these precious stones could not be found in any conceiv- able locality to support even the most far-fetched and improbable conjecture. That Havilah is tliat part of India through which the Ganges flows, and, more gen- erally, the eastern region of the earth ; that it is t'.> be. found in Susiana (Hopkinson), in Ava (Buttmann), oi' in the Ural region (Raumer), are conclusions necessarily following upon the assumptions with regard to the Pi- son. Hartmann, Reland, and RuscnmiiUer are in favor of Colchis, the scene of the legend of the Golden Fleece. The Phasis was said to flow over golden sands, and gold was carried down by the mountain-torrents (Strabo, xi, 2, § 19). The crystal (bedolach) of Scythia was re- nowned (Solinus, c. xx), and the emeralds (shoham) of this comitry were as far superior to other emeralds as the latter were to other precious stones (Pliny, Jlist. A'a^xxxvii, 17), all which seems to prove that Havilah was Colchis. Rosenmliller argues, with much force, if the Phasis be the Pison, the land of Havilah must be Colchis, supposing that by this country the Hebrews had the idea of a Pontic or Northern India. In like manner Leclerc, having previously determined that the Pison must be the Chrysorrhoas, finds Havilah not far from Coele-Syria. Hasse (Entdeck. p. 49, 50, quoted by Rosenmliller) compares Havilah with the 'YXaia of Herodotus (iv, 9), in the neighborhood of the Arimas- pians, and the dragon which guarded the land of gold. Discussions about the site of Havilah will be found in all the cliief Biblical commentators ancient and mod- ern, as well as in Hottinger (Emieas Dissert.), Huet (De Lit. Farad.), Bochart (Fhakff, ii, 28), Michaelis (Spicileffium, p. 202 ; Supplem. p. 685), Schultess (Far- adies, p. 105), Niebuhr and many other writers. The clearest and best account of any may be derived from Kalisch (Genesis, p. 93, 249, 287, etc.), who also gives a long list of those who have examined the subject (p. 109-102). — Smith, s. v. ; Kitto, s. v. The Paradisaic Havilah cannot well be identified with either of those mentioned below, since they were evidently in or near Arabia; and the associated regions in the Edenic ac- count are all in the neighborhood of Armenia or Ara- rat, near the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates. The most consistent conclusion, therefore, is that which lo- cates the Havilah in question at the north-eastern cor- ner of Asia Minor, i. e. substantially Colchis. See Pison. 2. A cUstrict in Arabia Felix, deriving its name from the second son of Cush (Gen. x, 7) ; or, according to others, from the second son of Joktan (Gen. x, 29 ; com- pare XXV, 18). Since in the other places where the word occiu-s it is always nsed to designate a countrj-, some doubt whether persons of this name ever existed ; the more so as other names of countries (Ophir, Miz- raim, Canaan, Sidon), and the collective names of tribes (Kittim, Dodanim), are freely introduced into the gen- ealogy, which is undoubtedly arranged with piartial reference to geographical distribution, as well as direct descent [see Siieba; Dedan, etc.] (see Kalisch, Gene- sis, p. 287). On this supi^osition it is not diflicult to account for the fact that the people of Havilah appear as descendants both of the Hamites and of the Shemites. If they were originally of Shemitic extraction (and on this point we have no data which could enable us to decide), we must suppose that by peacefid emigration or hostile invasion they overflowed into the territory occupied by Hamites, or adopted the name and lialjits of their neighbors in consequence of commerce or inter- marriage, and are therefore mentioned twice over by reason of their local position in two distinct regions. It would depend on circumstances whether an invading or encroaching tribe gave its name to or derived its name from the tribe it dis])ossessed, so that whether Havilah was originally Cushite or Joktanite must be a matter of mereconje'ctiure; but by admitting some such princi- ple as the one mentioned we remove from the book of Genesis a number of apparent peri^lexities (Kalisch, Gen. p. 454). See Uk. To regard the repetition of the name as due to carelessness or error is a method of ex-
HAYOTH-JAIR
100
HAWES
planation Avhich does not deserve the name of criticism. See Ham. ^
Assuming, then, that the districts indicated in Gen. X, 7. 29, were conterminous, if not in reality identical, we have to fix on their geograiihical position. Various derivations of the word have been suggested, but the most probable one, from V:n, saml {Bochart, Phalerj, ii, 20). is too vague to give us any assistance. Looking for preciser indications, we find in Gen. xxv, 18 that the descendants of Ishmael "dwelt./}-om Ilavilah unto Shur that is before Eg\-pt as thou goest towards AssjTia;" and in 1 Sam. xv, 7 we read that Saul " smote the Amal- ckites frnm Havilah tin/il thou earnest to Shur that is over against Eg\-pt." "Without entering into the ques- tion wliy the Amalekites are represented as possessing the countrj^ which formerly belonged to the Ishmael- itcs, it is clear that these A-erses fix the general position of Ilavilah as a country lying somewhere to the south- ward and eastward of Palestme. Further than this, the Ciishite Ha'S'ilah in Gen. x, 7 is mentioned in con- nertiiin with Seba, Sabtah, and Raamah; and the Jok- tanite Havilah (Gen. x, 29) in connection with Ophir, Jobab, etc. Now, as all these places lay on or between the Arabian and Persian gulfs, we may infer, with tol- erable certainty, that Havilah " in both instances des- ignates the same country, extending at least from the Persian to the Arabian Gulf, and on account of its vast extent easily di\-ided into two distinct parts" (Kalisch, Gen. p. 93). See Shur.