2. Race. — All the names identified with a high de- gree of probabilit}' are, with six exceptions, of Cauca- sian nations. The exceptions are : three certainly of the Lower Nilotic race, which is intermediate between the Caucasian and Nigritian races, showing strong traits of both, a fourth probably of the same race, and two others which require more particular investiga- tion. Cush, in ancient Egyptian, applies to Nigri- tians, for the race of Kisii is represented on the Egyp- tian monuments as of the most marked Niirritian type : the kings and other royal personages of Meroe, and the Ethiopians of rank under them, are, however, rep- resented on their monuments as similar to the Lower Nilotic race. This suggests that Cush may indicate a country mainly peopled by Nigritians, yet with a gov- erning mixed race. The remaining exception is the case of the Hittites, who are represented on the Egyp- tian monuments as of two types — the one Caucasian, (he other apparently Tatar. This may show that two different races were ruled by those Hittite kings with wliom the Pharaohs warred, as Og, the king of Bashan, was a KephaitR', not an Amorite.
■'!. Langniuje. — The languages are all Iranian or Shemitic, witii three exceptions. Egyptian, occur- ring twice in our table, has a monosyllabic barbaric
ETHNOLOGY
343
ETTWEIN
Tocabulaiy, with an amalgamate Shemitic grammar. Here, therefore, as in race, there is a departure from the unmixed type. To Cush we have conjecturally assigned a barbaric Nigritian language, because the names of Ethiopian tribes conquered by the Egyp- tians, and of Ethiopian sovereigns of later times, are not readil}' traceable to either an Egyptian or a She- mitic source ; but we cannot say certainly that a She- mitic clement is wliolly wanting in the languages to which these words belong.
The order indicates that the intention of the list is partly geographical. In the detail of each division the settlements of races are probably indicated rather in the order of position than of ancestral relationship, thougli the principle of relationship is never departed from, as far as we can see.
4. Date. — The list of Gen. x contains certain state- vnents -which maj now be examined, in order to infer the date to which the document refers. It is said, "Afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad" (x, 18) ; which may indicate the formation of the great Ilittite settlement in the valley of the Oron- tes, or other liive extensions. In any case it points to an event, or series of events almost certainly prior to the establishment of the Israelites in Palestine. So, too, the definition of the otherwise unknown Eesen, as " the great city" (Gen. x, 12), indicates a period ante- rior to that of the kings who ruled at Asshur (Kal'ah Sherghat) and Calah (Nimrud), the earliest of whom is placed about B.C. 1270. At the time of the Egyp- j tian empire the capital appears to have been Nineveh, and tlie date of the list would therefore be anterior to that time, or at least to the rei.in of Thothmes III, to whom it was tributar}' about 1450 B.C. It would appear, therefore, that the list was either written or put into its present form not long after, or at the time of Moses, if not earlier, and that it refers to a yet ear- lier period — that of the first spread of the Noachians.
VIII. Omissions. — The nations omitted in the list must now be noticed, as far as they seem to be of a like hii:h anticjuity. In Deut. ii there is mention of ssveral tribes or nations which had been destroyed bj' other tribes or nations who reached Palestine or its neighborhood before the Israelitish occupation. Cer- tain of these are called Eephaim, others not. The par- ticulars are as follows, as far as they relate to our pres- ent suliject :
1. £mim, Rejihaim, succeeded h\ Moabites (Deut. ii, 9-11).
2. IForim, succeeded by Edomites (ver. 12, 22).
3. Zamzummim, elsewhere called Zitzim (Gen. xiv, 5), Rcphaim, succeeded by Ammonites (Deut. ii, 19-21).
4. A vim, succeeded by Caphtorim, that is, Philis- tines (ver. 23).
5. Anakini, here mentioned as Rephaim (ver. 10, 21), still occupying the south of Palestine at the time when the Israelites entered it.
The Avim were probably also a Rephaite nation, for as late as David's time giants were found among the Philistines. Elsewhere in Palestine the Israelites seem to have found, besides "the three sons of Anak," or the Anakim of Hebron, Og, the king of Bashan, who "remained of the remnant of Rcphaim" (ii, 11), a man of giLjantic stature. The position of these Re- phaim is that of a few powerful chiefs among the Ca- naanites and Philistines, representing tribes destroyed by Hebrews, the only exceptional case being that of the Philistines, if, as we supjwse, the Avim were Rc- pliaini, for in that case the former must have first at- tacked, but ultimately changing their policy, abstain- ed from annihilating the f)lder population.
At an earlier time we find a very different condition of the countr3\ The powerful confederacy of which Chedorlaomer was chief, attacked and conquered, be- sides the kings of the cities of the plain, the Repha- im, Zu/.im, Eniim, Horim, Amalokites, and Amorites. Here the Canaanites occupy a very inferior position