Ethiopians proper — 
those who dwelt on the Blue Nile, in the tract south 
and south-east of Egypt — has perished entirely. The 
nation had, in the early times, no literature ; and 
we should have possessed no clue to their tongue, 
were it not that we are able to examine the dialects 
of their descendants, who have continued ever since 
to occupy the same country, and have never wholly 
changed their speech. The Abyssinian tribes of the 
Agau, Galla, Gonga, and others, appear to be the 
legitimate descendants of the old Ethiopic popula- 
tion ; and their languages, which- are decidedly non- 
Semitic, present numerous analogies to the non- 
Semitic portion of the ancient Egyptian. 

According to the notion which has found gene- 
ral favour with ethnologists, the language of the 
Canaanites was Semitic. This is assumed mainly 
from a supposed identity of the Canaanites with the 
Phoenicians, who were certainly of the Semitic family. 
But recently a good deal of evidence has been brought 
forward to show that the Phoenicians and the Canaan- 
ites were really just as distinct as the English and 
the Britons, or the French (Franks) and the Gauls, 
the real connection being simply that the one 
jaeople succeeded the other in the same country. 
The Canaanites were the original inhabitants of 
Palestine and Lower Syria ; and among their towns 



200 Ethnic Affinities. 

were Sidon, Area, Arvad, and Zemara, or Simyra,* 
all of which afterwards became Pha'iiician. The 
Phoenicians were, according to the most ancient 
account.Sjt immigrants into Syria from the shores of 
the Persian Gulf, at a date to wiiich their national 
traditions extended. It would seem that they ex- 
pelled the Canaan ites from the coast tract, and took 
possession of their towns, the* names of which they 
retained, while they built also a number of new 
cities. Their ethnic character was very different 
from that of the Canaanites. The latter were " fierce 
and intractable warrioi-s, rejoicing in their prancing 
steeds and chariots of iron, neither given to com- 
merce, nor to any of the arts of peace." The 
former were " quiet and peaceable, a nation of traf- 
fickers, skilful in navigation and in the arts both 
useful and ornamental, unwarlike except at sea, and 
wholly devoted to commerce and manufactures."^ 
Again, "Whereas, between the Canaanites and the 
Jews there was deadly and perpetual hostility, until 
the accursed race was utterly rooted out and de- 
stroyed, the Jews and Phoenicians were on terms of 
almost perpetual amity — an amity encouraged by 
the best princes,"§ who would scarcely have con- 
tracted alliance with a people under the %vrath of God. 

* The Zemarites of Gen. x. 18 are the inhabitants of a town 
which is mentioned both in the hieroglyphic and in the cuneiform 
inscriptions under the name of Zimira (" Ancient Monarchies," 
vol. i. p. 410), or Simyra ("Records of the Past," vol. ii. p. 22). 

f Herod, i. 1 ; vii. 89 ; Justin, xviii. 3, § ii. etc. 

X See the author's " Herodotus," vol. iv. p. 198, second edition. 

§ Ibid. 



Chief Hamitic Races. 201 

But if this presumed identity be set aside, there is 
nothing that can bo urged in favour of the Semitic 
character of the Caniumites, excepting the derivations 
of a certain number of (presumed) Canaimite names. 
Meldiizedek, Hamor, Sisera, Salem, Ephrath, and 
many others of tlie most ancient names of persons 
and places in Palestine, have plausible Hebrew 
derivations, which are thought to show that the lan- 
guage of the country, in the time anterior to the 
Phoenician occupation, was already of the Semitic 
type. But it should be remembered that these names 
came to us soMy through the Hebrews ; and that all 
nations — the Orientals especially — arc apt to deflect 
foreign names from their native form, and t(3 put 
them into a shape which assimilates them to their 
own speech. If the name of Alexander had come to 
us only through the Oriental form of Iskauder, or 
Scander, we might have thought that the nation to 
which he belonged was Semitic, or Turanian; we 
should certainly never have suspected it to be Greek. 
So with such words as Bokht-i-nazar for Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Stamboul for Constantinople, Pouni for Roma, 
Eregli for Heracleia, ]S"egropont for Euripus, — ^we 
could not possibly have deduced aright the ethnic 
character of the people by whom the names w^ere 
originally given, from the travesties that have super- 
seded them in the mouths of Turks or modern Greeks. 
It would seem, therefore, that, in point of fact, we 
know nothing of the language spoken by the ancient 
Canaanites. It is unsafe to conclude anything from 
names which come to us onlv through the mouth of 



202 Ethnic Ajfinities. 

a foreign people; and no other remnants of the 
ancient Canaauitc .s])eech remain to us. Here, tlien, 
we must be content ouco more to confess our igno- 
rance, and to lay down simply the negative con- 
clusion — that there is nothing known of the ancient 
Cauaanites that renders it impossible, or even 
unlikely, that they spoke a tongue akin to that of 
their neighbours upon the south — the Egyptians.* 

If little is known of the language of the Cauaan- 
ites, still less can bo laid d.)wn as to that of the 
Phut, or ancient people of Xubia. AVe can only 
say that, from the position of this people between 
Ethiopia and Egypt, it is probable that they spoke 
a tongue not ver\' d liferent from the languages of 
those nations. So far as we have any means of 
judging, the ancient races of North-eastern Africa 
were all connected together. Varieties of one ethnic 
family seem to have peopled the whole Xile valley. 
Physically, the various races most certainly re- 
sembled one another; witness the representations 
on the Egyptian monuments, and the mummies 
found along; the whole middle course of the river. 
It is not likely that in language they were very 
different. 

* One or two positive indications, favourable to the conclusion, 
that the tongue spoken was actually Egyptian, or Cushite, may 
be mentioned. In Baalbek we have probably the name of a very 
ancient Palestinian town. But this name contains the Egyptian 
element i/ek, "a city,"' and is formed on an Egyptian model 
(compare Atarbechis, Herod, ii. 41.) In Beth-shan (now Beisdn), 
expressly called a city of the Canaanites (Judg. i. 27), we have 
probably a city dedicated to the sun, under the name which he 
bore in early (Cushite) Babylonia, which was San. 



Chief Ilamitic Races. 203 

But in this case, us iu the preceding one, modern 
ethnology is simply silent. The data for forming a 
judgment are wanting; and where this is the case, 
the disciple of Bacon holds his tongue. Inquiry has 
shown that the Egyptians and Ethiopians (Mizraim 
and Cush) were, as represented in the Mosaic gene- 
alogy, most certainly akin to each other. Inquiry 
has not yet shown anything positive with respect to 
the ancient Nubians (Phut), or the people of Canaan. 
An unproved theory with respect to the Canaanites, 
which it would have been difficult to reconcile with 
the Mosaic statements, has recently been examined 
with care, and shown to be groundless.* And thus 
the case rests, so far as Gen. x. 6 is concerned. 

* See the author's e'ssay, already referred to, in the fourth 
volume orhLs " Herodotus," pp. 190-202. 



CHAPTER IV. 

SUBDIVISIONS OF CUSH. 

Principal Cushite races, according to Genesis — Seba, or the people 
of Meroe — Havilah, or the people of Khawlan, in Arabia — 
Sabtah, or the people of Sabota, the capital of Hadramaut— 
Raama, Sheba, and Dedan, or the Arab tribes of tht south- 
east— Sabtechah, a race not identified — Geographic position of 
these tribes and races — Ethnological inquiry shows two races in 
Arabia, a Northern and a southern — The southern race, Cushite 
— Meaning of the phrase "Cush begat Nimrod" — Geographical 
position of Ximrod's kingdom — View of the late Baron Bunsen 
— Cushite character of the early Babylonians proved by Sir H. 
Rawlinson — General result. 

" A XD the sons of Cush ; Seba, and Havilah, and 
-^-^ Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah : and 
the sons of Raamah ; Sheba, and Dedan." (Gen. 
X. 7.) lu this verse and in the next we have the 
descendants of Cush pointed out to us ; or, in other 
words, we are told which were the principal races 
that derived their origin from the primitive Ethi- 
opians, It would seem from the list that the Ethi- 
opians, having settled themselves in the country- 
south and south-east of Egypt, between the main 
stream of the Xile and the sea-coast, proceeded at a 
very early date to send out colonies, which assumed 
new names, from leaders, or otherwise, on quitting 

their original home, and carried them to the new 
204 



Subdivisions of Oush. 205 

localities wherein they took up their abodes. We 
must endeavour in the present chapter to follow the 
line of this migration, and to identify the various 
races named, as a preliminary to the inquiry, What 
was the ethnic character of these nations? does, or 
does not, modern research give reason to believe that 
it was in early times Ethiopian or Cushite ? 

Seba. — This name, which must not be confounded 
with Sheba, seems to have been applied in ancient 
times to a particular portion of the East African 
country, which bore the general designation of Cush 
or Ethiopia. Joseph us says* that Saba (^ajid) was 
the ancient name of the famous Ethiopian city of 
Meroe and of the district about it. One of the 
main rivers of the region was the Asta-sobas. In 
Scripture we find Seba, and the Sabseans ; or more 
properly the Sebseans (D*K3p), usually connected 
with Ethiopia Proper and with Egypt, f The 
Sebseans themselves are said, in one j^assage, to 
have been " men of stature ; " and Herodotus 
remarks that the Ethiopians of his day had the 
character of being the tallest and handsomest nation 
in the world.]; Altogether, it seems best to regard 
the Seba of Gen. x. as denoting a special division 
of the Ethiopian peoj)le, probably the ruling race, 
which dwelt about Meroe (Saba), the capital, 
and was physically superior to the rest of the 
nation. 

* "Ant. Jud.," ii. 10, ? 12. 
■j- See Isa. xliii. 3; xlv, 14. 
i Herod, iii. 20, 114. 



206 Ethnic Affinities. 

Havilah. — Apart from 1 Cbron. i. 9, which is 
a mere transcript of Gen. x. 7, there are three, and 
three only, passages of Scripture, where this word 
is found. These passages are Gen. ii. 11, in the 
description of Eden ; Gen. xxv. 18, in the account 
given of the country of the Ishmaelites; and 1 Sam. 
XV. 7, where Saul's slaughter of the Amalekites is 
spoken of. A careful examination of the context in 
each of these places has led to the conclusion that 
in none of them is the Havilah intended which is 
here mentioned. We are thus reduced to obtain our 
explanation of the term from two considerations 
only — namely, that of the name itself, and of its 
position in the present list. These considerations 
iiave induced the learned generally to identify the 
])Cople in question with the inhabitants of the Ara- 
bian tract known as Khawlan, in the north-western 
portion of the Yemen. 

Sabtah. — Xo other passage of Scripture throws 
any light on this name; but, if Havilah is rightly 
identified with Khawlan, we may connect Sabtah 
with the Sabbatha or Sabota of Pliny and Ptolemy, 
w^hich was on the south-coast of Arabia, and was the 
capital of the Atramitae, or people of Hadramaut. 
By this identiiieation Sabtah forms a connecting 
link between Havilah on the one hand, and Raamah 
— which will be next discussed — on the other. 

Eaamah, Sheba, and Dedax. — The Cushite 
race called here Raamah was overlaid and eclipsed 
by its descendants, the most celebrated of the South 
Arabian tribes, Sheba and Dedan. Sheba must un- 



Subdivisions of Gush. 207 

doubtedly be connected with the great race of the 
Sab£eans, which as early as Solomon was the chief 
in xVrabia (1 Kings x. 10 ; Psa. Ixxii. 10), and which 
is greatly celebrated by the classical writers.* The 
race was apparently a mixed one, being only in part 
descended from Ham, while in part — in great part, 
probably — it was composed of Semites (Gen. x. 28). 
Dedan is to be sought eastward of Sheba, on the 
shores of the Persian Gulf, where the name seems 
still to linger in the island of Daddn, on the border 
of the gulf. The Dedanians are mentioned by 
Isaiah as sending out "travelling companies," which 
lodged in the wilds of Arabia (xxi. 13) ; and Ezekiel 
enumerates them among the merchants who supplied 
Tyre with precious things (xxvii. 20.) In this last 
quoted passage the people of Dedan are conjoined 
with Sheba and Raamah (verse 22), and also with 
those of Assyria and Chilmad in Babylonia (verse 23) ; 
so that the location of the Cushite Dedan, in the 
immediate neighbourhood of Chaldea and the Gulf 
would seem to be certain. 

Sabtechah. — We have no means of knowing 
what race is indicated by this name, or what exact 
locality is to be assigned to them The word occurs 
only here and in 1 Chron, i. 9. The connection of 
Sabtechah with Raamah points to a position on or 
near the Persian Gulf; but our data do not justify 
us in coming to any more exact conclusion. Some 
have supposed a connection between the word Sab- 
techah and the Saraidace of Ptolemy, which was a 

* See Diod. Sic. iii. 45, 46 ; Strab. xvi. 4, 19 ; Plin. H. N. vi. 23. 



208 Ethnic Affinities. 

city of Carmauia ; but the resemblance of names is 
too remote to entitle us to build a theory upon it. 

The general conclusion to be drawn from Gen^ 
X. 7 appears to be the following. The genealogist 
means to assign to the family of Cush the primitive 
inhabitants of almost all Southern and Southrcastern 
Arabia. Regarding the Cushite settlements as pro- 
ceeding from Ethiopia (or Abyssinia), he traces them 
across the Red Sea to the opposite shores of Yemen 
or Arabia Felix, and thence eastward, along the coast 
tract now known as Hadramaut, to the boarders of 
the Persian Gulf and the neighbourhood of Chaldea. 
He resrards the Cushite races inhabiting this tract as 
principally four, which he designates under the names 
of Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah ; the 
most important of the four being Raamah, under 
which were comprised the Cushite Sheba and Dedan. 

Here we may pause to inquire if modern ethnolo- 
gical science has anything to say which either con- 
firms or impugns these statements of the genealogist. 
Many popular writers speak in a certain vague and 
general way of the Arabians being Semites ; and the 
language known as Arabic is certainly a Semitic 
form of speech. From these premises a conclusion 
is sometimes drawn, that Cushite races are out of 
place in the Arabian j)eninsula, and that here at 
least the genealogist is detected in a mistake. Such 
a conclusion might at any time have have been pro- 
nounced, at the best, precarious; since great parts 
of Arabia are up to the present day unexplored, and 
nothing at all is known of the ethnic character of 



Subdivisions of Oush. 209 

their inhabitants. But recent researches enable us 
to go a step further, and to lay it down that the con- 
clusion is not only uncertain, but is at actual variance 
with fact. M. Antoine d'Abbadic, Dr. Bckc, M. 
Fresnel, and others, have proved that there are 
to this day races in Southern Arabia, especially 
the Mahras, whose language is decidedly non- 
Semitic; and that between this language and that 
of the Abyssinian tribes of the Galla, Agau, and 
their congeners, there is a very considerable affinity. 
The Mahra, moreover, is proved by analysis to be 
the modern representative of an ancient form of 
speech found in inscriptions along the South Arabian 
coast, and known to philologists as Himyaric. These 
inscriptions are thought to be evidently of a high 
antiquity ; and the Himyaric empire to which they 
are supposed to belong is carried back by some 
scholars to as high a date as e.g. 1750.* Thus it 
would seem to be distinctly made out that Arabia 
contains, and has from a very remote time contained, 
at least two races; one, in the northern and cen- 
tral regions, Semitic, speaking the tongue usually 
known as Arabic ; and another in the more southern 
region, which is non-Semitic, and which from the re- 
semblance of its language to the dialects of the abori- 
ginals of Abyssinia, the descendants of the ancient 
Ethiopians, deserves to be called Ethiopian or Cush- 
ite. The Mosaic genealogist is thus in this instance 
strikingly confirmed by ethnological science on a 
point where his statements seemed most open to attack. 

* Bunseu " Philosophy of History," vol. iii. p. 227, E. T. 

r 



210 Ethnic Affinities. 

" And Cush begat Nimrod : he began to be a 
mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter 
before the Lord : -wherefore it is said, Even as 
Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And 
the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, 
and Acead, and Cahieh, in the land of Shinar." 
(Gen. X. 8—10.) 

Every reader sees that here there is a change in 
the narrative. We have no longer a mere genealogy, 
but the commencement of a personal liistory. An 
individual is introduced, an individual of such dis- 
tinction and eminence that his name had already, in 
the time of Moses, pasvsed into a proverlD — " Even as 
Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord." But, 
although the style of the narrative is changed in a 
way that is harsh to modern notions, the main 
object of the \^Titer is still the same. He is bent on 
tracing the spread of the Cushite race. He has 
brought the race in the preceding verse from African 
Ethiopia, along the Southern Arabian shore to the 
west coast of the Persian Gulf, to the immediate 
vicinity of Chaldsea. He now brings them into 
Chaldsea and Babylonia. Nimrod, he tells us, the 
son of Cush, or the Cushite, who "began to be a 
mighty one in the earth," set up the " beginning " 
or " head " of his kingdom at " Babel, and Erech, 
and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." 
These names belong, one and all, to the broad tract 
of alluvial soil at the head of the Persian Gulf, 
watered by the two great streams of the Tigris and 
the Euphrates, known to the Greeks and Romans, 



Subdivisions of Gush. 211 

from its people, as Clialdsea, and from its capital 
city as Babylonia. The name " Babel " speaks for 
itself, and is sufficient to identify the position ; which, 
moreover, all the other terms bear out. " Shinar " 
in Scripture is always the low country about Baby- 
lon. Here clay and bitumen (the " slime " of Gen. 
xi. 3) abounded ; and here great buildings were 
very early raised out of these poor materials, the 
remains of which exist to the present day. Hither 
went the Jews into captivity (Zech. v. 11); and 
hence were they " recovered " when God set His hand 
the first time to draw together the remnant of Plis 
people (Isa. xi. 11). Erech, which the Septuagint 
translators render by Orech {'Opsx), is beyond a 
doubt the city which the Greeks and Romans called 
Orchoe, and which is to this day known as Irka or 
Warka,* on the left bank of the Euphrates, about 
one hundred and twenty miles south-east of Baby- 
lon — a site covered with mounds and ruins, from 
which numerous remains of great antiquity have 
been recovered. " Accad " is a term found in the 
primitive nomenclature of the country ; where it 
designates both a race and a city.f Finally, Calneh 
or Calno (Isa. x. 9) was, according to the Septuagint 
interpreters, in the same region, being, according to 
them, the exact spot " where the tower was built " 
(oD 6 n'jpyo^ coxodofiijd'q), and consequently in the near 
vicinity of Babylon. 

* See Loftus, "Chaldaea and Susiana," pp. 160-192. 
f The citj Accad was recognised by Mr. George Smith in the 
year 1874. (See the " Records of the Past," vol. iiL p. 4.) 



212 Ethnic Affinities. 

The meaning then of the writer cannot be doubted. 
He intends to state that Ximrod and his people, the 
conquering race which first set up a monarchy hi 
Lower Mesopotamia, and built or occupied the great 
cities of the alluvial plain, Babel or Babylon, Accad, 
Erech or Orchoo, and Calneh or Calno, were Cushites, 
a kindred race to the people of Ethiopia Proper, or 
the tract about the great Nile affluents, and to various 
tribes scattered along the south-western, southern, and 
eastern shores of the Arabian peninsula. "W'hat 
light, if any, does modern ethnology throw upon this 
interesting statement ? 

A few years back a great ethnologist made answer 
(practically) to the effect, that his science repudiated 
the statement altogether. " Nimrod," he said, " was 
no Cushite by blood." He and his people were pure 
Turanians, or Tatars. They conquered Babylonia 
from Africa, and so, having come from the land of 
Cush, were called Cushites. But the expression was 
purely " geographical." They were quite uncon- 
nected in race with either the Egyptians or the 
Ethiopians. Indeed, an Asiatic Ethiopia was a pure 
figment of Biblical interpreters ; it " existed only in 
their imaginations," and was "the child of their 
despair." 

So A^Tote the late Baron Bunsen in 1854.* But 
Sir Henry Rawlinson, the earliest decipherer of the 
ancient Babylonian monuments, came to a com- 
pletely different conclusion in 1858. A laborious 
study of the primitive language of Chaldsea led him 
* See his " Philosophy of Universal History," vol. iii. pp. 190, 191. 



Subdivisions of Oush. 213 

to the conviction tliat the dominant race in Baby- 
lonia at the earliest time to which the monuments 
reached back was Ciishite. He found the vocabuLaiy 
of the primitive race to be decidedly Cushite or 
Ethiopian, and he was able to interpret the inscrip- 
tions chiefly by the aid which was furnished to him 
from published works on the Galla (Abyssinian) and 
the Mahra (South Arabian) dialects. He noted, 
moreover, a considerable resemblance in the system 
of writing which the primitive race employed, and 
that which was established from a very remote date 
in Egypt. Both were pictorial; both to a certain 
extent symbolic ; both in some instances used identi- 
cally the same symbols. Again, he found words in 
use among the primitive Babylonians and their 
neighbours and kinsmen, the Susiauians, which 
seemed to be identical with ancient Egyptian, or 
Ethiopic, roots. The root hyk or hak, which 
Manetho interprets as " king," and which is found 
in the well-known " JJ?/Z;sos," or "Shepherd-kings," 
appeared in Babylonian and Susianian foyal names 
under the form of khah, and as the terminal element 
— which is its position also in royal Ethiopic names. 
The name " Tirkhak " is common to the royal lists 
of Susiana and Ethiopia, as that of Nimrod is to the 
royal lists of Babylon and Egypt. The sun-god is 
called "Ea" in Egyptian, and "Ra" was the 
Cushite name of the supreme god of the Baby- 
lonians. Many other close analogies might be 
mentioned ; but these are probably sufficient as 
specimens. It is impossible within the limits of a 



214 Ethnic Affinities. 

work such as the present, to do more than give 
specimens of what has been proved by a laljorious 
induction. 

The result is, that once more the modern science 
of ethnology, arguing wholly from the facts of lan- 
guage, has come to a conclusion announced more 
than three thousand years ago by the author of 
Genesis. The author of Genesis unites together as 
members of the same ethnic family the Egyptians, 
the Ethiopians, the Southern Arabians, and the 
primitive inhabitants of Babylon. Modern eth- 
nology finds, in the localities indicated, a number 
of languages, partly ancient, partly modern, which 
have common characteristics, and whic-h evidently 
constitute one grouj). Egyptian, ancient and modern, 
Ethiopic, as represented by the Galla, Agau, etc., 
southern Arabian (Himyaric and !Mahra), and 
ancient Babylonian, are discovered to be cognate 
tongues, varieties of one original form of speech. 
Primeval historj^ is thus confirmed most signally by 
modern research ; and the Toldoth Bent Koah is once 
more proved to be, M'hat it has been called — " the 
most authentic record we possess for the afl&liation of 
races."* 

*■ "As. Soc. Journal, vol. xv. p. 230. 



CHAPTER V. 

SUBDIVISIONS OF MIZRAIM AND CANAAN. 

Races of Egyptian descent — Luuim, an unknown people — Anamim, 
also unknown — Lehabim, or Libyans — Naphtuhim, or Na-Petu 
— Pathrusim, or people of the Phaturite nome — Casluhim, an 
unknown people — Philistim, the Philistines — Caphtorim, the 
people of Coptos — Nothing known ethnologically of the Na-Petu 
— Probable resemblance of the Philistines to the Egyptians — 
Grounds for regarding the Libyans as " cognate" to the Egyp- 
tians — Descendants of Canaan — Supposed Semitic character of 
some disproved. 

" A ND Mizraim begat Luclira, and Anamim, and 
■^-^ Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, 
and Cashihim (out of whom came Philistim), and 
Caphtorim." (Gen. x. 13, 14.) 

Having concluded his account of the descendants 
of Cush, whom he has represented as the eldest of 
the " sous of Ham " (ver. 6), the genealogist returns 
to Mizraim, the second " son," or (in modern phrase- 
ology) the second great race descended from the 
patriarch Ham. As offshoots of this race, — the 
Egyptian, — he proceeds to enumerate eight tribes or 
nations, — the Ludim, the Anamim, the Lehabim, the 
Naphtuhim, the Pathrusim, the Casluhim, the 
Philistim, and the Caphtorim. It will be our first 
task in the present chapter to endeavour to identify 
these various races. 

215 



216 Ethnic Affinities. 

LuDlM. — Similarity of sound has tempted com- 
mentators to connect with this name tlie well-known 
race of the Lydians, the chief people of Western Asia 
Minor, from whose historic^il or mythological stores 
the Greeks drew the romantic tales of Cambles the 
glutton, of Caudaules and Gyges, of Crcesus, Atys, 
and Adrastus, the Phrygian, — tales told so inimit- 
ably by the ancient writei's, that the best modern 
version is but a feeble echo of them. But the general 
duty of resisting temptation is nowhere more impera- 
tive than in the field of comparative philology, in 
which the identifications that have the most enticing 
appearance are almost in every instance mere traps 
to catch the unwary. In the case before us, if we 
examine the Scripture records, we shall find that the 
Hamitic Ludini, who are frequently mentioned, are 
plainly an African, and not an Asiatic people ; and 
therefore that theii* identity with the Lydians is 
quite out of the question. They are commonly 
united with either Cush or Phut, or both (Isa. Ixvi. 
19; Jer. xhn. 9; Ezek. xxx. 5), and are spoken of 
as a principal element of the strength of Eg\'pt, as 
serving in her armies, and participating in her de- 
struction. We must consequently regard them as a 
people who in later times were dependent on the 
Egyptians, and who dwelt near them, — probably 
in the vicinity of Phut, which has been shown 
to be the modern Xubia (p. 194). Further than 
this nothino; can be laid down with certaintv, 
neither the classical writers nor the Egyptian 
monuments furnishino; us with anv name in this 



Stibdivisions of Mizraim and Canaan. 217 

locality Avliicli can rcasouably be compared Avith 
Ludim. 

AxAMi:,!. — Here conjecture is still more at fault. 
The Anamira are mentioned . only here and in the 
parallel passage of Chronicles (1 Chron. i. 11). AVe 
have thus no clue to their locality beyond what the 
context of the jjresent passage furnishes ; * and this 
context cannot be said to tell us more tliau that they 
were an East Africjan people, probably one at 
an early date absorbed into either Ethiopia or 
Egypt. 

LehabIjI. — Once more we touch sure ground. 
The Lehabim (Q^^nS) ^^em to be rightly identified 
with the Lubim (Q'^")7), who appear frequently in 
Scripture as near neighbours of the Egyptians, and 
who are beyond a doubt identical with the Rebu or 
Ld>u of the monuments and with the " Libyans " 
{^Ki[iutci^ Llbijl) of the Greeks and Romans. This 
people inhabited the tract which bordered Egypt 
upon the west, extending to some distance along the 
northern coast. They were generally dependent 
upon Egypt, and served in large numbers in the 
Egyptian armies (2 Chron. xii. 3 ; xvi. 8 ; Nah. iii. 
9). The Greeks came in contact with them when 
they occupied the Cyrenaica, and from them called 
the entire southern continent by the name of Libya. 
Their descendants are probably to be found in the 
modern Tuariks and Berbers, aboriginal races of 

* The hieroglyphic inscriptions mention a people called " Anu" 
(Brugsch, " Histoire d'Egypte," premiere livraison, p. 103): but 
this name is not very close to Anam. 



218 Ethnic AJinities. 

North Africa, inhabiting the desert and the flanks oi 
Atlas. 

Naphtuhim. — Like Anaraim, this name occurs 
only in the Hamitic genealogy, and it is therefore 
extremely difficult to lay down anvihing positive 
with regard to it. If, however, we may judge by its 
position in the list, it should designate a people 
dwelling west of the Nile, either in Egypt or imme- 
diately upon its borders. Exactly in this position 
occurs the geographic name Niphaiat, applied in 
Coptic to the countrj' about the Mareotic Lake, at 
the north-west corner of the Egyptian territory. In 
the Egyptian monuments no such geographic name 
is found ; but we read of a people called the Na-Petu, 
whose position is uncertain. It is conjectured that 
the Naphtuhim are this race; * and that in the time 
of Moses they dwelt on the western border of Egypt, 
perhaps in the Mareotic nome, to which their name 
still attaches. 

Pathrusim. — Pathros, the local name, from which 
the gentilitial noun " Pathrusim " is formed, occurs 
frequently in the writings of the Jewish prophets, 
where it designates, apparently, a district of Egypt — 
probably that in the immediate Aacinity of Thebes 
(see Jer. xliv. 1, 15 ; Ezek. xxix. 14 ; xxx. 14). 
Pliny calls this region " the Phaturite nome " ; f and 
it appeal's to have derived its name from a town 
near Thebes which the Egyptians called Ha-Hcd- 
her, or, with the article, Pha-Hat-heVy whence the 

* See Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. ii. p. 465. 
f See Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 9, § 47, " Nomus Phaturites." 



Subdivisions of Mizraim and Canaan. 219 

Hebrew, " Pathros," or " Phathros." Originally, 
the race inhabiting this district would seem to have 
been considered separate and distinct from thL rest 
of the Egyptians. At a very early date it asserted 
independence, and was ruled by its own kings. 
Later, it established a supremacy over the rest of 
Egypt ; but at this time it had lost any distinctive 
character, and had become thoroughly and entirely 
Egyptian. The Pathrusim of the Mosaic genealogy 
must be regarded as the inhabitants of Upper Egypt, 
originally a colony or offshoot of the Mizraites of the 
lower region, but ultimately absorbed by the parent 
nation. 

Casluhim. — The Casluhim are wholly unknown 
to us.* Their name occurs nowhere but in this 
passage, and in the corresponding verse of Chronicles 
(1 Chron. i. 12). 

Philistim. — According to the present passage, and 
the corresponding verse of Chronicles, the Philistim, 
or Philistines, were a branch of the obscure race of 
the Casluhim. According, however, to several other 
passages of Scripture (Dent. ii. 23 ; Jer. xlvii. 4 ; 
Amos ix. 7), the Philistines were not Casluhim, but 
Caphtorim. It is proposed,t therefore, in the present 
passage (and in 1 Chron. i. 11) to invert the order of 
the two names, and to read — " and Caphtorim (out 

* The attempts to identify the Casluhim with the Colchians 
(Bochart, Gesenuis), and again with the inhabitants of Mount 
Casius (Bunsen, " Bibelwerk," p. 26), seem to us to be failures. 

f Stuart Poole in Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 
282. 



220 Winic Affinities. 

of whom came Philistim) and Casluliim." The altera- 
tion is not of very much importance, since the main 
point of interest is the Mizraite (or Egyptian) origirf 
of the Philistines, which is asserted with equal dis- 
tinctness, whichever order of the words is preferred. 

Capiitokim. — Caphtor and the C'aj)htorira are 
mentioned only in connection with the Philistines, as 
the country and the race which gave birth to the 
Philistine people. We have thus no clue to the 
locality here intended except the position of the name 
in the passage, which is doubtful, and the vague one 
furnished by Jeremiah's expression, ^l^DfiD *J<> " ^^^ 
ide of Caphtor" (xlvii. 4). If this expression were 
of necessity to be taken literally, we must think of 
some island of the Mediterranean, as Crete or Cypras. 
But the Hebrew i^ is used of shores and coasts, no 
less than of islands (see Gen. x. 5), and may even 
extend to inland tracts on the borders of a river large 
enough to be, like the Xile (Xah. iii. 8), regarded as 
a sea. Hence the identification, which has been sug- 
gested,* of Caphtor with Coptos, which the ancient 
Egyptians called Kebt-hor, and which is termed by 
the modern Copts Keft, or Kuft, would seem to be 
worthy of acceptance. The Coptic nome adjoined 
that of Thebes, lying a little farther to the north ; 
and thus, if the name in the original list immediately 
followed that of the Pathrusim, as has been shown to 
be probable, it would have been in a very natural 
position. 

The result of this examination of the jNIizraite 

* Stuart Poole in Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 274. 



Subdivisions of Mizraim and Canaan. 22t 

names has been a failure to identify three, — Ludim, 
Anamim, Cashihiin, — a probable identification of two 
(Pathrusim, Caphtoriin) with tribes ultimately ab- 
sorbed into the Mizraitcs, — and an almost certain 
identification of the otlier three with nations dwell- 
ing near Egypt, — the Naphtuhim with the Na-pctu, 
the Philistim with the Philistines, and the Lehabim, 
or Lubim, with the Libyans. 

It follows to ask what modern ethnological science 
teaches of these three last-mentioned races. Does 
it teach anything at all about them; and if so, does 
it regard them as diverse from, or akin to the Egyp- 
tians ? If the former, it opposes the Mosaic state- 
ment ; if the latter, it supports it. 

'Now, so far as one of the three nations — the Na- 
petu — is concerned, answer there is none. This race 
perished, or was absorbed, at an early date, and no in- 
formation is procurable as to its language, manners, 
or physical type; consequently, modern ethnology 
pronounces nothing concerning its ethnical character. 

But with regard to the other two, the case is 
somewhat different. Something is known of the 
general character of the Philistine people, and we 
possess a certain number of Philistine names, as 
Achish, Goliath, Ishbi-benob, Saph, and perhaps 
the following list: — Salatis, Buon, Apachnas, 
Apophis, Jannas, and Asses. Now of these names 
all that can be said is, that while none of them 
is Semitic in character, several have a decided re- 
semblance to Egyptian names known to us from 
good sources. " Jannas," for instance, will remind 



222 Ethnic Affinities. 

every reader of the "Janncs" who, together with 
Jambres, "withstood Moses" (2 Tim. iii. 8). 
"Saph" is like " Suphis," the builder of the great 
pyramid. Agaiu, "Achish" recalls the Egyptian 
king "Aches," the seventh of Manetho's second 
dynasty; and "Apophis" may well be a Grecized 
form of " Pepi," corresponding to " Athothis " for 
" Thoth," and " Araenephthes " for " Menephthah." 
Further, with respect to manners and physical type, 
one of the best of modern Egyptologers informs us 
that the Philistines, as represented on the Egyptian 
sculptures, together with the Tokkaru and the Shayre- 
tana, " bear a greater resemblance to the Egyptians 
than does any other group of foreign peoples repre- 
sented in their sculptures." * There would seem, 
then, to be sufficient ground for saying that the 
Philistines appear, from what we know of them, to 
have been cognate to the Egyptians; though no 
doubt they separated off from them at a remote 
date, " before the character and institutions of the 
latter had attained that development in which they 
continued throughout the period to Avhich their 
monuments belong." f 

With respect to the Libyans, whether we can 
form a positive judgment, or no, depends upon the 
view we take of the connection between them and 
the modern non-Arab inhabitants of Xorth Africa. 
The history of the region makes it probable that 
these inhabitants are, in the maiil, the descendants 

* Mr. E. Stuart Poole, in Dr. Smith's " Dictionary of the 
Bible,' vol. i. p. 275. | Ibid. 



Subdivisions of Mizraim and Canaan. 223 

of the old Libyans. The names still borne by the 
tribes corroborate this view. The Libyan tribe of 
the Marmaridce is represented by the modern 
Berbers; and that of the Cabales by the Cabyks. 
Numerous customs recorded by the ancients as 
obtaining among the ancient Libyans are found still 
to exist among the Berbers and Tuariks. On these 
grounds the best modern ethnologists regard the 
identity of the two races as established, and sjjcak of 
the Berbers, Tuariks, Shuluhs, Cabyles, etc. as the 
descendants of the aboriginal population of northern 
Africa.* But if this be granted, then we may say 
that modern ethnology distinctly supports the 
Mosaic statement of the Mizraite character of the 
Lehabim, since a very considerable analogy has 
been traced between the native languages of North 
Africa and the Egyptian and Coptic, an analogy 
which is more striking in the structure than in the 
roots, but which extends to some of the simplest and 
earliest words. In Berber "one" is ouan ; in 
Coptic, ouot; in Egyptian, oua; in Shuluh, two is 
seen ; in Coptic, snau ; in Coptic " to drink " is so ; 
it is soo in Berber and Tuarik. Onas, Berber for 
"day,^' resembles Coptic (or rather Sahidic) liu ; 
ikhf, Berber for " head," may be traced in Egyptian 
ape, and Coptic aphe, which in the oasis of Ammon 
is ahhf6. Tuarik mar for " man," is perhaps identi- 
cal with Coptic and Egyptian romi. These and 
other similar resemblances are regarded as sufficient 
to constitute the Berber, Tuarik, etc. "cognate" 

* See Prichard, " Physical History of Mankind," vol. ii. p. 25, etc. 



224 Ethnic Affinities. 

dialects to the Egyptian ;* and " cognate dialects," 
as already remarked more than once, arc an indication 
of " cognate races." 

"And Canaan begat Sidon his first-born, and 
Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amoritc, and the 
Girgasite, and the llivite, and the Arkite, and the 
Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the 
Hamathite : and afterward were the families of the 
Canaanite spread abroad." (Verses 15 — 18.) 

This portion of the Mosaic genealogy needs but a 
very few words of comment. The sacred writer, 
specially interested in that branch of the Hamitic 
family with which his countrymen were to be 
brought into peculiarly close and permanent con- 
nection, enters with great minuteness into its sub- 
divisions, enumerating no fewer than eleven distinct 
tribes within the narrow area of the Canaanite 
country, which extended between Hamath and 
Gerar, a distance of no more than about two linn- 
dred and eighty miles. These tribes are, for the 
most part, excessively obscure, nothing more being 
known of several than their bare names ; they have 
left no literature and no records f and the modern 
ethnologist has thus scarcely any means of deter- 
mining their ethnic characteristics, or of testing the 
statement that they belonged to the family of Ham. 
In most instances he has but the names themselves 

* See Bunsen, " Philosophy of Universal History," vol. i. 

i An exception must be made with respect to the Hamathites, 
■who have left a certain number of inscriptions, which, however, 
are not yet satisfactorily deciphered. 



Subdivmo')is of Mizraim and Canaan. 225 

to go upon ; and so unsafe is it to draw any conclu- 
sion from such meagre data, that nothing would 
have been said of the names in this place had not it 
seemed good to some etymologists to found a theory 
upon them. It ha^ been argued * from supposed 
JScmitic derivations of some of the appellations 
in the above list, as notably of "Sidon" and 
" Amorite," that the race which gave the names 
must have spoken a Semitic tongue, and therefore 
that the Cauaaiiite tribes are wrongly jjlaced by 
Moses among the Hamitic nations. The force of 
this argument must of course depend, in the first 
instance, on the probability of the supposed deriva- 
tions ; but, to render it of any great account, 
probable Semitic derivations should be given, not 
of one or two of the names only, but of all of them. 
Now this has not been attempted. Certain names 
have been selected out of the list, for which a 
plausible Semitic derivation could be alleged ; and 
on evidence thus picked and culled the world has 
been asked to reject the statements of Moses. 

Further, the derivations suggested are extremely 
unsatisfactory. Sidon, for instance, is derived from 
the Plebrew tsddoh, and said to mean "a fishing- 
place," t which is thought to be an appropriate name 
for a seaport town. But tmdoh — Hl^ — is " to 
hunt " rather than to " fish ; " tsayydd is " a hunter," 
and tsaid " a hunting " or a '' prey." The sense of 

* Kenrick, "Phoenicia,"' p. 47, et seq. 

t Ibid. De.an Stanley adopts the derivation ("Sinai and Pales- 
tine," p 270). 

Q 



226 Ethnic AJinities. 

" fishing" may be included in (sddoh, but it is 
certainly not the primary sense of the word. " To 
fish "is du[/ — jm — and the proper word for "a 
fishery " is dur/dh — HJII. 

" Amorite" (H'ltDK is regarderl as a mere variant 
of " Aremite " or " Aramaean " (*!DnN), which is pro- 
bably enough derived from runi — Dl"l — " to be high." 
It is said, therefore, to be equivalent to " moun- 
taineer " or " highlander." * But the transposition 
of root letters, which forms the basis of this thoorj', 
is very rare in the Semitic languages, and, in the 
case of names, has not been supported by any suffi- 
cient number of parallel instances. Moreover, if 
"Amorite" were granted to be a Semitic word, 
meaninii; " mountaineer " or anvthing; else, it would 
not at once follow that the Amorite nation was 
Semitic. The names given to nations by their 
neighbours are often quite unknown to themselves, 
and indicate the language, not of the people desig- 
nated, but of the people which gave the designation. 
The name " Parthian " was probably imposed on 
the Turanian Parthians by their Iranic neighbours ; 
that of '^ Greeks" was imposed on the Hellenes by 
the Italians. In our own country' we call a people 
" AVelsh " (i. e. " strangers ") whose only name for 
themselves is Cymry. Unless we are sure that an 
ethnic title is one which a race gives itself, we can 
draw no conclusion from its et\'mology ; and we 
certainly do not know this of the title " Amorite." 

* Ewald, " Geschichte des Volkes Israel," vol i. p. 315; Stan- 
ley, l.s.c. 



Stibdivmons of Mizraim and Canaan. 227 

It thus appears that the ethnic names under which 
the Canaanitish races are designated by the Hebrews 
furnish no trustworthy evidence of the Semitic origin 
of the people. Ethnology has, in fact, no sufficient 
materials on which to form a judgment in this aise. 
Neither the names of the races, nor those of indi- 
vidual Canaanities (see above, p. 201) can fairly be 
taken to prove anything on the point in question. 
We must consider that in this instance ethnological 
science is silent, not confirming, but in no way op- 
posing, the statements of the Biblical historian. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE SEMITIC RACES. 

Races descended from Shem — Why placed last — Ebeb, or the 
Hebrews — Elam, or the people of illymais — Asshur, or the 
Assyrians — Arpiiaxad, supposed to be people of Arrapachitia 
— LuD, tlie Luden or Ruten of the liieroglyphics — Aram, or the 
Syrians —Ethnic character of the Luden and of the Elamites 
uncertain — Semitic character of Aramaic and Hebrew — The 
Assyrian language and physiognomy Semitic — Summary. 

** TTXTO Shem also, the father of all the children 
^ of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, 
even unto hiiu were children born. The sons of 
Shem ; Elam, and Asshiu", and Arphaxad, and Lud, 
and Aram." (Gen. x. 21, 22.) 

The writer of the genealogy, having completed his 
account of the races descended from Japheth and 
from Ham, proceeds in the last section of this chap- 
ter, which extends from verse 21 to verse 31, to 
mention the chief races and nations descended from 
the remaining patriarch, Shem. He has reserved 
Shem to the last, not because he was the youngest 
of the three brothers, for the true translation of 
verse 21 is — " Unto Shem also, the father of all the 
children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, were 

children born," but because the subsequent narra- 

228 



The Semitie Raoes. 229 

tive is going to be concerned with the descendants of 
Shem almost exclusively, and thus by reserving 
Sheni the narrative is made to run on more con- 
nectedly. 

Erer. — He opens his account with a statement 
that Shem was " the father of all the children of 
Eber," thus at once calling attention to the fact, 
that the peculiar " people of God," whose history he 
is about to trace, were one of the tribes belong- 
ing to the Semitic family. In this he anticipates 
what he afterwards tells us, with much additional 
detail, in verses 24 — 30, and in ch. xi. verses 13 — 26. 
The Israelites were among the children of Eber, or 
Heber (")Di^), and hence the name by which they 
were commonly known among the surrounding 
nations * was " Hebrews " (nUJ^). They were not 
the only race so descended, or numerically the most 
important one ; but they were the only race that kept 
the 7iame; and we cannot doubt that the author had 
them especially in his mind when he noted at the 
very outset of his account of Shem's descendants that 
they included " all the children of Eber." 

But the actual "sons" of Shem, or main divisions 
of the Semitic race, according to our author, were 
the following : — Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, 
and Aram. We have, in the first place,' to identify 
these races. 

Elam. — We have frequent mention of Elam both 

* "Hebrew" seems to he ropresented by "Aperu" in the 
Esyptian monuments, (See " Reennlsof the Past," vol. vi. p. 59; 
Chabas, "Melanges Egyptologiques," pp. 42-54; etc.) 



230 Ethnic Affinities. 

as a nation and as a country in Scripture. (See 
especially Gen. xiv. 1, 9; Isa. xi. 11; xxi. 2; Jer. 
XXV. 25: xlix. 34 — 39; Ezek. xxxii. 24; Dan. viii. 
2.) Of these passages, the one ^vhich most exactly 
fixes the locality is the last ; where Daniel tells us 
that " Shushan the palace " was " in tlie province of 
Elam," and that, being there, he "saw in a vision," 
and behold, he " was by the river IJlai." Now, 
" Shushan the palace," where Xeheniiah waited on 
king Artaxerxes (Neh. i. 1), and where king Aha- 
suerus (Xerxes) held his court in the days of 
Mordecai and Esther (Esth. i. 2; ii. 5; etc.), is beyond 
any reasonable doubt identified with Susa, the capital 
of Persia, and the ordinary residence of the court 
from the time of Darius Hystaspis to the conquest 
of Alexander. In the immediate neighbourhood of 
Susa was a river called by the Greeks Eulaeus,* 
which is quite manifestly Daniel's " Ulai." Susa, 
moreover, though it became the chief capital of the 
Persian kings, was not, strictly speaking, in Persia, 
but was the capital of a separate and very ancient 
kingdom, Avhich bore many names, one of them 
being Elymais. The combined resemblance of the 
three names, Elymais with Elam, Susa with Shushan, 
and Ulai with Eulceus, cannot possibly be accidental ; 
and the passage of Daniel M-ould therefore, even if it 
stood alone, suffice to show what country is intended 
by Elam. It may be added, however, that all the 
other passages quoted above (and several besides 

* See Arrian, Exp. Alex. vii. 7 ; Diod. Sic. xix. 17 ; Plin. H. N. 
vi. 27; etc. 



The Semitic Races. 231 

them) confirm the conclusion thus arrived at; and 
especially it may be noted that the Mosaic Elam is 
certainly in this quarter, Chedorlaomer, king of 
Elam, who invaded Palestine in the time of Abraham 
(Gen. xiv. 1), being lord paramount over Amrapliel, 
king of Shinar, who must have borne rule in Baby- 
lonia, on the confines of Elymais. 

We have thus fixed the 'locality of the people 
designated by the word " Elam " to the region on 
the left or east bank of the Tigris, opposite Baby- 
lonia, and lying between that country and Persia 
proper. But a few words more must be added with 
respect to the people themselves. We find the tract 
in question designated by different names. Some- 
times it is called Susiana or Susis; sometimes 
Kissia ; sometimes Elam, or Elymais. The first of 
these names is a mere derivative from the name of 
the capital, Susa ; but the other two indicate the 
fact that the country was inhabited by two entirely 
distinct races. The Elamites or Elymseans were 
probably the earlier incomers, and from them the 
tract was called Elymais. They were subsequently 
ov^errun and conquered by the Kissians or Cossasans 
(Cushites?), who became the governing race, and 
called the country after themselves, Kissia. We 
find the two classes of inhabitants mentioned to- 
gether in the book of Ezra (chap. iv. 9), and they 
even continued separate and distinct to the time of 
Strabo. 

AssHUR. — The word " Asshur," which occurs with 
great frequency in Scripture, is, except in this place, 



232 Ethnic Affinities. 

in the parallel passage of Chronicles (1 Chr. i. 17), 
and in one or two others, uniformly translated in 
our version by " Assyria." Xor is it possible for 
even the most inattentive reader to entertain the 
slightest doubt that the country which the Greeks 
and Romans designated by that name is intended. 
Asshur is the country of which Sennacherib and 
Esarhaddon are kings (2 Kings xix. 13, 37), whose 
capital is Nineveh (verse 36), and whose river is 
Hiddekel (Gen. ii. 14)— the Tigris.* This identi- 
fication is so universally accepted that it would be a 
waste of words to say more about it. The sacred 
\vTiter means certainly to tell us that among the 
descendants of Shem was included the great nation 
of the Assyrians. 

Arphaxad. — By " Arphaxad," or " Arpachshad " 
(as the word reads in the Hebrew), occurring as it 
does in the same sentence with Elam and Asshur, 
we must certainly understand a tribe or nation. 
But it is impossible to say what tribe or nation is 
intended. The only suggestion worthy of a moment's 
attention that has ever been made, is to regard the 
word as designating the inhabitants of a portion 
c»f Assyria which was known to the Greeks and 
Romans as Arrapachitis. The root of this word is 
Arapkha (or Arapcha), which was ou Assyrian town 
of no great importance, occasionally mentioned in 
the Inscriptions. Xow Arapkha does certainly, to 
a considerable extent, resemble Arpachshad. Still 

* See Snuths "Dictionary of the Bible," ad toc. Hiddekel 
(vol. i. p. 802). 



The Semitic Races. 233 

it is far from being the same word. The two have 
really but one clement in common, which is arpa 
[=arha), the Assyrian for "fcJur." Arpa-hha (or 
Arap-kha) meant " the four fish," and was probably 
the city where the four sacred fish, often seen on 
cylinders, were special objects of worship. Arpa- 
cKshad could not mean this. Ch'shad would be an 
entirely new root. But take away the supposed 
identity of name, and there is no ground at all for 
connecting Arphaxad with Arrapachitis. Arrapa- 
chitis never appears in the Assyrian times as a 
distinct country, nor is there any reason for be- 
lieving that it then formed a separate division or 
province of Assyria. Its inhabitants were pure 
Ass}Tians — at least they are never in any way dis- 
tinguished from the rest of the nation. On the 
whole, therefore, it would seem that this identifi- 
cation must be set aside; and if so, it must be con- 
fessed that we have no clue to the race (or country) 
intended, the word occurring nowhere else in Scrip- 
ture, except in the parallel passage of Chronicles 
(1 Chr. i. 17). 

LuD. — The Semitic " Lud " have been generally 
identified with the Lydians ; * but this identification, 
which is based wholly on the similarity of the names, 
is rendered extremely improbable, by the geographic 
position of the people. It is not in the manner of 
our author to make a violent transition from one 

* Botticher, " Rudimenta Mythologioe Semiticas," p. 13; Lenor- 
mant, " Histoire Ancienne de I'Orient," vol. i. p. 102; P. Smith, 
"Ancient History," vol. i. p. 50. 



234 Ethnic AJinitiea. 

locality to another, only in order to come back with 
equal suddenness to the point which he abruptly 
quitted. If by " Lud " here he had intended Lydia, 
the order of the names would have been Elam, 
Asshur (Arphaxad), Aram, Lud; not Elam, Asshur 
(Arphaxad), Lud, Aram. We must look for Lud 
in a position between Asshur and Aram, or, in other 
words, between Assyria and Syria, not in the far-off 
region bordering upon the ^Egean Sea. Now here 
it happens that we find in the Egyptian Inscriptions 
a people called Rutcn or Luclen (the words would be 
indistinguishable in Egyptian), who possess consider- 
able power, and are frequently engaged in war with 
the great Pharaohs* of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and 
fifteenth centuries B.C., under one of whom Moses, it 
is probable, wrote his history. These Luden dwelt 
north of Palestine, and in the near vicinity of Meso- 
potamia, thus approaching very close to the Assyrians, 
who at an early time spread themselves M'estward at 
least as far as the Khabour river. It is thus not 
improbable that they are the people whom Moses 
designates here by the word Lud. If they are not, 
the name "Lud" must be regarded as one of those 
which defy identification. 

Aeam. — Aram, which occurs in Scripture with the 
same frequency as Asshur, is, like Asshur, a name 
concerning the application of which there is no 
doubt. Our translators almost always render the 

* As Thothmes III. ("Records of the Past," vol. ii. pp. 45, 53); 
Thothmes IV. (ibid, vol, iv. p. 15); Seti I., Rameses II., and 
Eameses III. 



Tlie Semitic Races. 235 

word, as did the Septuagiut interpreters, by " Syria;" 
and the term, though etyniologically quite distinct, 
is beyond a doubt, in its use by tlic Hebrews, a near 
eqivalent for the ;" Syria" of the Greeks and 
Romans. It designates a people distinct from, yet 
closely allied with, the Assyrians, which, in the 
remotest times whereto history reaches, was esta- 
blished in the valley of the middle Euphrates, and 
in the tract between the Euphrates and the Medi- 
terranean. This people, known to itself as Aramsean, 
continued the predominant race in the country to 
the time of the Mohammedan conquest. It produced 
a literature as early as the fourth century of our era, 
portions of which are still extant, as the works of St. 
Ephraem Syrus, the Peshito or Syriac version of the 
Old and New Testaments, the Syriac translations of 
St. Ignatius's Epistles, and the like. Remnants of 
the race are found at the present day near Damascus, 
and also in the Kurdish mountains, where they are 
known as " Nestorians," or as "Chaldees,"* the 
former title designating their religion, the latter 
their supposed identity with the people of Nebu- 
chadnezzar. 

Of the six races, therefore, mentioned in Gen. x. 
21, 22 as descended from Shem, we can certainly 
identify four, and we can probably identify one other; 
but with regard to one we have to confess ignorance. 
" Eber," " Elam," " Asshur," and " Aram " corres- 
pond beyond a doubt to the Hebrews, the Elamites 
or Elymseans, the Assyrians, and the Syrians ; Lud 

* See Layard's " Nineveh and its Remains," vol. i. ch. viii. 



236 Ethnic Affinities. 

represents probably the Ruten or Luden of the 
Egyptians ; Arphaxad alone is unknown to us, and 
cannot be said, so far as our present information 
goes, to designate any historical people. 

The races mentioned being identified as far as 
is possible, we have now to inquire what modern 
ethnology teaches as to them, and especially as to 
their diversity or resemblance one to another. Now 
here we have at the outset to put on one side two of 
the races, since concerning them modern ethnology 
is silent. Nothing is known of the ethnic character 
of the people called by the Egyptians Ruten or 
Ludcn, with whom the Egyptian monarchs of the 
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were 
engaged in such frequent wars. By their locality 
they might reasonably be either Semites or Hamites, 
for while they adjoin Aram and Assyria on the one 
hand, they approach nearly to the Hittites and 
Canaanites on the other. But we have absolutely 
no evidence of their ethnic character ; * and it Ls 
therefore necessary to regard them as beyond the 
limits of the present inquiry. Similarly, with respect 
to the Elamites, who again might naturally by their 
position be either Semitic or Hamitic, since they 
touch Assyria in one direction and Babylonia in 
another, we have no indications of ethnic t^^pe on 
which we can rely. The early names in the country, 

* Sir G. Wilkinson observes that they are represented with red 
hair and blue eyes upon the Egyptian monuments (Rawlinson's 
♦' Herodotus," vol. ii. p. 302, second edition), which is rather 
against their being Semites. But their features have a Semitic 
cast. (See a -woodcut in the same work, vol. iv. p. 46, No. II. 7.) 



The Semitic Races. 237 

so fiir as we know them, arc Hamitic ; but the 
Cushite invasion of the territory took place at so 
remote a date that this cannot be considered as 
proving anything. The name Elam itself (qS^T^ 
from pfSl^) '^^^^ Shushan (it^'lt^), which we are told 
meant " a lily" (Athen. "Deipns." xii. p. 513), would 
seem to be Semitic ; but it would be unsafe to 
conclude anything from names which reach us only 
through foreigners. 

The inquiry must therefore be limited to the 
three races of the Hebrews, the Assyrians, and the 
Syrians or Aramaeans. Is there, or is there not, 
reason to believe, from facts known to us through 
the media of scientific research and profane history, 
apart from any consideration of Scripture, that these 
three races, concerning Mdiich alone of those here 
mentioned by the genealogist we have any extensive 
knowledge, were cognate one to another? Let us 
hear what the first ethnologist of the day says on 
the subject. 

Professor Max Miiller speaks of the Aramaic and 
the Hebrew as two main branches of the Semitic 
stock.* He regards the close connection of the 
Syriac and Hebrew languages as so patent and 
so universally acknowledged a fact, that he con- 
siders argument on the subject to be. superfluous. 
He concludes from this fact that the races which 
spoke the languages were "agnate descendants of 
Siiem,"f ethnically allied, that is, in the closest 

* " Languages of the Seat of War," p. 23. 
t Ibid. p. 26. 



238 Ethnic Affinities. 

po&sible way, as near to each other as Bretons to 
Welsh, as Russians to Poles, or as Italians to 
Wallachians.* 

And this indeed has been allowed for maBy 
centuries — ever since Hebrew and Syriac first 
became objects of study to Occidentals. But it is 
only recently that it has been rendered possible 
to pronounce on scientific grounds that the great 
people of the Assyrians, which the genealogist in 
Gen. X. distinctly connects with the Syrians and 
the Hebrews, is most fully entitled to the place 
assigned it in his list, being closely cognate with 
those two nations. The discover}- by Mr. Layard, 
M. Botta, Mr. Loftus, and others, of numerous and 
lengthy inscriptions among the debris of the palaces 
inhabited by the Assyrian kings, acting as a 
stimulus to the labours of Dr. Hincks, M. Oppert, 
and, above all, of Sir Henrj- Rawlinson, has re- 
sulted in the recover^- of the ancient Assyrian 
language, which has been submitted to analysis, 
and is now almost as well known as Syriac or 
Hebrew itself. The French savant, M. Oppert, has 
recently published an elaborate " Grammaire Assv- 
rienne;" Mr. Xorris of the British Museum has 
brought out a complete "Assyrian Dictionary." 

* Only a very crude and shallow criticism will object to this 
view, that as the Syriac language was unintelligible to the Jews 
generally (2 Kings xviii. 26), it must have belonged to a different 
family of speech. A very small dialectic difference between two 
tongues is sufficient to make the speakers of them mutually unin- 
telligible. An ordinary Breton would not understand a Welshman, 
a Pole a Russian, or a Wallachian a native of Italy. 



The Semitic Races. 239 

The grammar and construction of the languao-e 
are perfectly well defined, the only obscurity that 
remains attaching to the meaning of certain words, 
and the phonetic value of the names. And the con- 
clusion which linguistic scholars have universally 
drawn from the careful stud}- and analysis of 
this ancient form of speech is, that the language 
is Semitic, nearly akin to both Hebrew and Syriac, 
but, on the whole, closer to the former. 

Again, the physiognomy of the ancient Assyrians 
has been fully revealed by the long series of sculp- 
tures dug out of the ruins of Nineveh, Calah, and 
other Assyrian cities and now adorning the walls of 
the Louvre and the British Museum ; and i\\Q un- 
mistakably Jewish character of the whole cast of 
countenance is patent to all, and has been generally 
recognized. 

The result is, that of the six races stated in Gen. 
X. 21, 22 to have been common descendants of the 
patriarch Shem, while one is incapable of identifica- 
tion, and on two others modern ethnology has no 
means of pronouncing a judgment, the remaining 
three, on which alone the science has anything to 
say, are distinctly pronounced to be sister races, to 
belong to a single type ; and to that type the science, 
here for once acknowledging the historical authority 
of Scripture, albeit amid a few faint murmurs from 
some of its less distinguished professors, assigns 
formally a distinctive name, embodying the scrip- 
tui-al fact — the name of " Shemite " or " Semitic." 



CHAPTER YII. 

ox THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE SEMITIC RACES. 

Subdivisions of Aram — Uz or Hnz, a race of Central Arabia — 
Hll and Getuee, unknown — Mash, a wrong reading for 
Meshecu — may designate the Syrian element in Cappadocia — 
Descendants of Arphaxad — Races descended from Joktin — 
Almodad, the Jurhum or Beni Mudad — Sheleph, the Salapeni 
or Sulaf — IIazarmaveth, the people of Hadramaut— Jerah, 
the people cf Yerakh — H.adoram, uncertain — Uzal, the people 
of Sana in the Temen — Diklah, the people of Dakalah in the 
Yemen — Oral and Abimael, uncertain — Sheba, the Sabsans — 
Opuir, the people of Aphar or Saphar — Havtlah, the people of 
KhawUln — Jobab, perhaps the Jobarites of Ptolemy — All these 
races Arabian — Arabs predominantly Semitic — Geographical 
position of the Semites intermediate — Summary of the whole 
argument. 

" A XD the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and 
-^ Gether, and Mash." (Gen. x. 23.) 
From the analogy of the rest of the chapter, we 
may assume that in this brief summan- the genealo- 
gist particularizes either certain main ethnic subdivi- 
sions of the Syrians, or certain leading points of their 
geographic emplacement. The verse, however, is 
peculiarly obscure, and open to a great variety of 
interpretations. Of the four new terms which occur 
in it, one alone, " Uz," obtains auv further illustra- 
240 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 241 

tion from the rest of Scripture. Tlie other three 
terms, " Hul," " Gcther," and " Mash " (if that is 
the right reading), are dTza^ Xsyo/isua, — terms which 
occur nowhere else than in this genealogy, — which 
must therefore have gone out of use at a very early 
date, and with respect to which it is difficult even to 
form a probable conjecture. The term " Mash," 
however, is very probably an incorrect reading, as 
will be shown further on in this chapter. 

Uz, or Huz, as the word is more correctly ren- 
dered in Gen. xxii. 21, was at a tolerably early date 
the name of a country (and probably also of a people, 
in the neighbourhood of the Sabseans and the Chal- 
dees. (See Job i. 1, 15, 17.) It was readily accessi-: 
ble to the Temanites, the Shuhites (ib. ii. 11), and 
the Buzites (ib. xxxii. 2). The Edomites at one 
time held possession of it (Lam. iv. 21). It was a 
country suitable for the breeding and nurture of 
sheep, oxen, asses, and camels (Job i. 3). These 
various notes of locality long ago inclined the bulk 
of Scriptural expositors to place Uz in some portion 
of the tract called Arabia Deserta, the only tract 
which can be regarded as adjacent to the three 
countries of Chaldsea, Saba, and Edoni. But till 
recently it was impossible to give to Uz any more 
definite emplacement. It was assigned to Arabia 
Deserta, but to no special part of that vast region. 
INTow, however, we know, from an inscription of 
Esarhaddon,* that there were in Central Arabia, 
beyond the Jebel Shomer, about the modern countries 

* See the author's '< Ancient iMonarchies," vol. ii. pp. 470. 

K 



242 Ethnic Affinities. 

of Upper and Lower Kaseem, two regions called 
respectively Ba^u and Khazu, which, considering 
the very close connection of IIuz and Buz in Scrip-' 
ture (see Gen. xxii. 21), it is only reasonable to regard 
as the countries which those two names indicate. 
This identification enables us to assign to Uz or Huz 
a tract nearly in the middle of North Arabia, not very 
far from the famous district of Nejd. 

HuL and Gether, which are names that occur in 
no other part of Scripture, and Avhich have no near 
equivalents in the ancient or modern geography of 
Western Asia, admit of no satisfactory explanation. 
They probably designate two Aramaean nations which 
either disappeared or changed their appellations at a 
very early date. Nothing more can be said of them;* 
for it is idle to speculate Avhere Ave have no data at 
all beyond the names themselves, and where those 
names do not point plainly, or even probably, to 
any known race. 

Mash. — Here the case is somewhat diiferent; not 
that " Mash " itself is any more intelligible than 
" Gether " or " Hul," but that in this instance there 
is, besides " Mash," another reading. In 1 Chron. 
i. 1 7, the Hebrew text runs thus : " The sons of 
Shem ; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, 
and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and 
Jleshech." It is evident that here the " sons of 

* The least improbable explanation which has been attempted 
of Hul supposes it to designate the tract about the Lake of Merom 
(now the Bahr-el-^wZeh), part of -which bears the name of Arcl-el- 
Jluleh, and part of JaulAn, anciently Gaulanitis. (See Smith's 
"Dictionary of the Bible," vol. i. p. 839). 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 243 

Aram," or branch races included under the Ara- 
maeans, are intended to be enumerated immediately 
after their parent, Aram. " Uz, and Hul, and 
Gether" occur exactly as in Genesis; while the 
fourth place is filled up with another, but not very 
different name, " Meshech." Now, if this were all, 
there would be a difficulty in choosing between the 
two readings, each having, so far, an equal amount 
of authority, and there being no reason why we should 
prefer either Genesis to Chronicles or Chronicles to 
Genesis. But the scale, which would otherwise be 
evenly balanced, is turned by the fact that the 
Septuagint version of the Old Testament has " Me- 
shech" {Moffo^) in both places. We may assume 
from this that some copies of the Hebrew Scriptures 
had " Meshech " and not " Mash," in Gen. x. 23 ; 
and, as there is no evidence of any variation in 
1 Chron. i. 17, " Meshech " must be regarded as hav- 
ing a preponderance of evidence in its favour, and as 
therefore entitled to be considered the true reading. 
Here, however, we come upon another difficulty. 
^'Meshech" has already occurred in the genealogy 
among the Japhetic races ; and having so occurred, 
should (it may be thought) not have appeared again. 
But the double occurrence of a name in the lists 
'under consideration, which is not limited to the 
instance before us, but occurs likewise in the cases of 
Lud (verses 13 and 22), Havilah (verses 7 and 29), 
and Sheba (verses 7 and 28), may be accounted for 
in two ways. Either two distinct races may be 
intended, to which quite unconnectedly the same 



244 Ethnic AJinities. 

name has happened to become attached, as was the 
case, probably, in ancient times, with the Iberians of 
tlic Caspian and with those of tlio Spanisli peninsula,^ 
and t-ertainly in modern times with the Georgians 
of the old Iberian country and the Georgians of the 
North American continent ; or the genealogist may 
have intended in each case the same race, that race 
being in reality a mixed one, in part descended from 
one patriarch, in part from another. In the present 
instance the latter sujiposition is the more probable ; 
for there is abundant evidence that the poj)ulation of 
Cappadocia — the true original country of the Moschi 
(see page 173) — was a mixed one, and a good deal of 
evidence connecting a portion of the population with 
• Syria or Aram. Herodotus,* Strabo, f and other 
writers, ;|; call the Cappadocians of their day " White 
Syrians," an appellation that cannot possibly have 
belonged to the ruling caste in the countr}-, which 
was undoubtedly Aryan, § but Avhich must have had 
a basis in fact. If the Meshech (Moschi — the 
primitive inhabitants of Cappadocia, whom the 
Aryans conquered — were a mixed race, partly Ja- 
phetic, partly Aramaan, all the statements of the 
Greek vsriters connecting Cappadocia with S}Tia, and 
even Assyria, would be accounted for. 

* Herod, i. 72. v. 49. 
t Strab. xii. p. 788. 

:J: As Scylax, Peripl. p. 80; Dionys. Perieg., 1. 772; Ptolemy, 
Geograph., v. 6; Apollon Rhod. Argonaut, ii. 946; etc. 

§ See Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's " Herodotus, ' vol. i. 
p. 537. 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 245 

Assuming the view here taken to be correct, we 
may say that of the four nations intended in verse 23, 
whilst two are wholly unknown, the two others are 
to some extent known to us. Uz designates a race 
which in remote times inhabited a tract nearly in the 
centre of North Arabia. Meshech, in the genealogy of 
Aram, points to a people which became mixed with 
the Japhetic Moschi in Cappadocia. Now there are 
grounds for affirming, quite independently of Scrip- 
ture, that in both these places there was anciently a 
Semitic population. Northern and Central Arabia 
have, from the earliest times to the present day, 
been held by Semites ; and there is no reason to 
believe that races of any other stock have at any 
time settled there. We should perhaps have ex- 
pected in the locality which has been assigned to 
Uz, Arabs rather than Aramaeans ; but the two races 
have always touched each other, and the line of 
demarcation between them has no doubt varied at 
diiferent periods. In Cappadocia the Semitic in- 
habitants are distinctly declared to be "Syrians," 
— Syrians who only diflPered from their brethren 
south of the Taurus range in having a much lighter 
complexion. 

" And Arphaxad begat Salah ; and Salah begat 
Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons : the name 
of one was Peleg (for in his days was the earth 
divided) ; and his brother's name was Joktan " 
(verses 24 and 25). 

This passage stands in strong contrast with the 
rest of the chapter. Elsewhere the genealogist is 



246 Ethnic Affinities. 

mainly, if not wholly, dealing with races. Here he 
for a while turns his attention to persons. (Compare 
ch. xi. 10 — 26, where these names occur in a purely;^ 
personal list.) His main object in the latter part of 
the chapter appears to have been to complete his 
account of the races descended from Shem by an 
enumeration of the various branches of the Joktanites, 
whom he regarded as one of the most important 
sections of the Semitic family. As, however, that 
branch really derived its name from a person, and 
that person was a somewhat remote descendant of 
Shem, he determined in the instance to give the 
complete genealogy. Accordingly he referred Joktan 
to Shem through three intermediate steps, thus 
tracing down the actual descendants of Xoah to the 
sixth generation, and anticipating, so far, the narra- 
tive of the next chapter. Having done this, and 
come to Joktan, he returned to his main purpose, 
and completed it in the four verses which we have 
now to consider. 

"And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and 
Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, and Hadoram, and Uzal, 
and Diklah, and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba, 
and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab : all these were 
the sons of Joktan " (verses 26—29). 

Arab tradition makes Joktan, who in Arabic is 
called Kahtan, the great progenitor of all the purest 
tribes of Central and Southern Arabia; and though 
there is nothing in Scripture directly to connect 
Joktan himself with the Arabian peninsula, yet the 
list of his descendants completely bears out the 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 247 

Arab tradition. It has been already shown (p. 205) 
that Havilah and Sheba designate important Arab 
tribes or districts. And the best Arabic scholars 
are of opinion that the great majority of the other 
names in the above list may be connected either 
probably or certainly with this locality. To show 
this, it may be as well briefly to run through the 
names in question. 

Almodad is reasonably regarded as an equivalent 
word to the Arabic Mudad, or El Mudad, a famous 
person in Arabian history, chief of a tribe called 
Jurhum, and father of the wife of Ishmael. The 
very form of the name is Arabic, its initial element 
being the Arabic article, cd or el, " the." 

Sheleph. — The " Salapeni " [laAaTiTjvoi) are 
mentioned by Ptolemy* among the ancient inhabi- 
tants of Arabia Felix ; and it is no doubt the same 
tribe which appears in the geographer Yacut as the 
JEs-Sidaf, or Beiii-es-Silfan, a people inhabiting the 
Yemen. The traveller Carsten Niebuhr, the father 
of the historian, found the race still existing in his 
day, inhabiting a tract of the Yemen, which he 
calls "Salfie."t These names almost exactly re- 
produce the Hebrew Sheleph, and are a sufficient 
indication of the locality and people intended. 

Hazarmaveth. — The word is, as nearly as pos- 
sible, identical wnth the Arabic Hadramaut, which 
is still the name of a tract and people on the south- 
eastern coast of Arabia, between the Yemen and 

* "Geograph.." vi. 7. 

f "Description de I'Arabie," p. 215. 



248 Ethnic Affinities. 

the Mahra country. The people were known to t!;c 
Greeks and Romans as the Cluittraniotita;, Chattn'.- 
mitJE or Atramitfe. Tlicy have been at all tiint.^ 
one of the most powerful of the Arab tribes. 

Jerah. — A fortress named Yer/lhh, which exactly 
reproduces the Hebrew word here used (riT), exists 
in the Mahra country, adjoining Pladramaut to the 
east. This may be a trace of the tribe here intended, 
which is, however, otherwise unknown to us. 

Hadoram, — Some compare this name with that 
of the tribe called Atramitae ; but that term more 
probably represents the people of Hadramaut. (See 
under ITazarmaveth.) 

UzAL was the old name of the modern Sana, the 
capital city of the Yemen, which Is still a town of 
some consequence. It was in ancient times one of 
the most flourishing of the Arab communities, and 
is compared by the early ^Mohammedan geographers 
to Damascus. The Greek and Roman -smters 
probably intend to speak of it under the name of 
Auzara, or Ausara, which they call a city of the 
Gebanitse. 

DiKLAH has been on insufficient grounds supposed 
to represent the Minaei, a famous people of ancient 
Arabia. It is more probably represented by the 
city Dakalah, a place of some importance in the 
Yemen. 

Obal and Abimael are names that have not as 
yet been probably identified with any known place 
or tribe in Arabia. Like most of tlie other names 
in this series, they occur only here and in the corre- 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 249 

spending passage of Chronicles (1 Chron. i. 22), 
where Obal appears as p]bal. 

SiiEBA. — The identity of Sheba with the great and 
important race of the Sabajans, the most celebrated 
people of Arabia in the ancient times, has been 
already maintained in a former chapter. * The occur- 
rence of the name, both here, among the Joktanites, 
and in verse 7, among the descendants of Cush, is 
best explained by supposing that the Sabasans were a 
mixed race, composed in part of Cushites, in part of 
Joktanite, i.e., of Semitic, Arabs. There is reason 
to believe that the latter element in the race pre- 
ponderated. 

Ophir is mentioned so frequently as a place in 
Scripture, that it might appear there could be little 
difficulty in fixing its locality. Few points of sacred 
geography have, however, been more controverted. 
Ophir has been placed in Arabia, in India, in Ceylon, 
in Eastern Africa, in Phrygia, and in South Ameri- 
ca, where it has been identified with Peru ! But the 
advocates of these various views would probably, one 
and all admit that the "Ophir" of the present 
passage, intervening, as it does, between Sheba and 
Havilah, must be sought in the Arabian peninsula. 
Now in the Periplus ascribed to Arrian, one of the 
most ancient works on Arabian geography, Aphar 
{'J(fdp) appears as the metropolis of the Sabseans.t 
Ptolemy | calls this same city Sapphara {lornpdpa) ; 

* See above, p. 207. 

f Arrian, " Peripl. Mar. Eryth." p. 7. 

X "Geograph." vi. 7. 



250 Ethnic AJinities. 

and there seems to be no doubt that is the city 
whicli is now known as Saphar, or Zaphar. There 
is every reason to regard this place and its inhabit- 
ants as the place and people here intended by 
Moses. 

Havilah, like Sheba, has been discussed in a 
former chapter. * It designates no doubt the dis- 
trict of Arabia Felix, known as Khawlan. Here, 
probably, as in Sheba, the Haraites and Semites 
were intermingled, tribes descended from the two 
patriarchs having intermarried and blended together. 

JoBAB. — This tribe is not elsewhere mentioned in 
Scripture. It has been identified by many Biblical 
critics with the Jobaritae {IwfiafHTai) mentioned by 
Ptolemy among the Arabian nations, which some 
suggest ought to be read Jobabitse (^ Iio^a^hcu). But 
this identification is very uncertain. 

Thus, it appears that, of the thirteen names in the 
Joktanite list, at least eight are traceable in Arabic 
nomenclature, some certainly, as Sheba and Hazar- 
maveth, the others probably. And we may therefore 
conclude that the intention of the genealogist was to 
assign to the descendants of Joktan the Semite a 
location in the Arabian peninsula, and chiefly in the 
Yemen, to which most of the names belong. 

What, then, does modern ethnology teach with 
regard to the Arabians? Beyond a doubt, two 
things principally — first, that, with the exception of 
certain races upon the south coast,t they are homo- 
geneous, clearly of one blood, resembling each other 

* See above, p. 206. f Ibid. p. 209. 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Races. 251 

most closely, alike in language, manners, and customs, 
traditions, and physical conformation ; secondly, that 
the type of their language is Semitic, its inflections, 
syntax, and vocabulary bearing, all of them, a near 
resemblance to those of the Assyrians, the Syrians, 
and the Hebrews. The entire result, so far as the 
Semites are concerned, is, that, whereas ethnologists, 
proceeding mainly on the facts of language, di- 
vide the Semitic family into five main branches — 
the Aramaean, the Hebrew, the Phoenician, the 
Assyrian or Assyro-Babylonian, and the Arabian, 
Moses, in his genealogy of Shem, distinctly recognises 
four out of the five divisions — Asshur standing for 
the Assyrians, Aram for the Syrians or Aramaeans, 
Eber for the Hebrews, and Joktan for the Joktanite, 
or pure Arabs. Moses adds to the Semitic races 
known to the ethnologist, two others, the Elamites 
and the Luditcs, concerning whom ethnology says 
nothing. He omits the Phoenicians, who in his time 
had not, it is probable, acquired any importance, or 
made the movement, which first brought them into 
notice, from the shores of the Persian Gulf to those 
of the Mediterranean.* 

Finally, it may be noticed, that, whereas the 
Japhetic and Hamitic races are, each of them 
geographically continuous, the former spread over 
all the northern regions known to the genealogist 
— Greece, Thrace, Scythia, most of Asia Minor, 
Armenia, and Media,t the latter over all the south 
and the south-west, North Africa, Egypt, Nubia, 

* Herod, i. 1. -j- See above, p. 191. 



252 Ethnic Affinities. 

Ethiopia, Southern and South-eastern Arabia, and 
Babyhjnia* — so the Semitic races are locateil in ^vlmt 
may be called one region, that region being tlic 
central one, lying intermediate between the Ja])hetic 
region upon the north, and the Hamitic one upon 
the south. Syria, Palestine, Northern and Central 
Arabia, ^Vssyria, and Elymais, stretch from west to 
east in a continuous line which reaches from the 
Mediterranean to the mountains of Luristan. It 
was this intonnediate position of the Semites, which 
brought them in contact, on the one hand with 
Japhetic races, as in Cappadocia,t on the other with 
Hamitic, as in Palestine, in the Yemen, in Babylonia, 
and Elymais. 

The examination of Grenesis x., which has been 
here attempted, may now terminate. It has been 
shown that in no respect is there any contradiction 
between the teaching of the modern science of 
ethnology and this venerable record. On the con- 
trary, the record, rightly interpreted, completely 
harmonizes with the science, and not only so, but 
even anticipates many of the most curious and re- 
markable of the discoveries which ethnology has 
made in comparatively recent times. It does not 
set up to be, and it certainly is not complete. It is 
a genealogical arrangement of the races best known 
to Moses and to those for whom he wrote, not a 
scientific scheme embracing all the tribes and 
nations existing in the world at the time. To find 

* See p. 197. f See p. 244. 



Subdivisions of the Semitic Maces. 253 

fault with it for its omissions is absurd, since it 
makes no profession of completeness. Could error 
be proved in it, the argument would be of conse- 
quence. But the Christian may with confidence 
defy his adversaries to point out any erroneous, 
or even any improbable statements in the entire 
chapter from its connnencement to its close. Tip 
dXrjdei TzdvTa auu/idsc zd uTvdpyo'UTa, vw 3e (peuosc 
rayh dca<fcovs.1 rdkr^ds^. The thorough harmony 
which exists between eth lological science and this 
unique record is a strong ai'gumeut for the truth of 
both. 



APPENDICES* 



I. 

ANTIQUITY OF EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION. 

By Professor Owen, F. R. S. 

MY attention has been called to the remarks of the Rev. 
Canon Rawlinson on Egyptian Civilization. The writer 
opposes to a statement of mine on the Chronology of Egypt the 
diversity of opinions on that subject by Egyptologists. 

On this line of objection I may remark, that the value to be 
assigned to discrepant conclusions on a matter of scientific 
research must rest on the evidence with which such conclusions 
may be severally supported. 

With regard to the first authority cited as " manifestly con- 
flicting with my estimate" (page 17), that notion rests on an 
assumption that the commencement of Egypt as a civilized and 
governed community dates from the "erection of the Pyramid." 
The structures which the President of the Britisli Association 
cites as exemplifying the attainment in Egypt of tlie greatest 
perfection in the art of building, are the three " Great Pyramids" 
at Ghizeh, the northern graveyard of the once mighty city of 
Memphis. 

But these are not mere superposed accumulations of un wrought 
or roughly-wrought stone, such as might be argued to exemplify 
the dawn of civilization. They manifest the degree of perfection 

• See page 150. 

255 



256 Appendix I. 

ascribed to them by Sir John Hawkshaw, in all the diflFerent 
branches of the art of construction. 

The wrought masses ef stone of the body of the building— 
truly its walls, though of mighty thickness — were skilfully 
extracted from the rocky geological formation on wliich the 
pyramids are based. Evidences of the skilled, systematic quar- 
rying operations surround the " wonders." One huge outlier of 
the nuuimulitic limestone was purposely left and contemporane- 
ously wrouglit by colo.ssal .sculpture of exquisite art and finish into 
the form of the world-famous Sphinx. 

Other kinds of stone were needed for the complex, though 
outwardly simple structures, which alone of their date oflFer 
themselves to the wondering gaze of the present generation, as 
they will do to that of future ones. 

For the more finished masonry of the outer casing, a limestone 
of finer grain and more compact texture was required. This the 
Egyptian builders found in the older tertiary strata on the 
opposite (Arabian) bank of the Nile. They selected for the 
quarrying operations a part of the clifiF, so situated that the 
enormous blocks there wrought out and transferred to the rafts 
could be landed, by the combined forces of the rowers and the 
current, close to the required spot on the opposite (Libyan) 
shore. 

Remains of the landing-place and causeway may still be traced ; 
and Herodotus deemed this preliminary accessory work scarcely 
inferior in magnitude and engineering skill to the pyramids 
themselves. 

A third kind of stone used in their construction had to be got 
at a distance of some hundreds of miles up-stream. I have 
yisited the quarries of red granite near Assouan — the ancient 
Syene — of the beautiful variety thence called "Syenite," which 
may be contrasted at the British Museum with the red granite of 
Aberdeen, which supports the ancient Syenitic sculptures. 

The arts of quarrying and of masonry, manifested by the 
marvellous bulk of granite blocks, the perfection of their shaping, 
and the fineness of their polished surfaces, were as advanced in 
Egypt at the date of the pyramids as at any subsequent period, 
or as they are now practised with the aid of gunpowder and of 



Antiquity of Egyptian Civilization. 257 

steam machinery in the granite quarries and works at Aberdeen. 
These arts have been lost in Egypt for centuries past ; at least, 
there is no evidence of their practice in any of the constructions 
since the date of the Mohammedan conquest. The last semi- 
barbarous victors availed themselves, in the construction of their 
fortaliccs and mosques, of the wrought masses of fine limestone 
with which the First and Second Pyramids were coated, and of 
the similarly polished masses of granite with which the Third 
Pyramid — the most beautiful of all, iu the Greek historian's esti- 
mation — was covered. 

This material, moreover, enters into the internal architecture 
of the Great Pyramid. Emerging from the entry gallery into the 
grand passage, walled and roofed by mighty masses of polished 
granite, called the "king's chamber," conducting to the mortuary 
chapel, contiguous to the chamber of the royal sarcophagus, the 
unexpected dimensions of the granitic " chamber" impressed me 
with its resemblance to the side-aisle of a cathedral. 

The whole of the known interior structures of Cheops' Pyra- 
mid — the central tomb, the roof of which is relieved by a series 
of "discharging arches," from the enormous superincumbent 
mass towering to the pyramid's apex ; the ventilating shafts, ex- 
tending at the best angle for their purpose, to open upon the 
sides of the pyramid ; the precisely-estimated slope of both up- 
ward and downward passages, in reference to the enormous blocks 
of granite to be moved along them, hardly, if at all, inferior to the 
monolithic sarcophagus itself,— all these impressed my architec- 
tural and engineering fellow-travellers with the conviction that a 
mind of high order in their sciences had planned and presided 
over the construction of the pyramid. The Director-General of 
the Ordnance Survey, Major-General Sir Henry James, in his 
"Notes on the Great Pyramid of Egypt" (1869), remarks of the 
passages : — " Their inclination, which is just the ' angle of rest,' 
is particularly well chosen, when we consider that these stone- 
masses would have to slide down to their position. With a greater 
inclination it would have been very difficult to guide the blocks 
in their descent, and with a less it would have been difficult to 
move them." The author here refers to" the massive blocks of 
granite accurately hewn to fill and fit into the mouth of the pas- 



258 Appendix I. 

sage, (in<l wliich were needed to bar unauthorized access to the 
royal tomb. 

His must be a cold nature who can view unmoved the exterior 
of these constructions, mighty in their seeming simplicity. Nor 
is it surprising that a weak mind should lose its balance in a 
cognizance of their well-considered complexity. 

The hypothesis of the function of the pyramid and its sarco- 
phagus for the purpose of conservation of Divine standards of 
weights and measures, is not the only one which rests on the 
assumption that the architect and builders were guided by a 
" special inspiration." 

The opposite extreme is the notion that the alleged rude 
though mighty cairn exemplifies " the commencement of Egyp- 
tian civilization," which, according to Canon Rawlinson, Sir John 
Ilawkshaw "places about B.C. 5000," and which the reverend 
canon contrasts with the " extravagant " one of 7,000 years. 

I will not trespass on the reader's patience with notes of the 
contemporary temple near to the pyramids recently discovered 
by Mariette-Bey, Ministerial Conservator of the Antiquities of 
Egypt. I allude to it as having contained evidences of the rise of 
the art of sculpture to a height equalling that of architecture. 
The life-sized statue of Phra Kephren, discovered in this temple, 
in its majestic simplicity of character, will bear comparison with 
that of Watt, by Chantrey, in Westminster Abbey. But the an- 
cient Egyptian sculptor executed his work in the hardest and 
rarest material that Egypt could produce, viz. diorite. 

On the plinth of this statue is the name-shield of its subject, 
" Kawra," rendered by Herodotus "Kephren," the builder of 
the Second Pyramid, the successor of Khouwou, or Cheops, 
builder of the First Pyramid, and the predecessor of Menkera, 
or Mykerinus, builder of the Third Pyramid. 

The names of these three Pharaohs of the fourth dynasty were 
told to Herodotus on the authority of the same priestly records as 
were afterwards used by Manetho to compile the history required 
by the then reigning monarch, his master, Ptolemy Philadelphus. 
Cheops' name has been found on the stones of his pyramid, 
and the Third Pyramid has revealed like evidence of its builder, 
Menkera. 



Antiquity of Egyptian Civilization. 259 

"What were the chances that these and most of the other names 
and records of kings and dynasties of the Ohl and iMiddle Empires 
in Manetho's record, should have been confirmed by contemporary 
evidence, if there existed grounds of " doubt whether Manetho 
had any materials for reconstructing the chronology of the Old 
and Middle Empires?" (page 30.) 

How many of my readers may have accepted as well-founded 
this reflection on the memory of the Egyptian historian, qualified, 
it is true, by ascriptions of " best intention" in the manufacture 
of such chronology ! Some may even have received as unques- 
tionable Canon Rawlinsoh's averment of the "manifest conflic- 
tion" of Sir John Hawkshaw's and my estimates of the "com- 
mencement of Egyptian civilization." To most, I presume, it must 
have occurred that the "Address to the British Association at 
Bristol" contained no statement or estimate whatever of such 
commencement. 

What the president eloquently expressed was his appreciation, 
as a professional judge of the matter, of the great perfection to 
which Egyptian civilization had attained at the period, according 
to the ^lanethonian chronicle, now abundantly confirmed, when 
Cheops, Kephren, and Mykerinus caused those ancient "wonders 
of the world" to be erected at that period, viz., of the ancient 
division of Egyptian history, which dates 5,000 years ago. 

Of all the marvels of this history the manifestation of the dawn 
of civilization by such works, agreeably with the conception of 
Canon Rawlinson, would be the greatest. The birth of Pallas 
from the brain of Jove would be its parallel. 

Unprepossessed and sober experience, however, teaches that 
arts, language, literature, are of slow growth, the results of gra- 
dual development, as would be expected in a civilization which 
had culminated in a creed, a ritual, a priesthood, in convictions 
of a future life and judgment, of "the resurrection of the body," 
with the resulting instinct of its preservation — an instinct in 
which kings alone could indulge to the height of a pyramid. The 
administrative arrangements through which compulsory labours 
could be regulated and carried on, with more consideration than 
Moharaed Al; gave or cared for in the construction of the Mah- 
moudi Canal ; the monthly relays of Pharaoh's workmen ; the 



260 Appendix J. 

commissariat as it was recorded on the original polished exterior 
of the Great Pyramid ; the settled grades of Egyptian society 
and the " Thirty Commandments" governing their moral lilte-, — 
" commandments" by the people held to be "Divine," seeing that 
thereby the soul was tested, and the deeds of the flesh weighed 
before the judgment scat of Osiris — these are not the signs of an 
incipient civilization. The period of incubation of such progress, 
if one had to found an estimate by the analogy of the proved con- 
ditions of preliistoric man, could not be tleemed "extravagant" 
at the sum of years I have assigned, dating from such incipiency; 
it is more likely to prove inadequate. 

The studies of the geologist have expanded ideas of time in a 
degree analogous to those of space gained by astronomy. Con- 
current expansion is rewarding the investigator of the evidences 
of the human race. My geological observations in Egypt begat a 
greater confidence in the deductions from lately discovered in- 
scriptions than in the arbitrary curtailments of Manetho's lecorda 
by Josephus, Syncellus, and other critics. 

Three dynasties of Egyptian kings preceded that of which the 
builders of the Great Pyramids were members. Mariettc-Bey, 
whose discoveries have added the most weighty testimony in sup- 
port of "the materials" at Manetho's command for his records 
of the chronology of the Old Empire, assigns to the duration of 
those dynasties, a period of 769 years. Dr. Birch gives 777 years 
"according to the total of the years of the reigns." 

But Egypt is recorded to have been a civilized and governed 
community before the time of Menes. 

Civilization, it is true, is an arbitrary term. Anthropologists 
have not yet settled the boundary-line between a savage and a 
civilized people. 

The obtaining sustenance from wild plants and animals, with- 
out any of the arts of culture and domestication, would apply 
as a definition to the savageism of the aborigines of Australia 
and of the Andaman Isles, of the Boschismen of South Africa, of 
the Mandans and other " Eed Indians" of America. The 
pastoral community of a group of nomad families, as portrayed 
in the Pentateuch, may be admitted as an early step in civil- 
ization. 



Antiquity of Egyyiian Civilization. 261 

But how far in advance of this stage is a nation administered 
by a kingly government, consisting of grades of society, with 
divisions of labour, of whicli one kind, assigned to the priest- 
hood, was to record or chronicle the names and dynasties of the 
kings, the durations, and chief events of their reigns! 

The traditions of the priestly historians, as received and 
recorded by Herodotus and Diodorus, refer to a long antecedent 
period of the existence of the Egyptians as an administered 
community ; the final phase of which, prior to the assumption of 
the crown by Menes, was analogous to that of the judges in 
Israel, or the Papacy at Rome, a government, viz., of priests. 

The obstruction to the acceptance of the inductive evidence, on 
whicli alone a lasting knowledge of ethnology and of the antiquity 
of the human race can be had, is the same which opposed the pro- 
gress of the science of geology, and retarded for two centuries or 
more the demonstration of the causes whicli, in the long course of 
ages, modified the crust of the earth ; incompatibility, namely, 
"with the chronology of the Bible," especially, "if it be borne 
in mind that, according to the Septuagint version, the date of the 
Deluge was certainly anterior to B.C. 3000 ," (page 31). 

How far anterior to that date. Canon Rawlinson leaves to 
conjecture. According to the " Sacreil Chronology" of Bishop 
Russell, the latest writer of eminence on that topic, whose 
conclusions are mainly those of Hales and Jackson, and, like 
them, based on the Septuagint, the date of the universal Deluge, 
as detailed in Gen. vi., vii., viii., is 5,060 years from that of the 
present writing. It must be admitted that there is yet much 
uncertainty as to ancient Biblical chronology. 



II. 

THE ANTIQUITY OF THE CHINESE. 
Cy the Rfev. Dr. Edkins, Pekin. 

CHINA has a very old look. The walls of its cities make the 
traveler think of Old Testament times. The character of 
the people belongs more to the middle ages than to the nineteenth 
century. It appears wonderfully stereotyped. Change proceeds 
among the people, but it is not so perceptible nor so rapid as 
elsewhere. Tennyson wrote, " Better thirty years of Europe 
than a cycle of Cathay." Evidently the jioet thought it prefer- 
able to live in a country where progress is swift. All, however, 
cannot live in Europe, and one advantage that those possess 
whose lot takes them to "the gorgeous east" is, that they can 
study the old world in new times. 

The reason why the Chinese continue to remain so much what 
they have been, and take a certain pride in opposing all ten- 
dency to progress, is to be looked for in national character and 
isolation. Had they mingled in the stream of history, h.ad they 
been spectators of the world's revolutions, and shared in them, 
had they traveled much in foreign countries, and learned to live 
in foreign ways, and practice foreign usages, they would not have 
hung back so much as they now do in the rear of the rest of the 
world upon the onward path of change. 

The native character has not a little self-confidence, which is 
justified by their past. They can now look back on four thou- 
sand years of history. During this time the Chinese have made 
262 



The Antiquity of the Chinese. 263 

steady if slow advancement in enlightenment, and in the dis- 
covery of the means by which the realm of nature could be 
subjugated to human uses. 

The national spirit, when looked at broadly, is really civilized 
and progressive, or they would not have such a noble history of 
useful inventions to be proud of. We arc too ready to pity and 
despise as barbarism that which is in reality a type of progress 
more steady and long-continued, though less brilliant and ener- 
getic, than our own. 

Fifteen centuries ago they used pencils for writing made of 
weasels' hair, as they now do, and wrote with characters of tlie 
same shape and size as at present. This is a remarkable 
instance of slowness in changing. But then they have, during 
that time, originated the practice of printing books, and that, 
too, four centuries before the commencement of European 
printing. This is a proof of progress still more remarkable. 
The critical foreigner complains that they still hold to the use of 
hieroglyphics. He thinks that after four thousand years they 
might be willing to make a change, and that they ought to admit 
the undoubted superiority of an alphabet. But they may say, 
in defence of themselves, that their written characters are more 
suited for perpetuity than the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and 
that their language not being polysyllabic, there is much to be 
said for their continuing to use a system of separate signs for 
every word. 

This singular civilization, coming down from high antiquity, 
seems to bring Egypt and Babylon before us in contemporary 
form. The artisans of Thebes and Memphis may be seen to live 
again in Canton or Soochow. The turning-lathe, the potter's 
wheel, and the weaving-loom, in modern Chinese cities, show us 
what the streets of the cities on the banks of the Nile and 
Euphrates would now be if the ancient inhabitants of those 
regions had, like the Chinese, found out the secret of perpetua- 
ting themselves. 

The credibility and age of the first Chinese books, the time 
when writing originated, the possibility of the separation on 
safe grounds of early myth from genuine history, are all matters 
most desirable to be known. They may, with many kindred 



264 Appendix II. 

subjects, receive illustration frum a brief general inqniry into the 
antiquity of the Chinese. 

Opinion has oscillated in a singular way on this question,^ 
The Jesuit missionaries commenced their work in China three 
centuries ago, and when they entered on the study of the 
literature, thoy became filled with admiration of it. The intel- 
ligent and educated natives who at that time in considerable 
numbers received Christian baptism, never parted with their 
reverence for the character and teaching of China's ancient 
sages. They communicated their regard for the history and 
literature of their country to their European instructors. 
Catholic Europe, and especially France, became in the seven- 
teenth century, through the productions of Jesuit authors upon 
China, imbued with a high feeling of admiration for the wisdom 
and intelligence of the Chinese, and the trustworthiness of their 
history. Down to the end of the last century European acquain- 
tance with the country went on increasing, aided by the transla- 
tions made of the classical books in French and Latin, and the 
numerous descriptive works and essays published to illustrate the 
ancient and modern condition of the people whom we have fallen 
into the habit of calling, with a tone of pleasant sarcasm, the 
"Celestials." Many of the men who held up China to the 
world's admiration lie buried in the two chief Catholic cemeteries 
in the west of Pekin, not far from the city walls. There are the 
high tombs of Ricci, Schaal, and Yerbeist of the older time, and 
Gaubil and Amyot of the more recent. 

Down to the time (twenty years ago) of the publication of 
Legge's Chinese Classics and the works of Biot, it was the custom 
among many sober judges to accept the ancient history as given 
in the classical books. The " Book of History," for example, 
commences with the reigns of the Emperors Yaou and Shun, b.c. 
2356 and 2255, and contains an account of a most destructive 
deluge which occurred at that time, and from which the country 
was freed by the diligence, energy, and skill of a heroic man 
named Ta Yii, who became emperor b.c. 2205. This deluge was 
not like that of Noah, except in its being said that mountains 
were covered by the rising floods. The sober student of these 
days will not follow the example set by some Roman Catholic 



The Antiquity of the Chinese. 265 

missionaries in former times who identified the deluge of Noah 
with that of the Chinese Yii. The human population was not de- 
stroyed in the Chinese deluge. There was no ship. The time that it 
lasted was nine years. The deluge of the Bible and of the Baby- 
lonian tablets would seem to have taken place long before that of 
China, and to have been wider spread and more devastating in its 
effects. 

The Emperor Yii was one of a group of sages, several of whose 
sayings have been preserved. They are couched in words which, 
while very archaic, are not the words of a different language. 
The Chinese language, in its vocabulary and laws of arrangement 
in words, as well as in its being monosyllabic, was the same then 
as now, except that it was less developed, and contained many 
obsolete expressions. 

Yii was the first emperor of the Ilea dynasty, and founder of 
an imperial line which continued for sixteen descents till b.c. 
1766. This to the Jesuits seemed all to be trustworthy history, 
especially as there are passages in the early parts of this most 
interesting old book which tell of determinations of the times of 
the equinoxes and solstices from the observed places of certain 
stars, either in the morning or evening, or at midnight of the 
four days on which they occurred. The emperor's words, when 
giving the order to the court astronomers to go and make these 
observations, are carefully recorded. Then there is a solar 
eclipse of about b.c. 2000. Astronomical data like these are not 
found in the Vedas, or the Zendavesta, or in the Books of Moses, or 
in Homer or Hesiod. They seemed to give a special character of 
authenticity to this book of old Chinese history. 

Du Halde's work on China is imequalled for copiousness, and 
contains a vast amount of correct information ; but the way in 
which it speaks of early Chinese chronology is much more in 
accordance with the time when it was compiled than with our 
own. 

He writes : "Two hundred years after the Deluge the sons of 
Noah arrived in North-Western China." This is neither Scripture 
nor is it science. It is a rough-and-ready attempt to reconcile 
the Hebrew account with early Chinese tradition. In this age 
we proceed more cautiously. 



266 Appendix J J. 

Du Halde goes on to say : " From the reign of Yaou, which 
beg:in B.C. 2337, their history ia very exact. We find the names 
of emperors, with the length of their reigns, and an account 
of the troubles, revolutions, and interregnums that have hap-' 
pened, all set down very particularly and with great fidelity." 
"The Chinese historians," he says, " appear to be sincere, and 
to regard nothing but the truth." He then describes the burn- 
ing of the books, and the restoration of literature fifty-four years 
after under the Emperor Wen te, who ascended the throne B.C. 179. 

In this way of treating Chinese chronology, Du Halde accepts 
the " Book of History" as good authority. It begins with the 
reign of Yaou, and so does he. The fact is, however, that the 
ancient chronology does not rest only on the testimony of this book, 
but also upon views held by the astronomers of the period 
introduced by Wen te. They formed a chronology based on a 
study of the " Book of History," as the Rabbis who formed the 
Jewish chronology did upon a comparison of the dates contained 
in the Old Testament. A historical work called, from the mate- 
rial on which it was found written, the "Bamboo Books," also 
contains a system of ancient chronology ; and, as it dates from 
the time of the Chow dynasty, before the burning of the Confu- 
cian books by the first emperor of the Tsin dynasty, introduces 
new elements into the general question, something in the same 
way as happens with the Hebrew chronology through the exist- 
ence of that of the Septuagint and that of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch. 

The Han dynasty chronology became current in China, and 
has satisfied most native scholars down to the present time, as 
it did till recently European scholars. 

The grounds stated by Du Halde for giving credit to the 
accepted native chronology are that it is very self-coherent and 
substantial ; that it has not, like the Greek and E.oman history, 
the air of a fiction at the beginning ; that it has an important 
yerification in a solar eclipse at a very early date ; that the 
historians were witnesses of the events they related ; that 
Confucius, as his words show, regarded it as deserving of 
confidence ; and that Mencius says a thousand years elapsed 
between Shun and Wen wang. 



The Antiquity of the Chinese. 267 

Since Wen wang lived about b.c. 1100, the testimony of 
Mencius makes it clear that in his day — b.c. 300 — the accepted 
chronology, as far back as to the time of the Emperor Shun, 
was much the same as afterwards determined by the Han 
scholars, and as that contained in the " Bamboo Books." 

Du Halde proceeds to remark that later Chinese historians 
have noticed unsatisfactory points in the received chronology 
even of the Chow dynasty, and that at the same time they have, 
in accordance with the traditions retained in the " Book of 
Changes" and other works, classical and non-classical, com- 
menced their narratives of the history of China with the time of 
f uhe, B.C. 2852. 

The reason that they have gone back nearly five hundred years 
was probably threefold. They wished history to embrace the 
great legendai-y personage Fuhe, who is regarded as the first 
Chinese emperor. They wished to honour Fuhe as the maker of 
the Pakwa and the author of the " Book of Changes " in its 
primitive form, when it was merely a collection of symbolic 
strokes. They wished to respect the judgment of Confucius, 
who, while he commenced the " Book of History " with Yaou, 
inserted in his supplement to the " Book of Changes " a passage 
commemorating the services of Fuhe, Shin nung, and Hwang te, 
venei-ated through all antiquity as the founders of the Chinese 
civilization. ' 

" Anciently," says Confucius, in this passage, " Fuhe, in ruling 
the world, evoked to the lights of heaven, the laws of earth, the 
marks on birds and beasts, with the signs capable of being noted 
on the human body and on all material objects. He then invented 
the Pakwa or eight diagrams, the art of writing by means of 
knotted cords, and the methods to be pursued in hunting and 
fishing. After him came Shin nung, who taught ploughing 
and hoeing, marketing and trading. Houses, boats ; the 
use of the ox and horse as beasts of burden ; the art of 
grinding corn ; the use of the bow and arrow ; the introduc- 
tion of cofiins and burial for the dead ; and the change of 
knotted cords into the use of a written character, soon followed ; 
and in the time of Yaou the features of the old Chinese civiliza- 
tion were complete." 



268 Appendix 11. 

This view of the early growth of Chinese polity presents to us 
Confucius, a grave, erudite, and sober-minded sage, looking upon 
the third millennium before Christ as the period when his country- 
men emerged from barbarism into civilization. He knew of no 
foreign origin to the Chinese people, nor did he regard it as neces- 
sary to assign any of the elements of their early culture to a for- 
eign source. 

Before Fuhe everything is to him a mysterious unfathomed 
depth. All he knows is that a succession of wise men appeared 
B.C. 2850 to B.C. 2350, who, one after the other, instructed the 
people in the useful arts, in morality, and in the philosophy of 
nature. No theory of creation had ever, so far as we know, been 
suggested to him. He had before him, to be taught and explained 
by his philosophy, the visible universe in a state of incessant 
changes. The former sages, Fuhe, Hwang te, and Wen wang, 
had taught a theory of transformations. It accounts for all phe- 
nomena of the world political and the world material, for man as 
an animal and as a social and intellectual being. This was 
enough. 

The native view of the first beginnings of the Chinese race 
should be allowed. The legends that go before Fuhe do not 
deserve so much attention. They rest on a less respectable 
authority. 

It is now about fifteen years since the publication of Dr. James 
Legge's translation of the " Book of History." He arrives at a 
conclusion unfavourable to its historical character. In his 
" Prolegomena" he represents it as half legend, and suspects that 
the names of many emperors were invented by subsequent 
writers. The Rev. J. Chalmers examined the astronomical data, 
and pronounced them unsatisfactory. In his dissertation, in- 
serted after the " Prolegomena," he declares them to be wanting 
in all essential points. The question of the antiquity of the 
Chinese assumed a new shape. The credible and self-consistent 
history of ancient China was believed by many, from the time 
that this change in opinion took place, to date no earlier than 
B.C. 781, when the history written by Confucius commences. 
There can be no doubt of this historical fragment being fiiirly 
within the historical period, for authors were then rife, chronicles 



The Antiquity of the Chinese. 269 

< 

were kept at the courts of kings, astronomical records were pre- 
served, eclipses were noted ; all events were chronologically ar- 
ranged. The question is not, can this be accepted ? but, can it 
be right to treat all the preceding Chinese history as half mythi- 
cal? Mr. Mayers docs so in his "Chinese Readers' Manual," 
published in 1874. The period from b.c. 2852 to llu4 he terms 
the legendary period. From B.C. 1154 to 781 is in his nomencla- 
ture the semi-historical period. Trustworthy history only com- 
mences, in his opinion, from B.C. 781. This mode of treating 
early Chinese chronology occurs in a highly useful work by a 
writer whose name carries with it no little authority. 

An opinion very different from these writers has been recently 
adopted and promulgated by Dr. Gustave Schlegel. His studies 
in the nomenclature of the stars and the peculiarities of the 
Chinese zodiac have materially affected his opinions. He adopts 
the extraordinary view that the stars were named by the Chinese 
17,000 years before the Christian era. His principal reason for 
this novel doctrine is that the zodiac of twenty-eight constellations 
commences with the bright star Spica in the sign Virgo. Dr. 
Schlegel thinks that the sun was in Virgo in the spring when the 
Chinese stars were first named, and that if he were not in that 
position, the ancient Chinese would not have begun the zodiac 
there. When the Greeks took over the Asiatic zodiac which their 
neighbours communicated to them, they commenced the series of 
twelve months with Aries. The sun in spring is now thirty de- 
grees behind Aries. The interval represents in time two thousand 
years, and one twelfth of the zodiacal circle. Twelve times this 
number of years makes the cycle which represents the time the 
sun must take to run his course backward round the zodiac. 

Since the time of Hipparchus and the change of the sun's place 
among the stars at the vernal equinox from the Ram to the Fishes, 
certainlj' the period that has elapsed seems very long, and the 
science of astronomy has gone through a great variety of remarka- 
ble phases. But this is quite a short term of years compared 
with that which has been recognized by Dr. Schlegel as having 
passed away since the first Chinese astronomers divided the stars 
into groups and gave them names. All that the Chinese them- 
selves claim for their astronomy, is an antiquity of 4,000 years, 



270 Appendix II. 

■when tlic sun had just entererl Taurus, hcing sixty degrees in 
front of his present position. They will be astonished when they 
find that, among the foreign students of their ancient books, there- 
is one who believes that their names for stars are morid than four 
times oMcr, and that since the primeval mapping of the constella- 
tions, the sun has slowly travelled backward through nine signs 
of the zodiac to the point where he now is. 

The argument of this author is expanded into two octavo* vol- 
umes, and illustrated from a rich variety of sources, Chinese and 
European, in the most learned manner. 

The reaaons against the acceptance of his hypothesis are very 
strong. The names of stars embrace the whole imperial regime of 
ancient China, witli a nmltitude of details all harmonizing with what 
we know of the country from the chxssical books. The ancient ideas 
of the Chinese about government, their modes of naming officers 
and court buildings, their sacrifices, derivation of houses, agri- 
culture, markets, and many circumstances of popular and official 
life, are reflected in the stellar nomenclature. We see there the 
old customs as they were during the time of and after Yaou and 
Shun. The supposition that this regime should have lasted in the 
same form through nearly twenty millenniums seems very unrea- 
sonable, and contrary to the lesson derived by history from the 
past of every other country, that incessant change is the law of 
all human affairs. 

This author has made a careful study (and he is probably the 
only European who has done so) of the old Chinese astrology. In 
books written about 2,000 years ago, the stars are described with 
a great multiplicity of lucky and unlucky indications. The clas- 
sics are several centuries older, and the astrological indications are 
not found in them. Yet the classics speak in such a way that 
both magic and astrology must have existed. To say, however, 
as Dr. Schlegel does, that the identical astrology which is con- 
tained in books of the Han dynasty still extant, was a prime ele- 
ment in the knowledge of those who made the names of the stars, 

* " Uranographie Chinoise." Printed at the expense of the 
Royal Dutch Institute for Ethnology, Philology, and Geography, 
1875. 



The Antiquity of the Chinese. 271 

and that it existed in their day in much the same form as at the 
court of the emperors of the early Han dynasty, is to maintain 
the incredible, and to invite adverse criticism. 

It is mai'vellous that a man of great ingenuity and learning 
should orjo-iuate a hypothesis so difficult to defend. In justice to 
the author, let me here mention what appeal's to me one of his 
most plausible arguments. 

Among the twenty-eight groups of stars which constitute the 
Chinese zodiac, and roughly represent the place of the moon every 
day in one lunation, are the two well-known and beautiful con- 
stellations called by the Greeks, Pleiades and Hyades, the latter 
so named because its appearance indicated the arrival of the 
rainy season. In China the Hyades are called Pi, and in the 
"Book of History," the most important of the classics. Pi is 
called the "Ruler of Rain." Schlegel says, that since Pi was, in 
the time of the " Book of History," a spring constellation, as it 
is in Greek astronomy, it could not have been called the ruler of 
rain because it then indicated the rainy season, fhe spring of 
North China being dry. It must have been so named, he thinks, 
at that immensely ancient date when it was an autumn constella- 
tion, the sun having had time to travel, in the interim, through 
more than half the zodiac. 

The coincidence is certainly most remarkable that the Hyadea 
should rule the rain in both Greece and China. To explain this 
coincidence without the hypothesis of Dr. Schlegel is perhaps, 
not impossible, though beset with difficulties. But it should 
be remembered that about the Mediterranean Sea, spring is 
rainy and autumn fair, while in China the reverse is the case. 
Let it then rather be supposed that the Hyades were named first 
in Western countries, and communicated, in some manner un- 
known, to China while the " Book of History" was being written ; 
or let it be supposed that the Greek word Hyades meant ori- 
ginally, as some say, " the little pigs," and that the coincidence 
is accidental. 

Dr. Schlegel has felt encouraged to adopt the extravagant 
opinion that the Chinese names of stars were made seventeen 
thousand years ago, by the speculations of writers favourable to 
the Darwinian account of the origin of man. Between the 



272 Appendix II. 

dawn of humanity and the dawn of hi.«tory a vast chasm yawns. 
Some Darwinians say that men were cannibals for many millen- 
niums before they became civilized. Others say they were with- 
out articulate speech for many millenniums, and that they became 
separated into great families before they attained the power to 
express themselves in words. Our author thinks he has found 
in the zodiac of China a safe basis for a theory which extends the 
history of that country back to a time which agrees with the 
requirements of Darwinian writers, and might lend support to 
the most incredibly ancient of the Egyptian dynasties. 

The Chinese themselves, however, do not thus read their old 
records, nor has any foreign student of Chinese yet come forward 
to announce his conversion to this author's view. 

But while early Chinese history cannot lend much aid to views 
now current on the antiquity of the human race, it seems to 
indicate the need of a longer Scripture chronology than satisfied 
the theologians of other days. To allow for the natural devel- 
opment of language, and of the difference found to exist between 
races in the various climates of our globes, we may require an 
age for the human race considerably more lengthened than that 
which Archbishop Usher adopted. 

Yet there is nothing in the Chinese classics which demands a 
longer period for the presence of the Chinese in their own coun- 
try than 2,800 years. 



INDEX. 



Abimael unknown, 248. 
Abydos, the Tables of, 153. 
Abyssinia=Cush, 193. 
Accad, 39, 211. 

Achteau, term unknown in Asia, 
[173. 
Achfemenian times, the, 105. 
Aches, king, 222. 
Achilles, the prize of, 52. 
Achish, 221. [tion, 9. 

Adam and Eve, Milton's descrip- 
^Eolians=Elishah, 184. 
Africans burrowing, 10. 
Agadi, kingdom of, 39. 
Agau language, 209. 
Agron not real, 74. 
Alban list of kings, 25. 
Almodad=El Mudad, 247. 
Alphabetic writing, invention of, 
Alyattes, tomb of, 76, 140. [59. 
Amazons and Phrygians, 67. 
Amenephthes, 222. 
American civilization, degradation 
Amorites, 197, 225. [of, 5. 

Amraphel, 231. 
Amun-m-he, 29. 
Anacreon on the Lydians, 78. 
Anamim not ideutified, 217. 
Ann, 217. 
Apachnas, 221. 
Aphar, 249. 
Apis, 22. 
Apis Stelte, 22. 

Apollo worshipped by Celts, 145. 
Apophis, 221, 222. 
Arab civilization, 3. 
Arr-bian period in Babylon, 38, 40. 
A>"abians, characteristics of, 250. 



Arabic languages, 209. 
Aram=Syria, 234. 
AramiBan literature, 235. 
Aramaeans represented by modem 

Nestorians or Chaldees, 235. 
Arapcha or Arapka, 232. 
Area, 200. 

Archilochus contemporary with 
Ard-el-IIuleh, 242. [Gyges, 72. 
Argive list of kings, 24. 
Argos, Phoenician trade with, 51. 
Arioch, king, identification of, 39. 
Armah= Armenia, 182. 
Armcnians=Togarmah, 183. 
Arpachshad, 232. 
Arphaxad, unknown, 232. 
Arrapachitis, 232. 
Artaxerxes, 230. 
Artemis, temple of, 104. 
Arvad, 200. 
Aryan art, 85. 

civilization, 85. 

king, the first, 11. 
Aryanem vaejo, 11. 
Ascalon, founding of, 71. 
Ascanius, lakes, 181. 
Ashkenaz, 181. 

Asia Minor, date of civilization, 
Asies, the hero, 74. [161. 

Asses, 221. 

Asshur=Assyria, 231. 
Asshur-bani-pal, annals of, 37. 
Assyria:=Asshur, 231. 

date of rise of, 161. 

and Lydia, supposed connection 
between, 73. 
Assyrian architecture, 90. 

brick-enameling, 95. 

273 



274 



Index. 



Assyrian carving, 95. 

chronology, 88. 

colossi, weight of, 143. 

cruelty, 00. 

cuneiform records, 89. 

embroidery, 95. 

empire, commencement of, 87. 

engineoring, 90. 

engraving, 9.j. 

furniture, 9o. 

glass blowing, 95. 

glyptic art, 91. 

influence, extent of, 73. 

language, 238. 

list of icings, 2i. 

metallurgy, 95. 

modellin'.^ '.)5. 

patesi, or viceroys, 89. 

physiognomy, 239. 

sculptures, 92. 

superstition, 96. 

syllabarium, 100. 
Asta-sobas, river, 205. 
Athene, queea of Attica, 40. 

temple of, 10-1. 
Athenian list of kings, 2-i. 
Athothis, king, 13, 222. 
Atramitne, 20'J. 
Atys, the god, 74. 
Auzara or Ausara==Uzal, 248. 
Avebury, Monumeats at, 139. 

Baalbek, 202. 

Babel, 211. 

Babylon, a seat of empire, 40. 

Arab porio 1 in, 40. 

Arabian dynasty of, 38. 

date of Assyrian conquest, 88 

date of monarchy in, 161. 

Elamitic period in, 40. 

origines of, 41. 

Semitic period in, 39. 

Sennacherib's recovery of, 38. 

Turanian period in, 40. 
Babylonia, Elamitic invasion of, 37. 
Babylonian and Egyptian writing 
compared, 59. 

and Susianian words, 213. 

architecture, 42. 



Babylonian chronology, 15. 

civilization, 14, 41. 

coffins, 45. 

cylinder seats, 14. ^ 

engraving, 15, 45. 

implements, 43. 

inscriptions, 45. 

kingdom first set up, 84, 

monuments, 12. 

pottery, 44. 

weaving, 45. 

writing, 15, 45. 
Bactrians, origin of the civilization 

of, 96. 
Bahr-el-Huleh, 242. 
Ball, game of, invented, 75. 
Bazu and Kazu=Buz and Uz or 

Uuz, 241. 
Behistun, remains at, 100. 
Beisan, 202. 

Belus, supposed son of, 73. 
Beni-es-Silfan^Sheleph, 247. 
Berber words, 223. 
Berbers=Marmarid8e, 223. 

and Tuariks^Lehabim, 217. 
Berosus and monuments, compari- 
son between, 41. 

dynasties of, 36. 
Beth-shan, 202. 
Bithynians, the, 174. 
Bnon, 221. 

Brahmana period, the, 107. 
Briges, the, 174. 

congeners of Phrygians, 67. 
Britain, natives of, 134. 
British Celts, civilization of [see 

Celts). 
Britons, civilization of, 133. 
Brute, the Trojan, 74. 
Buccinum lapillus, 57. 
Buzites, 241. 

Cabales=Cabyles, 223. 
Cfecinae, tomb of the, 119. 
CiTsre, vault at, 117. 
CiBsarea Mazacn, 173. 
Coesar's account of Britons, 134. 
Calbis, valley of the. 79. 
Calneh, or Calno, 211. 



Index. 



275 



Cambri, or Cambria, 170. 
Canaan, 196. 

subdivision of, 215. 
Canaanite names, Semitic, 201. 
Canaanites, cliaracter of, 200. 

language of, l'J9. 
Caphtor, isle of, 220. 
Caplitorim=Copts, 220. 
Cappadocians, 244. 
Carmania, 208. 

Casius, Mount, inhabitants of, 219. 
Casluhim, unknown, 219. 
Cataracta, 115. 

Caunians, a branch of Lycians, 82. 
Celtes, 141. 
Celtic arclueology, 138. 

civilization, cliaracter of, 145. 

cromlechs, 140. 

engineering, 142. 

mechanical ingenuity, 142. 

ornaments, 141. 

pottery, 140. 

tools, 141. 

weapons, 141. 
Celts, British, civilization of, com- 
mencement of, 132. 

described by Cffisar, Diodorus, 
Strabo, and Tacitus, 134. 

Gallic, civilization of, 145. 

pre-Roman, 139. 
Cervetri, tomb at, 119. 

vault at. 117. 
Ceylon, civilization of, 7. 
Chaldwa, language of, 212. [213. 
Chaldaean and Egyptian writing, 

era, 35. 

kingdom, estnblishment of, 34. 
Chaldees remant of Aramaeans, 235. 
Chandas period, the, 107. 
Chardak, lake. 181. 
Chattraniiti3e=Hazarmaveth, 248. 
Chedor-Laomer, king, 39, 231. 
Chehl Minar, the, 102. 
Chinese, antiquity of the, 2G8. 
Chittim, or Kittini, 185. 
Chiusi, tomb at, 119. 
Chronological agreement, 147. 

conclusions, 161. 
Chronology, authorized, 16. 



Cilicia, colonization of, 185. 

Cimbri, 170. 

City, the first, 10. 

Civilization of various nil'ous, 

dates of, 147. 
Cloaca Maxima, the, IKi. 
Coins of Grajco-Bactrians, 4. 
Colcliians, 219. 
Comparative pliilosophy, 6. 
Copper, smelting of, 10. 
Coptic words, 223. 
Copts, modern origin of, 5. 
Corinthian list of kings, 25, 
Coss8eans::=Kissians, :^31. 
Cotyseum, tomb near, 69. 
Cotys, the god, 74. 
Cruesus, conquest of, by Cyrus, 

court of, 78. 
Cromlechs, 140. 
Ctesias, ill-faith of, 88. 

lists of, 24. 

on the founding of Nineveh, 87. 
Cuneiform records, Assyrian, 89, 

writing, 15. 
Cush=Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, 192. 

and Mizraim akin, 203. 

Asiatic, 193. 

subdivisions of, 204. 
Cushite geography, 208. 

language, 208. 
Cylinder-seals, Babylonian, 14. 
Cymric races, three, 190. 
Cypriot language, 187. 

remains later than Lycian, 80. 
Cypriots perhaps a link between 

Assyrians and Lycians, 80. 
Cyprus, Greeks of, 173. 

people of=Chittim, or Kittim, 
Cyrenaica, 217. [185 

Cyrus, conquest of Croesus by, 79. 

conquest of Lydia by, 70. 

Daci, ancestors of Danes, 178. 
Dacian colonists of Trajan, 5. 
Dactyli of Mount Ida, 68. 
Dadan, island of, 207. 
Danes descended from Daci, 178. 
Darius Hj'staspis, 230. 

contemporai-y with Zoroaster, 97. 



276 



Index. 



Darius, first satrapy of. 70 
DeJan, 207. 

Delphi, Gygian offerings to, 72. 
Deluge, date of, 82, lOl. 
Dialects, mother, sister, and 

daughter, 190. 
Diana, teuijjle of, at Ephesus, 10-1. 
Dice invented by Lvdians, 75. 
Diklah=Dakaluli, 248. 
Diphath=Hiphath, 182. 
Divinity of Egyptian kings, 22. 
Dodanim, or Kodanim^Rhodians, 

187. 
Doganlu, tomb of Midas at, G9. 
Domesday book of Hebrews, 04. 
Dorian, term unknown in Asia, 173. 
Druids, the, 135. 

circles of, 139, 142. 
Dungi, signet cylinder of, 4G. 

Ebal=Obal, 249. 
Eber, children of, 229. 
Ecbatana, remains at, 100 
Edomites, 241. 

Egypt, date of monarchy in, 161. 
dynasties of, 159. [59. 

Egyptian and Babylonian writing, 
and Chaldean writing, 213. 
ancient, language, 198. 
chronology, 15. 

diflBculties of, 154. 
discussed, 149. 
summary of, 159. 
want of, 23. 
civilization, 13, 17. 

Prof. Owen on antiquity of, 
255. 
dynasties, 23, 26. 
monuments, 12. 
Egyptians^Mizraim. 
Egypts, the two, 167. 
El Mudad=Almodad, 247. 
Elam, 229. 

Elamitic period in Babylon, 40. 
Elishah=.Eolians, 184. 
EUasar^ kingdom of, 39. 
Elymaeans, 231. 
Elymais, 230. 
Enentef, 29. 



Ephraem Syrus, 235. 
Erech=Orclii»(;, Orech, Warka or 
Irka, 211. 
kingdom of, 39. 
Eridu, a seat of empire, 40. 
Esarhaddon, 232. 
Es-Sulaf or Beni-cs-Silfan=She- 

leph, 247. 
Eshmunazar, sarcophagus of, 65. 
Ethiopia=Cush, 192. 
Ethiopian, ancient, language, 199. 
Ethiopians and Saitcs contempo- 
rary, 24. 
Etruria the source of Roman civi- 
lization, 110. 
Etruscan architecture, 114. 

astronomy, 131. 

banquets, 127. 

bas-reliefs, 120. 

bridges, 116. 

bronzes, 122. 

candelabra, 123. 

civilization. 111, ICl. 

cruelty, 130. 

diviners, 127. 

drama, 130. 

engineering, 130. 

engraved mirrors, 124. 

fictile art, 124. 

gate-ways, 115. 

government, 128. 

literature, 160. 

luxury, 126. 

medicine, 131. 

meteorology, 131. 

modelling, 125. 

morality, 129. 

music, 126. 

painting, 119, 121, 

religion, 127. 

remains, 113. 

science, 130. 

sculpture in tombs, 119. 

sewers, 116. 

statuary, 120. 

tombs, 'lis. 

towers, 115. 

vases, 113, 124. 

vaults, 117. 



Index. 



277 



Eulfeus, river, 230. 
Euphrates, 235. 
Evolution, doctrine of, 2. 

Firdausi, great work of, 105. 
Flint flakes, 32. 
Flute, invention of, 10. 

Galla language, 209. 
'. Gallic Celts, civilization of, 145. 
Gathas, 98. 

resemblance between the Rig- 
Veda and the, 100. 
Gaulanitis, 2-42. 
Gebanitte, 248. 
Geloni, 4. 

Genealogies, Scripture, 1G5. 
Germans=Tiras, 177. 
Getce, ancestors of Goths, 178. 
Gether unknown, 242. 
Gimiri, 170. 
Girgashites, 197. 
Glass known in Egypt at the 

Pyramid period, 56. 
Glass-making, invention of, 56. 
Gog probably Scythians, 171. 
Golden age, the, 11. 
Gomer, 169. 

represents the Celts, 171. 
Gordias, founder of Phrygian king- 
dom, 70. 
Goths, descended from Getse, 178. 
GraBCo-Bactrian people, 4. 
Gri.BCO-Italians=Javan, 177. 
Great Zidon, mention of, 04. 
Grecian first age, 11. 
Greek civilization, 3. 

races, four, 190. 

the term unknown in Asia, 173, 
Grotto del Triclinio, 119. [72, 

Gyges, son of Dascylus, 70. 

contemporary with Archilochus, 

mentioned by Sardanapalus, 72, 
Gygian offerings to Delphi, 72. 

Hadoram, 248. 

Hadramaut = Hazai'maveth, 206, 

247. 
Har-Hat-her, 218. 
Haikiau race, the, 183. 



Ilamadan, remains at, 100. 
Ilamathites, 224. 
Hamitic languages, 197. 
races, chief, 192. 

geography of, 197. 
Ilarp, invention of, 10. 
Ilarpagrs, satrap of Lycia, 79. 
Harpy tomb, the, 81. 
IIavilah=Khawlan, 206, 250. 
llazarmaveth=lladramaut, Chatra- 

motitEe,Chattramit8e,Atramitae, 

247. 
Heber, children of, 229 
Hebrew language, 237. 
Hecuba, offering of, 52. 
Hellene, the term unknown in Asia, 

173. 
Hellenic civilization, date of, 161. 
Hephtestus, bowl of, 52. 
Heracleid kings, supposed gene 

alogy of, 73. 
Heracleids, the, 70. [158. 

Herodotus and Manetho compared, 
Hezekiah contemporary with Midas, 

69. 
Hiddekel=Tigris, 232. 
Himyaric language, 209, 
Hiram, artistic works of, 53. 
Hissar-lik, remains at, 84. 
Hittites, 197. 
Hivites, 197. 

Homeric poems, date of, 50. 
Ilorestii, the, 138. [75. 

Huckle-bones invented by Lj'diaus, 
Hul unknown, 242. 
Huz or Uz=Kliazu, 241, 
Hyksos, 213. 

lafon-es or lonians, 172. 
Ideographs, 59. 
Ignatius' s Epistles, 235. 
Ilgi, signet cylinder of, 46. 
Indie civilization, 106, 161. 
Indo-Persians=Madiii, 177. 
lonians identified with Javan, 172. 
Iranian cruelty, 105. 

cultivation, 100. 

manners, 105. 

remains, 100. 



278 



Index. 



Iranic agriculture, 98. 

architecture, 101. 

civilization, 96, 161. 

corruption, 105. 

decoration, 103. 

inscriptions, 104. 

poetry, 99. 

religion, 99. 

sculpture, 102. 
Iranic writing, 100. 
Irka=Erecli or Orech, 211. 
Iron, smelting of, 10. 
Ishbi-Benob, 221. 
Isle of Roses, 188. 
Istakr, remains at, 100. 
Iznik, lake of, 181. 

Jacbin and Boaz, the pillars, 53. 

Jambres, 222. 

Jannas, 221. 

Jannes, 222. 

Japhetic races, chief, 165, 175. 

geographical limits of, 191. 
Jaulan, 242. 
Javan=Grjeco-ltalians, 177. 

identified with lonians, 172. 
Jebel Shomer, 241. 
Jebusites, 197. 
Jemshid. 11. 
Jeoud, 49. 

Jerah=Yercikh, 248. 
Jews of post -Babylonian period, 5. 
Jobab uncertain, 250. 
Jobabitoe, 250. 
Jobarite, 250. 
Joktan^Arabs, 246. 
Jordan, plain of, 53. 
Jurhum, 247. 

Kahtan=Joktan, 246. 
Karrak, kingdom of, 39. 
Kazu=Uz or Huz, 241. 
Kebt-hor, 220. 
Keft. 220. 
Khabour, 234. 
Khammurabi, king, 38. 
Khawlan=Havilah, 206. 
Khem or Khemi, 194. 
Kimiri or Kimmerii, 170. 
Kissia, 231. 



Kissians=CosBaeans, 231. 
Kitieis, 185. 
Kition, 185. 
Kittiaeans, 185. 

Kittim or Chittim=people of Cy- 
prus, 185. 
Kronos, king, 40. 
Kudur-Lagamar, king, 39. 
Kudur-Mabuk, king, 39. 
Kuft, 220. 

La Mercareccia, the tomb, 119. 
Larsa, kingdom of, 39. 
Lebu=Lehabim. Lubim, Rebu, and 

Libyans, 217. 
Lectionary, new, 165. 
Lehabim=Lubim, Rebu or Lebu, 
Tuariks, Berbers, and Libyans, 
217. 
Libya, 217. 
Libyans=Lehabim, Lubim, Rebu, 

and Lebu, 217. 
Long chronology, 150. 
Lubim, ^Lehabim, Rebu, Lebu, and 

Libyans, 217. 
Lucumones, the, 128. 
Lud uncertain, 233. 
Luden=Ruten, 234. 
Ludim not Lydians, 216. 
Lycia conquered by Harpagus, 79, 

geography of, 79. 
Lycian architecture, 79. 

civilization, date of, 161. 

dress, 81. 

furniture, 81. 

genealogies, 81. 

glyptic art, 79. 

inscriptions, 80. 

sculptures, 80. 

tombs, 80. 

women, position of, 81. 
Lydia and Assyria, supposed con- 
nection between, 73. 

conquest of, by Cyrus, 70. 
Lydian barrow, 76. 

civilization, date of, 77, 161. 

chronology, 72. 

coined money, 74. 

command of Mediterranean, 71. 



Index. 



279 



Lydian commerce, 74. 

dynasties, 70. 

first dynasty mythical, 74. 

games, 75. 

glyptic art, 75. 

history, beginning of, 74. 

kingdom, antiquity of, 71. 

kings, tombs of, 77. 

luxury, 78. 

mason-work, 75. 

music, 75. 

Pantheon, 74. 

remains, grandeur of, 76. 

shipbuilding, 75. 

tumulus, 76. 
Lydians identical with Meones, 71. 
Lydus, son of Atys, 70, 74. [58. 
Lyro-phoenix, or lyro-phoenikion. 



Macedonian lists of kings, 24. 
Madai identified with Medes, 172. 
Madai=Indo-Persians, 177. 
Mfealaa, the, 138. 
Mfcones, heros of the, 74. 
Majsi, the, 174. 
Magnesia, 187. 
Magog = Slaves, 177. 

probably Scythians, 171. 
Mahra, 248. 

Mahras, language of, 209. 
Manes, 74. [158. 

Manetho and Herodotus compared, 

compared with other authorities, 

dynasties of, 155. [155. 

scheme of, 159. 

the history of, 23. 
Mantra period, the, 107. 
Mariandynians, the, 174. 
Marmaridas = Berbers, 223. 
Mash = Meshech, 242. 
Medes identified with Madai, 172. 

migration of, 99. 

origin of civilization of, 96. 
Median dynasty, 35. 

list of kings, 24. [50. 

Mediterranean a Phcenician lake, 
Meles, ideal founder of Lydian 
capital, 74. 



Melkarth, temple of, 63. 
Memphis, temple of Phthah at, 13. 
Memphites contemporary with 

Thinites, 24. 
Menephthah, 222. 
Menes, first king of Egypt, 13, 19. 

dates for accession of, 21. 
Menkera, contemporaries of, 28. 
Men, king, 19. 
Meones, heros of the, 74. 

represent Lydians, 71. 
Mermnads, the, 70. 
Meroii, 205. 
Meshech = Mash, 242. 

represents the Moschi, 173. 
Mesopotamia, civilization in, 34. 

Lower, monarchy of, 212. 
Mexican civilization, 5. 

golden age, 11. 
Midas possibly Mita, 69. 

contemporary with Hezekiah, 69. 
M'na, king, 19. 

Mosaic ethnology, obscurity, 180. 
Moschi founders of Moscow, 179. 

represented by Meshech, 173. 
Moses of Chorene, history of, 183. 
Mudad = Almodad, 247. 
Muntopt I., 29. 
Muntopt, II., 29. 
Murex trunculus, 57. 
Murghab, remains at, 100. 
Muscovites descended from Moschi, 
Muskai, the, 173. [179. 

Milton's description of our first 

parents, 9. 
Minsei, 248. 

Minerva, temple of, 104. 
Mita possibly Midas, 69. 
Mizraim = Egyptians, 194. 

and Cush akin, 203. 

subdivisions of, 215. 
Mizraites, 219. 

Nabopolassar, revolt of, 38. 
Nakhsh-i-Rustam, remains at, 100. 
Na-Petu, 218. 

Naphtuhim uncertain, 218. 
Nebuchadnezzar, people of, 235. 
Nehemiah, 230. 



280 



Index. 



Nestorians, remnant of Aramaeans, 

235. 
Nicolas of Damascus, list of kings 

preserved by, 72. 
Nile, course of, changed, 13. 
Nimrod, 210. [3G. 

and Xoah, generations between, 
Nimrod's kingdom, date of, 37. 
Nimrud, vessels found at, 55. 
Nineveh, founding of, 87. 
Ninus of the Greeks, the, 89. 

founder of Nineveh, 87. 

supposed son of, 73. 
Niphaiat, 218. 
Noah and Nimrod, generations 

between, 3t3. 
Norchia, temple-tombs at, 118. 
Nubians, language of, 202. 

Obal unknown, 248. 
Ophir^Saphar or Zaphar, 249. 
Orclioc = Erech, 211. 
Orech = Erech, Irka, Warka, Or- 

choe, 211. 
Origines, frequent fallacy of, 6. 

of Babylon, 41. 
Osiris, 48. 

Osirkef, contemporaries of, 28. 
Ottadini, the, 138. 
Owen, Prof., on antiquity of Egyp- 
tian civilization, 255. 

Pactolus, sands of, 74. 

Palaeolithic period and early Egyp- 
tian civilization contempora- 
neous, 32. 

Paphlagouians, the 174. 

Parthians, 226. 

Pasargadte, remains at, 100. 

Patesi, 89. 

Pathros, 218. 

Pathrusim, 218. 

Patrocles, funeral of, 52. 

Peleg, 245. 

Peloponnese, the trade with, 51. 

Pepi. 222. 

Periplus, 249. 

Perizzites, 197. 

Persepolis, remains at, 100. 



Persian poets. 105. 
Persians, civilization of, 96. 
Peruvian children of the sun, 11. 

civilization, 5. -, 

Peshito Bible, 235. 
Pet = Nubians, 196. 
l'ha;acians, 50. 
Phiedimus, bowl of, 52. 
Piia-llat-her, 218. 
Phathros, 219. 
Phaturite nome, the, 218. 
Philistim = Caphtorim, 219. 

= Philistines, 219. 
Philistine names, 221. 
Philo of Byblos, 48. 
Phoenicia, date of rise of, 161. 
Phoenician architecture, 55. 

arts, 52. 

civilization, 48, 62. 

colour, the, 57. 

commerce, 51. 

dyeing, 56. 

embroidery, 58. 

glass, 56. 

glyptic or plastic art, 55. 

metallurgy, 53, 55. 

music, 56. 

nautical skill, 51. 

remains, 55. 

slave-dealers, 51. 

trade with Peloponnese, 51. 
with Argos, 51. 

writing, 59. 
Phoenix or phoenikeos, 57. 
Phrygia, geography of, 66. 
Phrygian boxing, 68. 

civilization, character of, 68. 
date of, 69, 161. 

courage, 68. 

immigration, 67. 

kingdom, date of, 70. 

music, 68. 

odes and hymns, 69. 

sculptured rock tombs, 68. 

seamanship, 68. 
Phrygians autochthones, 67. 
Phthah, temple of, 13. 
Phut = Nubia, 194. 

language of, 202. 



Index. 



281 



Polypaipaloi, the epithet, 50. 
Populonia, remains at, 114. 
Porta air Arco, the, IIG. 

di Diana, the, 116. 
Prehistoric man, 8. 
Priam and the Phrygians, G7. 

Meones assist, 71. 
Primeval man, 8. 

savage, 1. 
Pnl, reio;n of, 35, 37, 88. 
Put = Phut, 196. 
Pyramid kings, reigns of, 156. 

period, the, 13. 

pictures of the, 14. 

Ka, the god, 213. 

Raamah, 206. 

Rebu = Lehabim, Lubim, Lebu, 

and Libyans, 217. 
Regulini-Galassi vault, the, 117. 
Rhodians = Rodanim or Dodanim, 
Rhodii, 187. [187. 

Rhyta, 125. 
Ri-agu, king, 39. 
Rig-Veda, hymns of the, 106. 
Rim-agu, king, 89. 
Riphath=Diphath, 182. 
Rock-sculpture in Lydia, 75. 
Rodanim or Dodanim = Pihodians, 
Roman civilization, 3. [187. 

Rosetta Stone, the, 198. 
Roumans of Wallachia, origin of, 5. 
Rusellae, remains at, 114. 
Russian civilization, 4. 
Ruten, 234. 

Saba or Seba, 205. 
Sabajans == Seba, 205. 
Sabbatha = Sabtah, 206. 
Sabtechah, 207. 
Sabota = Sabtah, 206. 
Sabtah = Sabbatha, 206. 
Saites and Ethiopians contempo- 
rary, 24. 
Sakkarah, the Table of, 153. 
Salah, 245. 

Salapeni = Sheleph, 247. 
Salatis, 221. 



Siilfic = Sheleph, or Salapeni, 247. 

Saniidac(5, 207. 

Samshu-iluna, king, 39. 

Sauii = Uzal, 248. 

Sanchoniathon, 48. 

Sanskritic Aryans, 7. 

Saph, 221. 

Saphar = Ophir, 249. 

Sapphara, 249. 

Sarcostema viminalis, 99. 

Sarmatians allied to Scyths, 177. 

Sauromatue allied to Scyths, 177. 

Scamander, civilization on banks 

of, 82. 
Scandia, 182, 
Scandinavia, 182. 
Schliemann, Dr. discoveries of, 13, 

82. 
Scythians probably Magog, 171. 
Scyths allied to Sauromatae, or 

Sarmatians, 177. 
Seba or Saba = Saba3ans, 205. 
Sebennytus, priest of, 23. 
Semites, 207. 
Semitic period in Babylon, 39. 

races, the, 228. 

geography of, 252. 

subdivisions of, 240. 
Sennacherib, 232. 
Sennacherib's colonization of Ci- 

licia, 185. 
recovery of Babylon, 38. 
Serapeum, the, 152. 
Shafre, contemporai'ies of, 28. 
Shamanism, 127. 
Shayretana, 222. 
Sheba = Sabjeans, 206, 249. 
Sheleph = Salapeni, Es-Sulaf or 

Beni-es-Silfan, 247. 
Shem, children of, 228. 
Shepherd conquest of Egypt, 30. 

dynasties, 27. 
Shinar, 211. 

Sliufu, contemporaries of, 28. 
Shuluh words, 223. 
Shuluhs, 223. 

Shure, contemporaries of, 28. 
Shushan, the palace, 230. 
Sicyonian list of kings, 24. 



282 



Index. 



Sidon, 200, 225. 

dale of foundation of, 51, 63. 
Simois, the, 83. 
Simyr.i, 2()(J. 
Sipylus, 187. 
Slaves = Magog, 177^ 
Soris, contemporaries of, 28. 
Stonehenge, 139. 
Strabo's account of Britons, 135. 
Succotli, 53. 
Suphis, 222. 
Susa, 103, 230. 
Susianian and Babylonian words, 

213. 
Susis, 231. 

Sutra period, the, 107. 
Syria ^ Aram, 234. 
Syriac Bible, 235. 

language, 237. 

Taautus, 48. 

Table of Sakkarah, the, 153. 
Tables of Abydos, the, 153. 
Tacitus" account of the Britons, 136. 
Tarquins, tomb of the, 119. 
Tarshish ^ Tarsus in Cilicia, 184. 
Telemachus, gifts to, 52. 
Temple-tombs, 118. 
Tent, invention of, 10. 
Teutons = Tiras, 177. 
Tezeuco, golden age of, 11. 
Thinites contemporary with Mem- 
Thorgau, 183. [phites, 24. 

Thoth, 222. 

claimed to be Phoenician, 48. 
Thracian words, 178. 
Thracians probably Tiras, 174. 
Thynians, the, 174. 
Tidareni, represented by Tubal, 173. 
Tiglatli^'ileser, 37. 
Tiglathi-Nin, conqueror of Meso- 
potamia, 97. 
Tigris = Hiddekel, 232. 
Tiras = Teutons or Germans, 177. 

probably Thracians, 174. 
Tirkhak, 213. 

Titicaca, Lake, community on, 11. 
Tmolus, Mount, Meones from, 71. 

mines of, 74. 



Togarmah = Armenians, 182. 

Tokkaru, 222. 

Tomb of Alyattes, 70. 

of Zala, the, 82. ^ 

of the Caecina;, 119. 

of the Tarquins, 119. 
Tosorthmus, king, 13. 
Triads, the, 133. 
Troad, barrows of, 76. 
Trojan masonry, 83. ' 

metallurgy, 83. 

ornaments, 83. 

pottery, 83. 

War, date of, 51, 87. 

whorls, 84. 
Troktai, the epithet, 50. 
Troy, capture of, date of, 63, 149. 

civilization at, 83. 

inscriptions found at, 82. 
Tuarik words, 223. 
Tuariks and Berbers = Lehabim, 

217. 
Tubal represents the Tibareni, 173. 
Tuplai, the 173. 
Turanian monarchy, 34. 

period in Babylon, 40. 
Turin papyrus, the, 152. 
Turkish civilization, 4. 
Tyre, date of foundation of, 63. 
Tyrian purple, 57. 
Tyrrhenians, the, 112. 

Ulai, river, 230. 
Ur, kingdom of, 30. 
Urukh, cylinders of, 15, 46. 
Useskef, contemporaries of, 28. 
Uz or Huz = Khazu, 241. 
Uzal=Sana, Auzara, Ausara, 248. 

Vedas, the, date of, 106. 

Yedic composition, four periods of, 

107. 
Yolaterrae, remains at, 114, 169. 
Yulci, bridge at, 117. 

Wallachia, Roumans of, origin of, 5. 
Warka = Erech or Orech, 211. 
Weddas, the, 7. 
Welsh, 170. 



Index. 



283 



Writing, spread of, 62. 

Xanthus, Lydian historian, 71. 

valley of the, 79. 
Xerxes, 2o0. 

great hall of, 102. 

Yacut, 247. 

Yavnan or Greeks of Cyprus, 173. 

Yemen, 247. 

Yerilkh = Jerah, 248. 



Yima, Khshaeta, 11. 



Zala, the tomb of, 82. 
Zaphor = Ophir, 249. 
Zarthan, 53. 
Zemara, 200. 
Zendavesta, date of, 98. 
Zerghul, a seat of Empire, 40. 
Zimira, 200. 
Zoroaster, 97' 



NEW, REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION OP 

PR. schliemann's great work. 



DISCOVERIES AND RESEARCHES 

ON THE SITES OF 
ANCIENT MYCEN/E AND TIRYNS. 

By DR. HENRY SCHLIEMANN, Author of " Troy and its Remains." 

With Preface by the Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 

With Maps, Colored Plates^ Views and Cuts, representing several Hundredt 
Objects 0/ Antiquity discovered on the Sites. 

[in all, five hundred illustrations.] 



CRITICAIi NOTICES. 



■ "In this magnificent vohime we h.ive 
Anally the story of Dr. Schliemann's last 
and most important discoveries. He has 
been the most fortunate of archaeoloKical 
explorers ; for even a greater luck than 
rewarded him in the Troad has fallen to 
his portion in Argolis. * * * We sus- 
pect that the final verdict of scholars will 
be that Dr. Schliemann has actually dis- 
covered the remains of the man, some part 
of whose history, at least, is preserved in 
th'> Agamemnon of Homer and yEscliylus." 
— The y. r. Tribune. 

" Dr. Schliemann's book is worth all the 
prolegomens and commentaries upon Ho- 
mer that have been written since the re- 
\ival of learnmg." — The Boston Globe. 

"The interest of the work is not confined 
to either England or America. Every en- 
lightened nation will welcome it, for it opens 
up a new world to the modern generation. 
No work of the time has attracted wider 
attention." — Boston Post. 



" This splendid volume is a museum ol 
itself which every lover of history and 
classical literature will feel that he must 
possess, and which any intelligent reader 
IS competent to understand and enjoy by 
means of its abundant and truly splendid 
illustrations." — Buffalo Commercial Ad- 
vertiser. 

" Dr. Schliemann has made the most 
important contribution of the present cen- 
tury io Greek archaeology." — The Nation, 

"We commend the volume, with its ad- 
mirable typography and multitudinous il- 
lustrations, to the attention of our readers, 
assuring them that they will find it posses- 
sed of a rare and enduring interest,"— 
Boston Journal. 

" We add our testimony in saying that a 
copy of Mycenae is necessary to the library 
ot every scholar, and — which is no meaa 
praise — that the printing and illustrations 
of this work are worthy of the matter."— 
Baliifnore Gazette. 



One vol, quarto, superbly printed on superfine paper, cloth extra, $7.50. 

•0* The above books for sale by all booksellers, or tvill be sent, post or exprtM 
$k»rgtspaid, upon receipt of the price by the publishers, 

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 

743 AND 745 Broadway, New Yobe. 



^ou> in process of publication, uniform luith Epochs op Modbsn Histor>, *mclk 
volume in \2mo size, and complete in itself. 

%orl$8 of Hnripnl^ l^isiopg. 

A scries of Books narrating the HISTORY OF GREECE AND ROME, and of their 

relations toother Countries at Successive Epochs. Edited by the Rev. G. W. 

COX, M . A., Author of the " Aryan Mythology," " A History of 

Greece,'- etc., and jointly by CHARLES SANKEY, 

M. A., late Scholar of Queen's College, Oxford. 



Volames already issued in the " Epochs of Ancient History." Each one voltuna 
12III0, cloth, $1.00. 



The GREEKS and the PERSIANS. By the Rev. G. W. Cox, M. A., late Scholar of 
Trinity College, Oxford : Joint Editor ot the Series. With four colored Maps. 

The EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE. From the Assassination of Julius Caesar to the 
Assassination of Domitian. By the Rev. W. Wolfe Capes, M. A., Reader of An- 
cient History in the University of Oxford. With two colored maps. 

The ATHENIAN EMPIRE from the FLIGHT of XERXES to the FALL of 
ATHENS. By the Rev. G. W. Cox, M. A., late Scholar of Trinity College, Oxford : 
Joint Editor of the Series. With five Maps. 

The ROMAN TRIUMVIRATES. By the Very Rev. Charles Merivale, D. D., 
Dean of Ely. 

EARLY ROME, to its Capture by the Gauls. By Wilhelm Ihne, Author of " History 
of Rome."' With Map. 

THE AGE OF THE ANTONINES. By the Rev. W. Wolfe Capes, M. A., Reader 

of Ancient History in the University at Oxford. 

The GRACCHI, MARItTS, and SULLA. By A. H. Beesly. With Maps. 

THE RISE OF THE MACEDONIAN EMPIRE. By A. M. Curteis, M. A. i 

vol., i6mo, with maps and plans. 

TROY — Its Legend, History, and Literature, with a sketch of the Topography of the 
Troad. By S. G. W. Benjamin, i vol. i6mo. With a map. 

ROME AND CARTHAGE. By R. Bosworth Smith, M.A. 

The above 10 volumes in Roxburg Style. Sold only in sets. Price, per set, $10.00. 



*** The above books for sale by all booksellers, or luill be sent, post or express char^et 
paid, upon receipt of the price by the Publishers, 

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 

743 AND 745 Broadway, New Yojuc 



" These volumes contain the ripe results of the studies of men who 
are authorities in their respective fields." — The Nation. 



^jporl^s of iKQo&Frn j^isj^opg* 

Each 1 vol. 16mo., with Outline Maps, Price per volume, in cloth, $1.00. 
Each Volume complete in itself and sold sepakatelv. 



Edited by EDWARD E. MORRIS, M.A. 



The ERA ot the PROTESTANT REVOLUTION, By F. Seebohm. Aiitlior of 
" The Oxford Reformers— Colet, Erasmus, More." 

The CRUSADES. By the Rev. G.W.Cox, M.A., Author of the " History of Greece." 

The THIRTY YEARS' WAR, 1618—1643. By Samuel Rawson Gardiner. 

The HOUSES of LANCASTER and YORK; with the CONQUEST and LOSS 
of FRANCE. By James Gairdnek, of the Pubhc Record Office. 

The FRENCH REVOLUTION and FIRST EMPIRE ; an Historical Sketch. 
By \Vm. U Connok Morris, with an Appendix by Hon. Andkkw D, White, 

The AGE OF ELIZABETH. By the Rev. M. Creighton, M.A. 

The PURITAN REVOLUTION. By J. Langton Sanpord. 

The FALL of the STUARTS; and WESTERN EUROPE from 1678 to 1697. 
By ihe Rev. Edward Hale, M.A., Assist. Master at Eton. 

The EARLY PLANTAGENETS and their relation to the HISTORY of EUROPE ; 
thefoundatiouand growth of CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. By the Rev. 
Wivi. SrUBBS, M.A., etc., Protessor of Modern .History in the University of Oxford. 

The BEGINNING of the MIDDLE AGES; CHARLES the GREAT and 
ALFRhlD; the HISTORY of ENGLAND in its connection with that ot EUROPE 
in the NINiH CENTURY. By tht Very Rev. R. VV. Church, M.A. 

The AGE of ANNE. By Edward E. Morris, M.A., Editor of the Series. 

The NORMANS IN EUROPE. By the Rev. A. H. Johnson,M.A. 

EDWARD III. By the Rev. W. Warburton, M.A, 

FREDERICK the GREAT and the SEVEN YEARS' WAR, By F. W. Longman, 

of Ballic College, Oxford. 

The EPOCH Of REFORM, 1830101850. By Justin McCarthy. 

The above 15 volumes in Roxburg Style, Leather Labels and Gilt Top. Put 
up in a handsome Box. Sold only in Sets. Price, per set, $15.00, 



*^* The above books /or sale by all booksellers, or luill be sent, J>ost or express 
t/iarges paid, upon receijit of the price by the publishers, 

CHART,ES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 

743 AND 745 Bro.'\oway, New YoiiK. 



THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS 

By Professor GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A. 



One Volume^ 12nto. With tnaps, . . . $U)0, 

The first part of this book, Early Civilizations, discusses the antiquity 
of civilization in Egypt and the other early nations of the East. The 
second part. Ethnic Affinities in the Ancient World, is an examination of 
the ethnology of Genesis, showing its accordance with the latest results of 
modern ethnographical science. 



"An attractive volume, which is well worthy of the careful consideration of every 
reader." — Observer. 

" A work of genuine scholarly excellence, and a useful offset to a great deal of the 
Suptrficial current literature on such subjei-ts." — CovgregationalUt. 

" Dr. Rawlinson brings to this discussion lon^ and patient research, a vast knowledge 
and intimate acquaintance with what has been written on both sides of the question." — 

Brooklyn Union-Argus. 



THE DAWN OF HISTORY. 

AN INTRODUCTION TO PRE-HISTORIC STUDY. 
Edited by C. F. KEARY, M. A., 

OF THR BRITISH MUSEUM. 



One Volume, 12mo., - - - $1.2 5. 

This work treats successively of the earliest traces of man in the 
remains discovered in caves or elsewhere in different parts of Europe ; of 
language, its growth, and the story it tells of the pre-historic users of it; 
of the races of mankind, early social life, the religions, mythologies, and 
folk-tales of mankind, and of the history of writing. A list of authorities 
is appended, and an index has been prepared specially for this edition. 



"The book may be heartily recommended as probably the most satisfactory summary 
of the subject that there is.'" — Nation. 

" A fascinating manual, without a vestige of the dullness usually chareed against 
scientific works. ... In its way, the work is a model of what a popular scientific 
work should be ; it is readable, it is easily understood, and its sr\-le is simple, yet dig- 
nified, avoiding equally the affectation of the nursery and of the laboratory." — 

Boston Sat. Eve. Gazette. 

*»* For sale by all booksellers., or sent, post-paid, upon receipt of 
price., by 

CHARLES SCRIBXER'S SONS, Publishers, 

743 AND 745 Broadway, New York. 






CO 

'JTi 



hi) 
Q 



d 

r-l 



o 



(X. 

o 



UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 
LIBRARY 



Do not 



re move 
the card 
from this 
Pocket. 




Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. " Ref . Index File." 
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU 



.^^v^^^V^ 



fvA 



^H^ 



>1^-