c. The Mosaic table is supplemented by ethnological notices relating to the various divisions of the Terachite family. These belonged to the Shemitic division, being descended from Arphaxad through Peleg, with whom the line terminates in the table. Keu, Serug, and Na- hor form the intermediate links between Peleg and Terah (Gen. xi, 18-25), with whom began the move- ment that terminated in the occupation of Canaan and the adjacent districts by certain branches of the family. The original seat of Terah was Ur of the Chaldees (ver. 28); thence he migrated to Haran (ver. 31), where a section of his descendants, the representatives of Na-
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 473 TONGUES, CONFUSION OP
hor, remained (xxiv, 10 ; xxvii, 53 ; xxix, 4 sq.), while the two branches, re[iresented by Abraham anil Lot, the son of Ilaraii, crossed the Euphrates and settled in Canaan and the adjacent districts (xii, 5). From Lot sprang the Moabites and Ammonites (xix, 30-38); from Abraham the Ishmaelites through his son Ishmael (xxv, 12), the Israelites through Isaac and Jacob, the Edomites through Isaac and Esau (ch. xxxvi), and cer- tain Arab tribes, of whom the Midianites are the most conspicuous, through the sous of his concubine Keturah (xxv, 1-4).
The most important geographical question in con- nection with the Terachites concerns their original set- tlement. The presence of the Chaldees in Babylonia at a subsequent period of scriptural history has led to a supposition that they were a Hamitic people, originally belonging to Babylonia, and thence transplanted in the 7th and 8th centuries to Northern Assyria (Rawlinson, Herod, i, 319). Others think it more consistent with the general direction of the Terachite movement to look for Ur in Northern Mesopotamia, to the east of Haran. That the Chaldees, or, according to the He- brew nomenclature, the Kasdim, were found in that neighborhood is indicated by the name Chesed as one of tlie sons of Nahor (Gen. xxii, 22), and possibly by the name Arphaxad itself, which, according to Ewald (Gesch. i, 378), means " fortress of the Chaldees." In classical times we find the Kasdim still occupying the moun- tains adjacent to Arrapachitis, the Biblical Arpachsad, under the names Chaldtei (Xenoph. A nab. iv, 3, 1-4) and Gordtjoii or Carduchi (Strabo, xvi, 747), and here the name still has a vital existence under tlie form of Kurd. The name Kasdim is explained by Oppert as meaning " two rivers," and thus as equivalent to the Hebrew Naharaim and the classical iMesopofamia [Zeit. d. morg, Ges. xi, 137). We receive this explanation with reserve ; but, so far as it goes, it favors the northern lo- cality. The evidence for the antiquity of the southern settlement is lessened if the term Kaldai does not oc- cur in the Assyrian inscriptions until the 9th century B.C. (Rawlinson, i, 449). But whether we conceive the original seat of the Chaldees to have been in the north or in the south, they moved along the course of the Tigris until they reached Babylon, where we find them dominant in the 7th century B.C. Whether they first entered this country as mercenaries, and then conquered their employers, as suggested by Renan {Hist. Gen. i, 68), must remain uncertain ; but we think the sugges- tion supported by the circumstance that the name was afterwards transferred to the whole Babylonian popula- tion. The sacerdotal character of the Chaldees is cer- tainly difficult to reconcile with this or any other hy- pothesis on the subject.
Returning to the Terachites, we find it impossible to define the geographical limits of their settlements with precision. They intermingled with the previously ex- isting inhabitants of the countries intervening between the Red Sea and the Euphrates, and hence we find an Aram, an Uz, and a Chesed among the descendants of Nahor (Gen. xxii, 21, 22), a Dedan and a Sheba among those of Abraham by Keturah (xxv, 3), and an Ama- lek among the descendants of Esau (xxxvi, 12). Few of the numerous tribes which sprang from this stock attained historical celebrity. The Israelites must of course be excepted from this description ; so, also, the Nabathieans, if they are to be regarded as represent- ed by the Nebaioth of the Bible, as to which there is some doubt (Quatremere, Melanges, p. 59). Of the rest, the IMoabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and Edom- ites are chiefly known for their hostilities with the Is- raelites, to whom they were close neighbors. The mem- ory of the westerly migration of the Israelites was per- petuated in the name Hebrew, as referring to their res- idence beyond the river Euphrates (Josh, xxiv, 3).
d. Besides the nations whose origin is accounted for in the Bible, we find other early populations mentioned in the course of the history without anv notice of their
ethnology. In this category' we may place the Horim, who occupied Edom before the descendants of Esau (Deut. ii, 12, 22); the Amalekites of the Sinaitic pen- insula; the Zuzim and Zamzummim of Peraja (Gen, xiv, 5 ; Deut. ii, 20) ; the Rephaim of Bashan, and of the valley near Jerusalem named after them (Gen. xiv, 5; 2 Sam. v, 18) ; the Emim eastward of the Dead Sea (Gen. xiv, 5) , the Avim of the southern Philistine plain (Deut. ii, 23) ; and the Anakim of Southern Palestine (Josh, xi, 21). The question arises whether these tribes were llamites, or whether they represented an earlier population which preceded the entrance of the Hamites. The latter view is supported by Knobel, who regards the majority of these tribes as Shemites, who preceded the Canaanites, and communicated to them the Shem- itic tongue {Volkert. p. 204, 315). No evidence can be adduced in support of this theory, which was probably suggested by the double difficulty of accounting for the name of Lud and of explaining the apparent anomaly of tlie Hamites and Terachites speaking the same lan- guage. Still less evidence is there in favor of the Tu- ranian origin, which would, we presume, be assigned to these tribes in common with the Canaanites proper, in accordance with a current theory that the first wave of population which overspread Western Asia belonged to that branch of the human race (Rawlinson, Herod, i, 645, note). To this theory we shall presently advert; meanwhile, we can only observe, in reference to these fragmentary populations, that, as they intermingled with the Canaanites, they probably belonged to the same stock (comp. Numb, xiii, 22; Judg. i, 10). They may, perchance, have belonged to an earlier migration than the Canaanitish, and may have been subdued by the later comers; but this would not necessitate a dif- ferent origin. The names of these tribes and of their abodes, as instanced in Gen. xiv, 5 ; Deut. ii, 23 ; Numb, xiii, 22, bear a Shemitic character (Ewald, Gesch. i, 311), and the only objection to their Canaanitish origin arising out of these names would be in connection with Zamzummim, which, according to Renan (//^6■^ Gen. p. 35, note), is formed on the same principle as the Greek [idpj3apoc, and in this case implies, at all events, a di- alectical difference.