i, CLASSIFICATION OF THE SEMITES.—The surest token of racial affinity is ordinarily the possession of a common language or of closely related idioms. It is not an infallible test ; for it may happen that through inherent weakness or stress of fortune a tribe or a nation may be absorbed by another, and lose its own form of speech. On the other hand, it very rarely happens that a race predominant in numbers or political influence loses its language and adopts that of an inferior or degenerating race. Hence, while even the exclusive use, by a large community, of a given language or dialect does not necessarily indicate that the race is unmixed, it may be reasonably held that the predominating racial element in that community originally spoke the current language. Again, as regards the de- erees of relationship between kindred peoples, it should be remembered that the most valid kind of linguistic evidence is that afforded by the com- mon possession of grammatical or structural ele- ments, and of terms for the most fundamental ideas and the most indispensable or rudimentary arts and appliances of life. These simple and elementary working principles are far-reaching in their appli- cation, and will need to be taken into account in all that is said, either as to the original Semitic race and its language, or as to any of the deriva- tive races and their languages or dialects.
On the evidence of language and of historical
* Some such people seems necessary here, since Arpachshad is indicated as the ancestor of Arameans and Arabs alike, and the region in question is their natural dividing-point. Moreover, it was peopled also by Semites from the earliest known period. Confirmation of this view is afforded by the fact that, according to v.25, Peleg, ‘in whose days the earth was divided,’ was a descendant of Arpachshad, while the reference to the dividing of the earth points to Babylonia as the place of his residence, according to 1129, which is also the production of J.
distribution combined, these peoples are made to fall into two great divisions, the Northern and the Southern Semites. Roughly speaking, the Southern branch of the family had its permanent and proper home in the peninsula of Arabia ; while the Northern division was included in the region bounded on the N. by the modern Kurdistan, on the W. by the Mediterranean, and on the E. by modern Persia. We have, however, except from linguistic induction, no indication of a time when either the Northern or the Southern division formed by itself a homogeneous whole, much less of the presumptive earlier stage when all Semites together were comprised in a ee community. On the contrary, our earliest archeological evidence reveals to us these regions as occupied by several families or groups more or less nearly related. Thus, while Arabia has long been known as the home of a single people, though of many tribes, speaking a common language, the earlier record is of peoples speaking and writing distinct though closely related languages. Similarly, the Northern division, as far back as we can see through the mists of antiquity, is found to be made up of dis- tinct families. A tentative comprehensive group- ing may be made as follows :— ( Northern Arabians. SouTHERN SrmiTES ~ Sabzeans. ‘((Abyssinians). Babylonians and Assyrians.
Aranizans. NORTHERN SEMITES { Oanaanieel
(Hebrews).
The above classification would describe the distri- bution of the Semites as a race during that period of ancient history when they were the ruling power of the world, roughly speaking from B.C. 2000 to B.c. 500. It should be added that the hypothesis of a Southern branch is surer than that of a distinct Northern group, and that some scholars (as Hommel and Zimmern) prefer to assume an East-Semitic division—Assyro-Babylonian, and a West-Semitic —Aramean, Canaanite, Arabo-Abyssinian. It is, indeed, so difficult to unify the Assyrian, the Aramaic, and the Canaanitic languages, that if we were to use linguistic data alone, it would, for working purposes, be allowable to assume these four separate units : Assyro-Babylonian, Aramzan, Canaanite, and Arabo-Abyssinian.
(A) SourTHERN SEMITES.—(a) Northern Arabi- ans.—The term ‘ Arab,’ which at present connotes the only survivors on any large scale of the Semitic races, was originally of very restricted significance. Ancient usage confines it to a comparatively small district in the north of the peninsula E. of Palestine, extending sometimes over the centre of the Syro-Arabian desert. In this sense the word is used in the Assyr. inscriptions, in OT (e.g. 2 Ch 1711 9116 991 967, Is 13% 214, Jer 3? 25% Neh 2%, Ezk 277), as well as in the lately discovered Mineean inscriptions. It was not tillshortly before the Christian era that it was enlarged so far as to include the whole of the peninsula.* Besides the ‘Arabs,’ there were several other important ancient communities in N. Arabia. Most of these are embraced under the names of the descendants of Keturah (‘ the incense-bearer’), and of Ishmael, in Gn 25 and 1 Ch 1°, We may cite as of his- torical fame Midian, the northern Sheba (ef. Job 14), Dedan, Asshur (Gn 25% 18), Nebaioth, Kedar, Dumah, Massa (cf. Pr 30! 311), Tema, and Jetur. The general distinction between Keturah and Ishmael is that the latter stretched farther to the
* This extension came about largely through the fact that the original ‘Arabs’ were the most important tribe living in the neighbourhood of the Greek and Roman possessions in Syria and Mesopotamia. The classical writers use the name not only in the narrower but also in the wider sense, e.g. Herod. iii. 107.