tinents. It is well known to ethnographers that the passage of the Scyths is to be traced along these lines either by direct historical tradition or by the cognate dialects spoken by their descendants at the present day; and it is further pleasing to remark, that if we were to be guided by the mere linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix upon the plains of Shinar as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.

"When I propose to class the multitude of nations here indicated in a common category, I do not pretend that a connection can be established between them by direct historical evidence, or by any positive test of philology. All that I maintain is, that certain special ethnic names have everywhere prevailed amongst them, and that either from ancient monuments, or from tradition, or from the dialects now spoken by their descendants, we are authorized to infer that, at some very remote period before the rise of the Semitic and Aryan nations, a great Scythic population must have overspread Europe, Asia, and Africa, speaking languages all more or less dissimilar in their vocabulary, but possessing similarity in certain common organic characteristics of grammar and construction." *

I have quoted this opinion of Rawlinson - which more strictly belongs to the argument from Philology because it so clearly enunciates the fact of

*Notes on the early history of the Babylonians. — Journal Roy. Asiatic Soc., vol. xv. p. 232.

mained together in the region around Babylon till the confounding of their language, as described in the eleventh chapter of Genesis; and this, certainly, is the most obvious import of the record. But as I have already said, such is the use of general, comprehensive terms in the Bible, that there is nothing to forbid the idea of repeated earlier separations of colonies from the primitive seat, and their migration to different parts of the earth. The following extract gives the views of one of the most accomplished ethnographers, Sir Henry Rawlinson, on this point:

"It must have been during this interval," referring to what he denominates the "Ante-Semitic Period," "that the nationalities must have been established, and that the original Scyths or Hamites appear to have been the principal movers in this great work of social organization. They would seem, indeed, simultaneously or progressively to have passed, in one direction, by Southern Persia into India; in another, through Southern Arabia to Ethiopia, Egypt, and Numidia. They must have spread themselves, at the same time, over Syria and Asia Minor, sending out colonies from one country to Mauritania, Sicily, and Iberia; from the other, to the southern coasts of Greece and Italy. They further, probably, occupied the whole. area of modern Persia, and, thence proceeding to the north of Chalcis and the Caucasus, they penetrated to the extreme northern point of the European and Asiatic con

tinents. It is well known to ethnographers that the passage of the Scyths is to be traced along these lines either by direct historical tradition or by the cognate dialects spoken by their descendants at the present day; and it is further pleasing to remark, that if we were to be guided by the mere linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix upon the plains of Shinar as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.

"When I propose to class the multitude of nations here indicated in a common category, I do not pretend that a connection can be established between them by direct historical evidence, or by any positive test of philology. All that I maintain is, that certain special ethnic names have everywhere prevailed amongst them, and that either from ancient monuments, or from tradition, or from the dialects now spoken by their descendants, we are authorized to infer that, at some very remote period before the rise of the Semitic and Aryan nations, a great Scythic population must have overspread Europe, Asia, and Africa, speaking languages all more or less dissimilar in their vocabulary, but possessing similarity in certain common organic characteristics of grammar and construction." ""*

I have quoted this opinion of Rawlinson - which more strictly belongs to the argument from Philology — because it so clearly enunciates the fact of

*Notes on the early history of the Babylonians. - Journal Roy. Asiatic Soc., vol. xv. p. 232.

an earlier immigration from the primitive seats of the race, than that which originated the nations of history, which fact, as it seems to me, is sufficient to account for the existence of the un-historic nations, without resorting to the supposition that they belonged to a pre-Adamite or a non-Adamite race.

But let us consider these so-called pre-historic races more in detail. Those of most importance are the alleged aborigines of Egypt, of India, and of Western Europe.*

I have already, in Chapter II., shown at length the entire want of evidence that any such primeval race ever occupied the valley of the Nile, or that Menes, the reputed founder of the nation, lived at a period at all inconsistent with the chronology of Moses, according to the Septuagint. Doubtless Egypt was one of the earliest nations, dating back, according to the best authority we have, that of Eratosthenes, -as far as the 27th or 28th century B. C. But this will allow some four or five hundred years after the flood in which that earliest Hamitic emigration from the first abode of Noah's family to the Nile valley may have taken place

a

* Mr. J. D. Baldwin makes these three cases corner-stones of his theory, which would attribute to the human race an antiquity of some 10,000 or 20,000 years. See his "Pre-historic Nations."

† Ante, p. 77.

period amply sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the case.

While there is, therefore, no proof of an alleged pre-historic people and civilization in Egypt, there is, on the other hand, much evidence confirmatory of the Mosaic account of the origin of that nation in the family of Ham.

This, in the language

We have, first, its name. of its earliest inhabitants, was HAM, written in the hieroglyphics KEM, and in Coptic variously Chame, Chemi, and Cheme. The word even was applied to the soil itself, and thus, from its rich, dark color, came to signify "black," or rather "sunburned." Among the Hebrews, the name of the country was MISRAIM, the dual form of which seems to have denoted the two provinces of Upper and Lower Egypt equivalent to the "two Egypts." This name is retained by the Arabs at the present day, who call the country Misr.

Traces of the names of the sub-families are also found in Egypt and the vicinity. "The Ludim were the true and dominant Egyptian race, called, in their language, Rut, or Lut, i. e., men' par excellence. Next, the Pathrusim, or 'people of the southern country,' that is, of the Thebaid, in Egyptian, P-TO-RES. The Naphtuhim, or people of Memphis, the sacerdotal name of which was Na