I r. Preliminary Considerations in examininfj the List of Gen. X. — 1. The enumeration comprises only nations existing in the age of Moses, and probably of them onlv the most conspicuous, as more or less connected with the history of the Israelites. Many nations have been formed in subsequent times, and, indeed, are still forming, bv separation and l)y coml)ination ; these can be considered only as included on the ground of long III.-Y
subsequent derivation. Such are the populations of Eastern Asia, Medial and South Africa, America, and Australasia.
2. It cannot be affirmed with certainty that M-e are here presented with a comjdete Tahle of Nations, even as existing in the time of Moses. Of each of the sons of Noah it gives the sons ; but of their sons (Noah's great-grandsons) it is manifest that all are not men- tioned, and we have no possible means of ascertaining how many are omitted. Thus, of the sons of Japheth, the line is pursued onlj- of Gomer and Javan ; Magog, Madai, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras are dropped without any mention of their issue ; yet we have evidence that nations of great importance in the historj' of mankind have descended from them. Ham had four sons : of three of them the sons, or rather clannish or national descendants, are specified ; but to Phut, the fourth, no posterity is assigned. Shem had five sons, but tlie de- scendants of onh' two of them are recorded. It can- not be supposed that those whose sequence is thus cut off died without children ; for, as we shall presently see, nations of great historical interest maj' be traced up to them.
3. Mere similaritj-, or even identity of name, is not a sure guide. So remarkable a name as Hazar- maveth can scarcely be mistaken when we find it in Hadramaut. Such a name would not be repeated, and the Hadramaut which we discover in Arabia cannot be doubted to indicate the settlement of Joktan's son Ha- zarmaveth ; but this is an exceptional case. When the similarity of Dodanim to Dodona is considered to be a sufficient proof of identity, all criticism is set at defiance. For the investigation before us we have an aid, invaluable both for its ample comprehension and its divine authorit}', in the account of the traffic of Tyre (Ezek. xxvii).
4. The list is, in one aspect, a kind of geographical table: manj' names in its descents are found in later places of Scripture as geographical terms designating nations, or at least important tribes. Therefore —
(1.) We must not look for a name in tliat of a town. There is an exception, probably not the only one, in the case of Sidon, the city of the Sidonians, who were doubtless a Canaanidsh tribe, but to trace names in general in those of towns is verj^ hazardous.
(2.) The tracing of a nation or tribe to a name in the list is of little value, imless neighboring or kindred nations, or nations otherwise markedly connected with it, can also be traced to the same part of the list.
5. Preference must always lie given to the oldest documents in seeking for identifications. Next to the O. T., the Egyptian, Assj'rian, and Babylonian monu- ments must be cited. In each set of documents, the notices nearest in point of time are alwaj'S likely to be the best commentators ; for it must be remembered that migrations and dejiortations are less likely to af- fect evidence the earlier it is.
6. Although the list is geographical, its form is genealogical ; and it does sometimes, and maj' fre- quently, state or convey the name of the founder of a nation or tribe — thus, all those terminating in the plural im, and those specified by the Gentilitian ad- jective, the Jebusite, the Hivite, etc. Yet
(1.) We must not attempt to identify a founder's name in the traditions of nations, except when it is distinctly mentioned there as such.
(2.) As before, we must not be satisfied unless the identification is supported by the geographical position of the founder's nation, or its ethnological character, or else by some marked characteristics connecting it with other names identified in the same part of the list.
III. The Immediate Sons of Noah. — Shem is always mentioned first of the three sons of Noah when their names occur together, the order being Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Gen. x, 21 he is called "the elder brother of Japheth," which the A. V. incorrectly trans-
ETHNOLOGY
338
ETHNOLOGY
lates "the brother of Japheth the elder," where a comma after "Japheth" gives the correct sense. In the list of that cliapter, iiotwithstaiuling: the occur- rence of the usual order in vcr. 1, the sons of Japheth are first mentioned, then those of Ham, and lastly those of Shem, the order being inverted. It has been supposed that Shem was put at the close of the list in order that the insertion of the other descendants of Noah might not form a digression in the history of the Shemites and their Hebrew branch. The Ja- phethites may have been put at the head of the list as the most wideh' spread, and so the most distant; and, for a lilie reason, the Hamites may have pre- ceded the Shemites, the order being that of the extent of colonization. Or, again, the order may be geo- graphical, from west to east, in accordance with the western, central, and eastern positions of the three great stocks. We shall see that the details favor the last view.