Skip to main content

Full text of "Notes on Javan"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 



The table of nations. — At one time it was thought 
sufficient to assign Genesis x in its entirety either to P 
or to J; but recent criticism would distinguish here the 
sources P and J, and the work of the Redactor who fitted 
them together. The division made is roughly as follows : — 
P = vv. 1-7, 30, 32-33, ^S^i &n & J = vv. 8-19, 31, 34-30, 
as given by Driver [Introd. to 0. T. Lit. (1898), p. 14 f.]. 
The modern tendency for elaborate subdivision is well 
illustrated by the scheme of Holzinger [Genesis (1898)]. 
Of the P section given above he would ascribe the second 
half of ver. 1 to the second hand of J. In the J section 
he apportions vv. i6-i8a to a JE source. To R is 
allotted ver. 34. The remaining verses of the section 
are divided between a first and a second hand of J (p. viii). 

At first sight it would appear as if such critical dissection 
had dealt a fatal blow at all belief in the unity and 
antiquity of this list of nations by resolving it into a 
number of fragments of different dates. This very disin- 
tegration, however, seems to furnish the best evidence 
for the original unity of the chapter. The remarkable 
dovetailing of the sections attributed to P and J makes 
it impossible to believe that both were not provided 
with tables, complete, and very similar if not identical 1 , 
whilst the view now adopted by some scholars that P 
and J represent the work of " schools " of writers rather 

1 Thus P— Noah and. sons, v. i ; Japheth, sons, grandsons, vv. 2-4 ; 
Ham, sons, grandsons by Cush (in part), vv. 6-7 ; Shem, sons, grandsons 
by Aram, vv. 22-23. J — Ham, grandson by Cush (Nimrod), v. 8, grand- 
sons by Mizraim, vv. 13-14, grandsons by Canaan, w. 15-18 ; Shem, 
descendants by Arpachshad, vv. 34-29. 


than of individuals also tends to overcome objections 
based on the disparity of the dates of the sources. [Cf. 
Commentaries on Genesis of Holzlnger (1898, pp. iv, vi; 
Gunkel (1901), p. lviii; Driver (1904), p. xvi.] Even if 
we accept the view widely held that J is of the ninth 
cent. B. c, whilst P belongs to the period of the Baby- 
lonian Captivity, we have still the curious fact to explain 
that what is presumably the oldest stratum in the chapter 
— i.e. references to Noah, Japheth, Ham, Shem, and their 
immediate descendants is attributed to the latest source 
(P). Other arguments might be brought forward for the 
antiquity of the list. The idea, here exemplified, that 
finds for a people a single progenitor, belongs to the 
infancy of the race [Gunkel, p. 79]. The names too 
are old and had long lost their original signification 
before they were incorporated in the P and J documents. 
The name Peleg (ver. 25 J) has alone called for the 
comment. Slight variations in the spelling of one or 
two of the names as given here and in the parallel list 
in 1 Chron. i would also seem to show that the copyists 
were dealing with unfamiliar names. Altogether it seems 
reasonable to suppose that this valuable historical table, 
either in the form of written record or oral tradition, 
could have existed as we have it, in its main features 
at least, at a time considerably prior to both P and J. 

The scheme of its composition. — It has been repeatedly 
urged against the table of nations that no scientific basis 
of formation is discernible, that neither language nor 
race furnishes the guiding principle in its composition 
[cf. Guthe, Kurzes Bibel-W.B. (1903), p. 703]. Critics 
would seem to overlook the fact that a table constructed 
on any such basis would involve a scientific outlook 
entirely out of harmony with the simple narratives of 
the early chapters of Genesis. The table of nations was 
doubtless based on a system, but a system that accorded 
with the ideas of that early era in which it originated. 
Noah after the flood must have been regarded as in 


possession of the then known world. At his death the 
territory belonging to him would fall to be divided 
amongst his sons 1 . If the arrangement of the peoples 
in the list was based, as we may well suppose, on some 
rude world-chart of these early ages, three well-defined 
districts could have been distinguished. The hill-country 
formed a barrier to the north. The ancient geographer 
Eratosthenes, for instance, would appear to have looked 
upon the Taurus range as stretching in a straight line 
from Amanus to beyond Persia. South of this hill- 
district we have to the east the Mesopotamia plains, 
to the west Syria and Palestine. In between these is 
the desert. A district is assigned to each of the sons. 
The Mesopotamian plains and their extension southward 
are inherited by Shem. The northern hill-country and 
beyond falls to the lot of Japheth. The country extending 
southward from Amanus between the sea and the desert 
becomes the possession of Ham. That there were three 
distinct districts may have determined the number of 
Noah's sons. Holzinger, it may be noted, considers that 
P has in view purely a geographical division, and it 
seems clearly to be a territorial distribution that Josephus 
understands by this table. He differs from the Masoretic 
Text in introducing prescripts demarcating the territory 
occupied by the descendants of the sons of Noah 2 . If 
Bloch's estimate of the Jewish historian as merely a clever 

1 Cf. on this point the Ethiopie Kebra Nagast, ed. Bezold (1905), p. 4 — 
" Then Noah the righteous died, and Shem became king. . . . They 
(i.e. the sons of Noah) had, namely, divided the earth amongst them- 
selves, and Noah had made them swear in the name of his God that 
they would not cross the bounds of their neighbours. . . .'' 

2 Josephus, Antiq. I. 122 (ed. Niese (1896), p. 7). The sons of Japheth — 
ol &ir& Tavpov leal 'Afidvov raw ipaiv ap(a/ievoi irporjXBov iift p.iv rrjs 'Aaias 
feXP' fOTa/*oD TavalSos, lirf 8^ tt}j Eipumrjs <?<ws TaSelpaiv. . . . 

I. 130 (p. 7). The sons of Ham — ol Si Xdpov iraTSes ttjv &mh Svpias /cat 
'A/wow «ai Aifiavov ruv bpaiv yrjv Kareaxoy, oaa irpbs BaKaaaav irkrpaTtTO 
uaTa\afi6vTes itai rb\ fixP' T0 " oiteavov (£i8ico<Ta/ievoi. . . . 

I. 143 (p. 8). The sons of Shem — ot tt)!> H*XP' to " KaT ' 'iviiav wueavov 
KaroiKovaiv 'Aalav dir' Evtyparov rf)v apxty ireiroiTjfilvoi. 


compiler be a just one [cf. Quetten des Josephus (1879), 
p. 52 f. ; cf. also Buchler, Rev. des Mud. Juives, XXXII, 
(1896), p. 199, and XXXIV (1898), p. 93], these additions 
of Josephus, as embodying still more ancient views, are of 
the greater value. 

The site of Javan. — As son of Japheth Javan should 
properly belong to the Japheth district. In Gen. x the 
name appears along with Tubal and Meshech, and the same 
combination of names is to be met with in Ezek. xxvii. 13. 
Stade [De populo Javan (1880)] has argued against the 
common interpretation of Javan as Greece, or the Greeks. 
He contends that in the references belonging to the pre- 
Persian period Javan can only mean the Asia Minor 
Ionians. It is quite possible that Ionia may be the 
country referred to under the name Javan. This is the 
interpretation of Josephus [J.^., I. 124, ed. Niese, p. 7], 
and is in accord with the theory of E. Curtius [Die Ionier 
vor der Ionischen Wanderung (1885)] that the original 
home of the Ionians was in Asia Minor. On the other 
hand, many Greek scholars hold that only at a com- 
paratively late date were Ionian colonies established in 
this quarter. A compromise has been suggested by Bury 
[Hist. Rev. (190c), p. 288 ff.]. The name, he thinks, might 
have been there in Asia Minor before the Greeks came 
to settle, and that thence the name was carried back to 
the shores of Greece. It is possible that the name was 
not confined to the district known in later times as Ionia. 
In the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia [II, p. 53] we 
find the fragment of a geographical list emanating from 
Nineveh giving the names of the principal lands and cities 
along the Taurus. Here, sandwiched between Hi-lak-ku 
(Cilicia) and Mi-li-ti (Melitene on the upper Euphrates), 
there is mention of a land Ia-[a ?]-na. Most unfortunately 
the second sign has been partially obliterated so that it 
cannot be read with certainty. Lenormant [Joum. des 
Savants, 1882^.484] seems, however, to have no hesitation 
in regarding this as a land Javanu. Between Cilicia and 


Metilene may be said to lie also the well-known district 
Amanu of the Bab. -Assyrian records. This name is given 
as Am(v)-a-num as early as the time of Gudea [cf. Keil- 
inschriftliche Bibliothek, III, p. 36]. In the later Assyrian 
cuneiform inscriptions it appears as Ha-m(v)a-nu. With 
this word Amanu or Avanu we may compare the LXX ej 
rendering of |V as avav in Gen. x. a, 4). The reproduction 
of the Babylonian m by the Hebrew wdw, as also the 
interchange of la and A at the beginning of some proper 
names — e.g. Ialman, Alman, &c. — is commented upon by 
Delitzsch [Assyr. Gramm., p. 97], so that ]}) might thus 
correspond exactly to Amanu. This would then bring 
Javan, Tubal, and Meshech together, arranged in the order 
named, and in a straight, line. 

From the Egyptian side we obtain information of a land 
Uan or Wan in this same neighbourhood. It would appear 
from the private inscription of Amen-em-heb that in the 
thirty-third year of Tahutimes III (1 503-1449 B.C.) this 
officer took rich spoil in the highlands of Uan on the west 
of Khalubu (Aleppo) [cf. Fl. Petrie, Hist. Egypt (1899), II, 
p. 124; and Wiedemann (who takes Khalubu = Lebanon), 
Aegypt. Oesch. (1884), p. 350]. From this same land 
Tahutimes III in the twenty-ninth year of his reign pro- 
ceeded south to Aratu (Arvad) [cf. Petrie, II, p. 113; 
Wiedemann, p. 345] Amanu, Javan, Uan seem to have 
some sort of connexion with each other and with the 
neighbourhood indicated. 

The sons of Javan. — The Masoretic Text gives the sons 
of Javan as Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim 
(Rodanim in 1 Chron. i. 5). Gen. x. 5 adds that from 
these were separated the Qiun "K. It is not at all likely 
that this refers, as has been held, to all the sons of Japheth. 
If indeed the phrase na 11 m rhx should be introduced in 
this verse after the analogy of vv. 20 and 31, it would 
appear in its proper place after D^jn "N. The meaning 
intended to be conveyed is evidently that from the four 
sons of Javan the isles were peopled. 


(a) Elishah. There is an Elishah given as brother of 
Javan in the LXX renderings of Gen. x. a and 1 Chron. 
i. 5. The Hebrew is rwbti., whilst the Samaritan version 
of the Pentateuch has E^N. The Greek codices have 
EXura, except B, which has EXeio-a 1 Chron. i. 7, and 
EXeio-ai Ezek. xxvii. 7. The reference in Ezekiel is to 
the rwbtt "8 which export purple. 

In what quarter we are to look for Elishah is no 
easy matter to settle. The name, or similar names, 
seems to have been widely spread. Elishah has been 
sought for in regions far apart, as the following list will 
show. — (1) Aeolians — Josephus, Zonaras, Smith, Deren- 
bourg, Frz. Delitzsch, Knobel, Bunsen. (2) Elis (NW. 
province of the Pelophon) — Bochart. (3) Helos (in La- 
conia) — HaleVy. (4) Hellas — Targ. Jon. to Genesis, Volney, 
Lenormant. (5) Coast of Greece — Toy. (6) Crete — Sayce. 
(7) Italy — Targ. to Ezek., Dillman. (8) Sicily — gloss to 
Syncellus, Eusebius, Kiepert, Kautsch. (9) Carthage 
[Elissa = Dido] — Schulthess, Stade, Meyer, F. Brown, 
Kraetschmar, Winckler, Budde, Jeremias. (10) Beyond the 
Straits of Gibraltar — Jensen. (11) Alashia — Conder. 
(12) Cyprus (= Alashia) —W. M. Mttller. 

When there is so much diversity of opinion it must 
appear a vain task to support any single contention. 
The key to the solution will only be found when there 
is agreement as to the principle that obtained in the 
formation of the table of nations. But we may examine 
more closely the last two identifications, since these keep 
us in the neighbourhood of Asia Minor. Conder [Pal. 
Exp. Fund, Quart. Stat. (1892), p. 45] suggested that 
Elishah might be identified with the land Alashia of the 
Amarna Letters [Keil. Bib., V, Letters 25-33]. ^ n the 
Orient. Litt.-Zeit. [Ill, p. 288 ff.] Miiller tried to show 
that these two names were etymologically the same. The 
main difficulty he has to contend with is the position 
of the yodh in the Hebrew word. Miiller adduces the 
form EAeio-ai of LXX B for the presence of the yodh in 


the last syllable. But EAei<rai is no doubt merely the 
plural form of Ekeiaa, nor can justification be found for 
his arbitrary change of "N into <N. The similarity of 
the names Elisha, AlasMa is too great, however, to be 
lightly passed over. We gather from the Amarna Letters 
that the land Alasbia was of considerable importance at 
that time (c. 14th cent. B. 0.), and one might in consequence 
reasonably expect it to be included in the table of nations. 
Where is this Alashia? According to Conder it is to 
be found on the south coast of Asia Minor, and according 
to Niebuhr \ptud. u. Bemerk. z. Gesch. d. Alt. Orients 
(1894), p. 97 ff.] to be identified with 'Ekeovo-a [cf. Strabo, 
XIV, pp. 5, 6]. In support of this might be adduced the 
reading of the LXX which gives an Elishah as brother 
of Javan, and mentions them together. On the other 
hand, W. M. Muller [Zeitsch. f. Assyr., X, p. 257 ff.] iden- 
tifies Alashia with Cyprus, comparing it with ' -si-y\asiy(aj\ 1 , 
the Egyptian (hieroglyphic) name for the island. The 
identification has met with considerable acceptance. If, 
however, Elishah be the same as Alashia, and Alashia 
be Cyprus, we should have Cyprus mentioned twice in 
the same verse, since Kittim also clearly means Cyprus. 
The difficulty might be met by saying that Alashiya 
may have been the name of a part only of the island. 
Pietschmann [Gesch. d. Phonizier (1889), p. 257, note 1] 
has made this suggestion with regard to Asiy — the Egyptian 
name. As helping to confirm this, it might be added that 
in the Amarna Letters we read of the " king of Alashia," 
but when we come to the time of Sargon we learn that 
there are seven kings of Jatnana (Cyprus). In the present 
state of our knowledge it seems, however, impossible to 
determine with any degree of certainty what land is meant 
by Elishah in the table of nations. 

(b) Tarshish. The form nswtn which occurs in 1 Chron. 
i. 7 has evidently received its termination under the influence 

1 Viz. a-si-y = assiy(a) = arsiy(a) = alsiy(a). 


of the immediately preceding mtrbtt . The LXX renderings 
are Oapaeis or Qapcns and even Qapaos (so LXX A in 
Ezek. xxvii. 25). In Isa. ii. 16 and xxiii. 6, 10, 14 
Tarshish is translated Kapx>ib<»v (or XapKrjbmv LXX 13 ****), 1 also 
Kapxv^ovioi or Xa/)Krj8owodnEzek. xxvii. I2,25,xxx. 13. In the 
last of these passages we find a variant XakKrjboros (LXX A ). 
It is customary to associate Tarshish with Taprrjaaos in the 
south of Spain. The interpretation Carthage of the LXX 
is also that of Targ. Jonath. ; cf. 1 Kings xxii. 48 and 
Jer. x. 9 [cf. also Winckler, Alt. Orient. Forsch., I, p. 445 f.]. 
According to Josephus it is Tarsus in Cilicia. The n, he 
explains, has become at a later time b . This identification 
receives the support of Sayce [Expos. Times (1902), p. 179], 
also Baron and Bunsen. Jerome and Eusebius [0 nom. Sac] 
think of a region in India. Lepage Renouf [Proc. Soc. Bib. 
Arch., pp. 104 ff., 138 ff.] would derive twin from w\ and 
find in the name a designation for coastland, more especially 
the Phoenician coast. In the Orient. Litt.-Zeit. [Ill, p. 151] it 
will be seen that Cheyne thinks of connecting twin with 
the Tyrseni or Etruscans — a view first advanced by Knobel 
— but seems to have given this up in favour of an iden- 
tification with a district Asshur (or Geshur) in North 
Arabia (cf. Encyc. Bib.]. It can scarcely be said, however, 
that any of the explanations offered are very convincing. 
The identification with Tarsus in Cilicia as associating 
Tarshish with Asia Minor might be commended for that 
very reason, but there are obvious difficulties in connecting 
Bhn with nta , as the name appears on coins ; and, indeed, 
as remarked before, until it can be established on what 
plan the table of nations was formed, it seems profitless to 
speculate as to both Elishah and Tarshish. 

(c) Dodanim (or Rodanim). Dodanim is given in the 
Hebrew text as the fourth son of Javan in Gen. x. 4, but 
in 1 Chron. i. 7 the name given is Rodanim. The variants 
of this name are interesting. We find D'OTTi in Gen. x. 4, 

1 * denotes original scribe of the MS.; ", b , °, 1st, 2nd, 3rd hands. 


MT., Vulg. ; in i Chron. i. 7, Vulg. : tMTil in Gen. x. 4, 
Samarit., LXX B ; in 1 Chron. i. 7, MT., LXX B : BWi in 
Gen. x. 4, LXX AD , in 1 Chron. i. 7, LXX A . The evidence 
seems overwhelmingly in favour of the form Rodanim. 
With the form Dodanim the only name that seems to invite 
comparison is Dodona in the interior of Epirus ; but as the 
tfun "N were to be separated from the sons of Javan we 
must surely look for a place in the neighbourhood of 
the sea. The reading EMi*j or bW is suggested by 
W. M. Mttller [Or. Litt.-Zeit., Ill, pp. 288 ft.] in an article 
on the sons of Javan. He would in this way connect the 
name with a people of Western Asia Minor, known to 
the Egyptians as Da-no-na, possibly the same as the 
Da-nu-na of the Amarna Letters. The name Da-no-na has 
been before now identified with the Danai or Greeks. By 
such juggling with letters, however, anything might be 
proved, and the results dependent on such methods can 
scarcely be regarded as satisfactory. The reading tMYi 
(Dorians) is advocated by Winckler [ Alt. Orient. Forsch., 
II, pp. 422 ff.]. The Targ. Jer. reads CMTYl (Dardanians), 
a reading in which Schroeder [Phonizische Sprache (1869), 
p. 99] and Knobel [Volkertafel, pp. 104 f.] concur. 

The most plausible reading is certainly DOT) with the 
interpretation Rhodes. Against this identification it is 
urged that the Greek has the short 0, i.e. 'Po'Sos. It is 
just possible, however, that the termination -im may have 
been added under the influence of the preceding DTO. 
That such change could take place is instanced in this 
same verse as given in 1 Chron. i. 7. Here we have 
nWini wiw. The effect of the juxtaposition of similar 
names no doubt explains also the variant E*5>N of the 
Samaritan Codex, where the second of the two names 
has evidently affected the form of the first. Josephus 
and LXX d 8P omit the fourth son of Javan, although 
Josephus practically explains the reason of his omission 
when he adds to his comment on DTD, kclI a-nb tojJttjs 
(i.e. H.idifj.a) vrj<roi re wacrai kcu to. irXda t&p -napa OaXacraav 


XeOlv vtto 'Efipaloov ovofxaCerai. [Antiq., I. 128, ed. Niese 
(1896), p. 7]. Such being the case it would of course be 
unnecessary to add Rhodes after Kittim. We know also 
that Epiphanius [Adv. Haer. xxx. 25] includes at least 
Rhodes under Kittim, so that it seems very probable that 
by EMTn we are to understand Rhodes. 

(d) Kittim,. The evidence of early writers is all in 
favour of identifying Kittim with Cyprus — thus Josephus, 
Antiq. I. 128 [Xedip.6. . . . Kvirpos avrr] vvv KaAetrcu] ; Zonar., 
Epit. Hist. i. 5 [Xedip., fj Kvirpos avrrj lori] ; Epiphan., Adv. 
Haer. xxx. 25 [Sr/Xoi' i<mv, on Kinov q Kvnpiwv vfjaos 
KaXeTrat] ; Hieron. Des it. et nom., ed. Lagarde (Onom. Sae., 
p. 113) [Terra Chethiim nam urbs hodieque Cypri Citium 
nuncupatur] ; Hieron. on Gen. x. 4 [Cethim sunt Citii 
a quibus . . . urbs Cyprii Citium nominatur] ; so also in 
similar terms, Hieron. on Isa. xxiii. 1, and Jer. ii. 10 ; 
Euchar., Instr., II, 4 [Cethei, Citii, idem Ciprii, apud quos 
et urbs Cittium vocitatur] ; Theodor. on Jer. ii. 10 [xaAei 
8£ Xemehx jiev rqv Ktirpov ; also Theod. in similar terms on 
Ezek. xxvii. 6 ; Isid., Orig., ix. 2, 36 [Cethim a quot Citii, 
id est Cyprii]. For additional references cf. Oberhummer 
[Cypern, pp. 19 f.'J, Lenormant [Revue des Questions 
Historiques, 1883, pp. 234 f.] 1 . 

As already remarked the name DTD was probably not 
limited to Cyprus. It has been connected by many with 
DTin (Hittites), although Lenormant [Rev. d. Quest. Hist., 
XXXIV (1883), p. 235, note 6] thinks that the evidence is 
insufficient. Schroeder [Phoniz. Sprache,ip. 116], in con- 
trasting the Hebrew and Phoenician languages, adduces 
this instance amongst others for the interchange of 3 and n , 
and Movers [Phonizier, II, 2, pp. 204 ff.] adduces evidence 
for an identification of the two names. That the names 
are identical is the firm conviction of Hitzig [Zeitsch. 
JDeutsck. Morgenl. Gesellsch., IX (1855), pp. 756 ff.] and 

1 The classical references to Cyprus have been brought together in 
Meursius, Cypri (1675), Engel, Kypros, 2 vols. (1842), and Oberhummer, 
Die Insel Cypern (1895). 

VOL. XX. K k 


W. Max MUller [Asien u. Europa, p. 345] shows that the 
names can be etymologically the same — that YD (so in 
Phoenician inscriptions) being the same as Egyptian Khita 
(H-ta) and thus the same as the Assyrian Hatti and Hebrew 

As the discussion has turned on the variants of the word 
Kittim given in the LXX, the renderings of the MT. (with 
the word preceding in brackets), the chief MSS. of the 
LXX (according to Swete, O.T. in Greek, 1887 seq.) and 
the Vulgate will be given in order. 

Gen. x. 4: *«? pWirn]; KrjTioi A | Kmot DE | ; Cetthim. 
1 Chron. i. 7: M?? [Wtnffi] ; Kmoi B | Krjnoi A* Tid - |; 

Num. xxiv. 2,4: 0^1 P* ]; Kvnaiuv BF | Ktjricu<oi> A I; 

Isa. xxiii. 1 : & ,J ?? [P N0 ]; Kinauov BtfF | Krjnauov A [ Kmmv 

Q I ; Cethim. 
Isa. xxiii. 12 : D»r>3 [|H«] ('P = Qfli); Km«s BQr | Krjnei/* 

A ) ; Cethim. 
Jer. ii. 10: D w n? [«*]; Xemei/u BAQ | Xeruet* K | ; Cethim. 
Ezek.xxvii.6: DW3 [«KD] ('P = D»n3) ; Xerrcw B | Xem«/x 

AQ I ; Itahae. 
Dan. xi. 30 : D*n? [D**] ; p^aioi 87 Syr. | Kmoi Theod. BA | 

XeTTieifx Q* I ; Romani. 
I Mace. i. I : [« rr/y yr;y] Xerm/xeijtx ANV f ; Cethim. 
I Mace. viii. 5: Kmeow [/3acriA.ea] A | Kmaia>i> N°- a V |; 

From the above it will be seen that the forms of the name 
beginning with X only occur where the Daghesh Lene is 
absent from the 3 — i.e. where the 3 is aspirated by reason 
of the immediately preceding vowel sound, so that great 
importance cannot be attached to the forms with X in the 
LXX renderings given above. In Dan. xi. 30 we seem 
to have as exception the reading of the original scribe 
of Q. It is evident, however, that he has read DTD ")!, 
in any case the more natural reading. The word preceding 
the name in 1 Mace. i. 1 has been "K» (not pxo) in the 


Hebrew original of the book, whilst in viii. 5 it was "pra. 
There seems no reason to believe that the names DTD and 
DTin, however, were distinct. It is more probable that 
Kittim was the local or Phoenician pronunciation of the 
name. The name Kittim, indeed, seems rather to be 
the name of the inhabitants than of the island itself. 
In such case one wonders if it is not a contraction for 
DTD "N — in some of the passages at least. The name 
Kittim would appear to have had a wider denotation in 
later times, as the interpretations Italia, Romani seem to 
show, but there is scarcely justification for the contentions 
of some modern scholars that Kittim is not Cyprus and 
must be sought for elsewhere [cf. Winckler, Altorient. 
Forsck., Ill, pp. 422 ff. ; Miiller, Orient. Litt.-Zeit., Ill, 
p. 288 ; Jeremias, Das Alte Testament (1904), p. 154, &c.]. 

It is clear that the dates of the references to DTD in the 
O.T., and the references to Cyprus of the Assyrian records 
must of necessity overlap in one or two cases, so that 
a consideration of the cuneiform name for Cyprus may 
help to a decision. Assyrian scholars without exception 
agree that the name Jatnana or Atnana 1 denotes Cyprus. 
This name is most frequently met with in the inscriptions 
of Sargon [722-705 B.C.] often with Ja' — always as part of 
the expression Ja' nagi sa — preceding, viz. Ja' nagi sa 
(mat) Atnana [Annal. 383 (64) 2 ; Stele II, 28 (1 80)] ; 
Ja' nagi sa (mat) Jatnana [Pr., 145 (126) ; P.p., IV, 42 (148)]. 
Nagu is " district, territory," especially narrow territory, 
and sa is the pronoun used as relative, in its use corre- 
sponding much to Aramaic ^.. According to Delitzsch 
[Paradies, p. 292] the form Atnana occurs in all the bull 
inscriptions except that of Doursark [V, 38]. Without the 

1 Delitzsch [Wo lag das Paradies ? p. 292] has pointed out that Jadn&na 
is a possible reading, and Winckler repeatedly uses this form of the 

' The references are taken from Winckler, Die KeilschrifUexte Sargons 
(1889), vol. I. The numbers enclosed in brackets refer to the pages in 
this book. Pr. = Prunkinschrift, P.p. = Pav6 des portes. 

K k 2 


Ja' preceding the form of the name would appear to be 
always Jatnana — viz. (mat) Jatnana [Saal, XIV, 17 (83), 
22(84); Pr.,i6( 9 8); P.p., I, 7 (1 36), II, 4 (138), m, 5 (14a), 
IV, 63 (150), V, 14 (158)]. The name appears again in the 
inscriptions of Sinaherib [705-681 B.C.], where we are told 
that Lu-li-i, king of Sidon [but cf. Joseph., Antiq., ix. 
14. a] fled at the approach of the Assyrian to Jatnana 
[cf. G. Smith, Sennacherib (1878), pp. 67 f. ; Keil. Bib., 
II (1890), p. 90, note 1 a]. We meet with Jatnana in 
Aserhaddon (681-668 B.C.), where curiously he includes 
Cyprus in Hattiland [Keil. Bib., II, p. 150], and gives 
a list of ten kings of the island who paid ti-ibute to him. 
A similar list of tributary kings is given by Asurbanipal 
(668-626 b.o.) [cf. Keil. Bib,, II, p. 240]. 

With regard to the interpretation of the Assyrian 
expression, E. Schrader [Keilinschr. u. Geschichtsforsch., 
pp. 243 ff.] conjectures that Ja' may have been a district in 
Cyprus, probably the great plain Mesaria. F. Lenormant 
[Rev. d. Quest. Hist, XXXIV (1883), pp. 246 f.] would read 
a instead of at — i. e. Ja-a-na-na for Ja-at-na-na * — with the 
slender support of two instances of such reading in the Cunei- 
form Inscriptions of Western Asia, connecting the name 
with 'Idy, an early name for Attica, and making Ja-a [? Ja-'] 
the part of Cyprus colonized by the Ionians. Winckler's 
suggestion that Ja' nagi arose by false etymology on the 
part of the Assyrians from 'IuvikoC [cf. Keil. Sarg., p. xl, 
note 6] has been refuted by Oberhummer [Cypern, p. 8], who 
points out that 'Iuvikoi is not the name of the people, but 
an adjective. The presence of the guttural in Ja' is also 
a factor that must be taken into consideration. 

The Hebrew phrase DTD "N (so Ezek. xxvii. 6, Jer. ii. 10, 

• So also Sayce, P.S.B.A., 1902, p. 12. If t^f •= ad(t, t) here repre- 
sents a — in any case a very rare reading and one we should scarcely look 
for in the Sargon inscriptions — we should reasonably expect a variant, 
say TI («) or »-»f- (an), in one or other of the records. There are, too, 
obvious objections to seeing in both Ja* and (J)atnana, or even Ja-a-na-na, 
forms of the same name. 


and presumably 1 Mace. i. 1) may, perhaps, furnish, the 
clue to the Assyrian derivation. In this expression the 
voice stress is on the last syllable of the last word. 
The aspirated 3 having practically the sound n, there is 
reason to believe that the whole would be sounded in 
ordinary use very much like iya chatUm, since the tendency 
was to use with the guttural the a class of vowel. This 
iya would naturally be rendered ia in Assyrian. As 
a consequence of the intimate connexion between the 
construct state and the following noun, the guttural of 
the chattim has become attached to the ia, making 
ia-', i. e. fc£|J •A 1 "*^-' Such mistake on the part of 
the Assyrians would be perfectly natural since W is 
clearly a loan-word in the Semitic. The Assyrians have, 
however, been acquainted with the general meaning of 
the word, since they have added nagu, i.e. Ja-['] nagii = 
coast territory. The Status Constructus of the Hebrew 
is rendered by sa. Then follows Atnana in the Assyrian 
to correspond to attim in the Hebrew. Where we have tn 
in the Assyrian we find tt in the Hebrew, which might 
imply that there had been an assimilation of n in the 
Hebrew. There remains ana to identify with im. The 
Hebrew plural termination is im for masculine nouns, and 
one of the Assyrian plural terminations is dni. With a na 
sound preceding the final ni could very well become na, 
i.e. na-na instead of na-ni. 

It may very well be objected that in dealing with proper 
names im cannot pass into dni, or vice versa. The Assyrians 
would take down the name as it was spoken. We do not, 
however, argue that the Assyrians obtained the name from 
the Hebrews, but that both probably got it from the 
Phoenicians. We may in this connexion note that accord- 
ing to Josephus, the islands and the greater part of the 
coast-lands were called XeOtv by the Hebrews (not Xefli/x) 
[cf. Antiq., I, 128, ed. Niese (1896), p. 7]. Then again 
LXX B in Ezek. xxvii. 6 translates Xerrdv, and LXX S in 
Jer. ii. 10 Xcttuiv. The difficulty, then, with regard to the 


m and n is not so very serious, and we may at least 
suggest the equation 

Ja' [nagi sa] Atnana = OTD »K. 

The form Jatnana 1 doubtless reflects the influence of the 
preceding Ja sound. In the lists given by Asarh addon 
and Asurbanipal, the names of the places are not all 
certain, but at least six of them can be identified "with 
coast towns, so that the seven kings of the Ja' nagi referred 
to in the Sargon records were doubtless all from the coast. 
Since Asarhaddon and Asurbanipal seem to include in 
their list names of places in the interior of the island, 
there is no occasion for them to make mention of the 
Ja' nagi, or coast district. 

Javan in ancient records. Who were the Javanites? 
According to Pictet \Les Origines Indo-EuropSennes, I 
(1859), p. 58]: "On ne s'accorde pas ni sur l'origine de 
ce nom, ni sur sa valeur primitive, ni sur la maniere 
dont il s'est transmis ou conserve chez les divers peuples." 
The ouly identification at present generally accepted is 
that Javan is the same as '\dwv [la/WJ. The Javanites 
are held to be Ionians, or even Greeks in general; for 
is it not the case that Ttavras tovs "EXXrjvas 'Idovas 01 
fidpfiapoi hdXovv, as the scholiast to Aristophanes, Acharn., 
106, asserts? In what follows an attempt will be made to 
show that, although in later times Javan evidently did 
denote the Ionians or Greeks as known to us, yet in its 
valeur primitive it denoted the traditional Phoenicians. 
We have also already indicated that Javan in the " table 
of nations " possibly did not mean Greece, but as the 
name of a district might be looked for somewhere in Asia 
Minor or Northern Syria. In early times the people Javan 

1 The tn in Jatnana is probably a transposition for nt. Hattu in cunei- 
form stands for Hantu (so Hommel, Abriss, 1889, p. 39). Interchange of 
consonants is by no means uncommon in proper names. It is no doubt 
relying on this fact that Hall, who reads Iantanay (or 'Antanay) as the 
hieroglyphic name of Cyprus, identifies his reading with the cuneiform 
Jatnan {B.S.A., VIII, p. 167). 


must have been widely known amongst the nations. 
References to this people are to be found in the records 
of India, Egypt, Israel, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and these 
we may now shortly consider. 

(a) India. It is a matter of much regret that Indian 
chronology is in such an unsatisfactory state. Apart from 
internal evidence, Indian scholars seem to have little or no 
means of determining the dates of the older works. This 
is tbe more unfortunate as the mention of the Javana — 
such is the Sanskrit form of the name — has been in most 
cases used as an argument for fixing the date of the work 
in which it occurs. And it is customary to interpret 
Javana as " Greeks." It is evident, however, that for the 
purpose we have in view the date itself of the work must 
be one of the most important means of determining whether 
Javana can possibly mean the Greeks. Could the Indians 
have had knowledge of the Greeks before the time of 
Alexander? It has been hazarded that the Indians could 
have acquired a knowledge of the Greeks from the Phoe- 
nicians. It is remarkable, however, that no one can point 
to a name for the Phoenicians themselves in Brahman 
literature [cf. Pictet, Les Orig. Indo-Europ., I, p. 6i]. 
Through the medium of Indian auxiliaries of Darius? 
Of such auxiliaries little, if anything, seems known. From 
the Persian interpreters of Alexander ? [cf. Weber, Jnd. 
Antiq., IV (1875), pp. 244 ff.]. Already, at the time of 
Darius, the Persians knew the Javanites as Jauna, yet 
it is only when we come to the time of Acoka (3rd cent. 
b. c.) that we find a similar contracted form Jona in the 
Indian writings. Also long before Alexander the Greeks 
were already known as "EWrjvts. 

One of the most important notices of Javana is that due 
to the " Father of Sanskrit Grammar," Panini [IV, 1, 49]. 
Since attempts have been made to use Panini as a key- 
stone to Indian chronology there has been keen discussion 
as to his epoch, and dates have been suggested for him 
ranging over a period of no less than 1,200 years. Those 


students of Panini 's Grammar who found their conclusions 
on textual evidence alone appear to agree as to the antiquity 
of the work. Thus Goldstiicker [Pdnini , pp. % 25-7] , perhaps 
the greatest authority on Panini, would place him at latest 
in the 7th cent. b. 0., whilst Westergaard (Altest. Zeitraum 
Ind. Gesch.(Q.T., 1862), p. 7a] concludes for about 400 B.C., 
and Liebich [Pdnini (1891), p. 8] for a little later than 
Buddha. Those scholars again who favour a date towards 
the end of the 4th cent. B.C., or a little later, seem to have 
been influenced by Bohtlingk [Pdnini (1840), II, p. xiii], 
who suggested a date about that time, relying on the evidence 
of Somadeva's Kathdsaritsdgara (13th cent. A. r>.). The 
value of the latter testimony is now discounted [cf. Liebich, 
Pdnini, p. a]. A few scholars would assign Panini to the 
and cent. A. D. or even later. The main reason given for 
this late date is the appearance in Panini's work of a form 
of the name Javana. 

Javanani is the form of the name that Panini uses. He 
brings it in to illustrate a rule. At a later date in a commen- 
tary, the Vdrttika of Katyayana, the explanation is given that 
by javanani a species oilipi, i.e. writing or alphabet, is meant. 
Katyayana also gives Javani as the ordinary feminine of 
Javana [IV, 1, 6^\. What is the writing referred to under 
the name javanani ? Eeinaud [Mem. s. I'lnde (1849), P- 88] 
argues that it is Greek writing, as also does Weber [Ind. 
Stud., IV (1861), p. 89]. By Lassen [Ind. AltertumsJc. 2 , I, 
3 (1866), p. 734] it is held to mean Aryan, while Goldstiicker 
[Pdnini, p. 16] considers it refers to the writing of the 
Persians, very probably the cuneiform. Miiller [Hist. Anc. 
Sansc. Lit. (1859), p. 531] thinks it must be "that variety of 
the Semitic alphabet which previous to Alexander and 
previous to Panini became the type of the Indian alphabet." 
There is here certainly no consensus of opinion that the 
Javana are Greeks and that javanani is Greek writing. 
One point seems worthy of note. Panini makes use of the 
word javanani in his Grammar to illustrate a rule, and it is 
only natural to suppose that he would employ a word in 


everyday use, or, if not, that he borrowed the term from 
one or other of the ten predecessors of whom he makes 
mention. Katyayana, between whom and Panini a con- 
siderable interval of time must be placed, finds it necessary 
to explain javanani, thus clearly showing that the term 
was then going out of use, or actually out of use. If by 
the Javana the Greeks were meant, we should reasonably 
expect the exact opposite. The Indians, too, could only 
have acquired a knowledge of Greek writing after the time 
of the Greek Bactrian King Demetrios, who first conquered. 
Indian territory in 205 B. 0. The majority of Sanskrit 
scholars, who have given an opinion on the subject, would 
place Panini previous to this date. It is clear also that 
the Javana writing was well known prior to Panini. 
Evidently here it is out of the question to hold that Javana 
is a name of the Greeks or Ionians. This is frankly 
acknowledged by Muller. " Javana is by no means the 
exclusive name of the Greeks or Ionians. Professor Lassen 
has proved that it had a much wider meaning, and that it 
was even used by Semitic nations. There is nothing to 
prove that Panini was later than Alexander or that he 
was acquainted with Greek literature. . . . The Sanskrit 
alphabet, though it has always been suspected to be 
derived from a Semitic source, has not certainly been ti-aced 
back to a Greek source. It shows more similarity with the 
Aramaean than with any other variety of the Phoenician 
alphabet " [Sansc. Lit. , p. 3 2 1 ] . Muller implies in his words 
that he believes the javanani to have been a form of the 
Phoenician alphabet. He does not say that he believes 
the Javana to have been Phoenicians, but in very early 
times it was the Phoenicians who were especially associated 
with writing and letters. The Greeks themselves attributed 
the origin of this writing to the Phoenicians [cf. Herod., 
v. 58 ; Athenaios, Dipnos, A, 50 C ; Diod., v. 74, 1 ; Clem. 
Alex., Strom., i. 16, 75]. 

Eloquent testimony to the antiquity of the name Javana 
is its appearance in the famous epic Mahdbhdrata. From 


this epic we learn something of the Javanites themselves. 
Their wide knowledge and valour are lauded [VIII, 45, 
2T07]. In the twelfth book there is the description of 
a fight between Krishna and Kala-Javana (dark Javana), 
and the taste of the Javana for single combats is also 
commented upon [XII, 101, 3739 if.]. Wide knowledge 
has always been an asset of the traditional Phoenician, 
and no person, I think, would deny that he was excep- 
tionally brave. The Kala-Javana may have been so called 
from their swarthy complexion, and, according to Weber 
[Hist. Ind. Lit 2 (E. T., 1882), p. 220, note], "at the time of 
the Daca-Kumara the name Kala-javana does in point of 
fact expressly designate a sea-faring people." In XIII, ^, 
21-23*; $$, 17-18, the Javanas are placed in the list of the 
degraded Kshatriya peoples, who had sunk to the condition 
of Sudras on account of their omission of the sacred rites, 
and not consulting the Brahmanas. 

The book of the Laws of Manu [X, 43-4] furnishes an 
almost exact parallel to these last two passages of the 
Mahdbhdrata. Btihler [Laws of Manu (1886), p. cxiv] 
finds this mention of the Javana useful in fixing the date 
of the whole work. It is his opinion that the Javana are 
here the Greek subjects of Alexander's successors and 
especially the Bactrian Greeks. Lenormant [Jour. d. 
Savants (1882), p. 605] argues that the references to the 
Javana in the Mahdbhdrata are merely a proof of the late 
date of the recension that has come down to us. It has, on 
the other hand, been pointed out by Weber [Ind. Lit. 2 , 
p. 187] that the Javanites are mentioned in that very part 
of the epic which is recognized as the oldest — i.e. that 
relating to the war on Hindustan soil. 

In another epic, the Rdmayana of Valmiki, the name 
Javana is coupled with Caken (Scythians) and Kamboja 
(Kabulls). On the request of Vacishtha the magic cow pro- 
duces Scythians and Javanites, with whom the whole earth 
was filled. " They were gleaming, like unto heroes, and count- 
less as the golden filaments of the lotus, and were decked out 


in gold-like armour " [Rdmdyana, I, 54, 18 ff.]. Discussing 
the date of the Rdmdyana, Menrad [Ram. (1897), pp. xxi, 
xxii] thinks of the 5th, 6th, or even 8th cent. B. c, and in 
his comment upon the word Javana, Schlegel [Rdmdyana, 
I, 2, p. 169, note] expresses the opinion that "apud Indos 
vocabulum Yavana est antiquissimum." 

We are on surer ground as regards date when we turn to 
the edicts of Acoka Piyadasi. This king, who reigned in 
the 3rd cent. B. 0., in his inscriptions on the rocks of Orissa 
and Gujerat, records his friendship with Antiyoko, the Jona- 
raja, or king of the Jona. The reference here seems to be 
to the Seleucid King, Antiochus II. 

The wide knowledge of the Javana is lauded in the 
Mahdbhdrata as we have already seen. Indian astronomers, 
as Varaha-Mihira [cf. Lassen, Ind. Altertumsk,, I, p. 729 ; 
also Zeitsch. f. Kunde d. Morgenl., IV, p. 335] continually 
speak of the Javana as their teachers. If Indian astronomers 
learned their astronomy from the Javana, there must have 
been a very early and intimate intercourse between the 
Javana and the Indians, for the name of Paracara, reputed 
to be the oldest Indian astronomer, belongs to Vedic 
literature. Indeed, it would appear that there is a verse 
from Garga — reckoned the second oldest astronomer — 
often quoted, in which is extolled the astronomical know- 
ledge of the Javana [cf. Weber, Ind. Lit. 2 , p. 252]. lb is 
clearly impossible to believe that the Greeks were the 
earliest teachers of the Indians. According to the gene- 
rally accepted traditions, the Phoenicians instructed the 
nations in arts and sciences. Of commercial dealings 
between the Javana and the Indians we learn indirectly. 
In Kalidasa's Raghuvan^a [IV, 61] the women slaves of 
the Parasikas (Persians) are called Javani [cf. Ind. Stud., 
XIII (1873), p. 308]. They may have been so called 
because furnished by the Javana. This seems to be 
corroborated by Indian inscriptions, in which Javana 
girls are specified as tribute [cf. Weber, Ind. Lit. 2 , p. 251, 
note]. The Phoenicians were by all reputation slave- 


dealers. Further, certain articles of trade which were 
dealt in, from all accounts, by the Phoenicians, are 
associated in Sanskrit with the word javana. Thus 
pepper is javana-priya ; incense from Arabia is javana ; 
tin is javandshta — lit. " beloved of the Javana " [cf. Lassen, 
Ind. Altertumsk., 2 p. 722]. And from the evidence fur- 
nished by these names Lassen regards it as possible that 
in its earliest meaning the word Javana included both 
Arabian and Phoenician. 

One thing may be said to be certain, that Javana in 
the early Indian records is not the name of the Greeks. 
The only other race that would seem to possess the 
characteristics of these Javana are the Phoenicians. It 
must be acknowledged, however, that in the later Sanskrit 
writings the term Javana is clearly applied to the Greeks. 

(b) Egypt. In the last lines of the Rosetta inscription 
it is prescribed that the decree be given in toi? re lepois ml 
iyxapLois Kal ' EWtjvikoTs ypdnixao-iv. The word corresponding 
to 'EAA.7JIUKOIS is in the demotic section Uinn, TJinin — the 
equivalent of the Coptic Oueinin (Oueieniri), the only word 
in Coptic to express the name Greeks [cf. Mark vii. 26, 
Acts vi. 1, &c, in the Coptic version]. The corresponding 
hieroglyphic group would appear to be now read by Egyp- 
tologists Ha-nibu, or Hau-nibu. This name when first 
observed by Champollion and Rosellini [Hon. Stor., Ill, 
1, pp. 421-6] was read by them Jounan or Jouni. The 
phrase Ha-nibu, as the hieroglyphic group is now generally 
read by Birch [Gallery of Antiquities, p. 89], "all the 
peoples of the north." According to Lepsius [Monatsb. 
Berl. Ah. Wiss. (1855), p. 499 ff.] it was merely a faulty 
transcription of the name 'Idoves. This view is combatted 
by Chabas [Etudes sur I'Antiq. hist 2 (1873), p. 174], who 
contends that Ha-nibu literally means " all those that are 
behind" — i.e. "all those that are to the north" — adding 
that the name was used as a designation for Greeks in the 
late epochs without quite losing its general significance, 
but that it was never used to transcribe the name of the 


Ionians. By Lenormant [Jour. d. Sav. (1883), p. 607] 
Ha-nibu is held to mean " all the Ha " — i. e. " all the 
shores and all the islands." He thinks that it corresponds 
exactly to the 0*0 n "N of Gen. x. 5. 

The name appears as early as the time of the Pharaohs. 
On the monuments of some of the kings of the eighteenth 
and nineteenth dynasties [c. i6th-i3th cent. B.C.] is found 
a list of nine peoples, in which are included the peoples 
of Upper and Lower Egypt. It would appear that the 
order in which the names are given represented the 
political positions of the peoples for the time being. At 
the time of Tahutimes III (c. 16th cent.) the Ha-nibu 
headed the list. A century or two later the same people 
are placed last. The fact that the Ha-nibu — if such be 
the correct interpretation of the pictorial signs — found a 
place on such a list, would seem to show that under this 
name there is reference to a single nation, and not to 
a group of peoples of indefinite number, as the translation 
of the term by Chabas, for instance, would seem to imply. 
Whatever be the meaning applied to Ha-nibu, it is certain 
that this term became the later demotic Uinn or Uinin, 
and the Coptic Oueinin, the equivalent of 'Idoves. Now it 
does not seem possible that either the Greeks or the Ionians 
could have been the foremost amongst the nations in the 
sixteenth century B.C. If modern scholars are to be 
believed, the Phoenicians were in possession of the shores 
and the islands about that time [cf. Pietschmann, Phonizier, 
p. 279 f.]. Lenormant's translation, " all the shores and 
islands," would indeed apply very happily to the traditional 
Phoenicians. Lepsius has busied himself with the name. 
He says it is clear that in the old monuments there can 
be no talk of the European or Asia Minor Ionians, or of 
the Greek races in their early homes, and he suggests as 
solutions of the problem either that the name was applied 
in the earliest period to a greater group of kindred peoples 
rather than to the single Ionian race, or that the Ionian 
race had in earlier times a much greater significance than 


we have hitherto been able to gather from later history 
[Monatsb. Berl. Ah. d. Wiss. (1855), p. 507]. It is also 
acknowledged by Lenormant [Jour. d. Sav. (1882), p. 174] 
that "this word which the scribes at a later time made 
equivalent to the Greeks, certainly did not have that 
meaning in the epoch of the great conquests of the Theban 
kings," and Wiedemann [Attest. Bezieh. zw. Agypt. u. 
Grieckenland] has reached the conclusion that only after 
the time of Alexander was the term applied to the Greeks. 

The results gleaned from the Indian and Egyptian records 
respecting the Javanites present some parallel features. 
Both Indians and Egyptians would appear to have come 
into direct contact with this people. In both cases the 
early dates of certain of the references preclude the possi- 
bility of the Javanites being Greeks, or Ionians, as known 
to us. In both, the Javanites are associated with writing. 
In both, they are a people of considerable political import- 
ance. And in both cases the substitution of " Phoenicians " 
for " Javanites " in the earlier references would be perfectly 
suitable, since the Javanites, so far as revealed to us, possess 
characteristics which we have been accustomed to identify 
with the Phoenicians. 

(c) Persia. The oldest Persian reference to the Javanites 
is to be found in the tri-lingual cuneiform inscription of 
Behistun. The inscription dates from the time of Darius, 
so that we do not get beyond the sixth century B. c. The 
Persian form of the name is Jauna. Corresponding to this, 
we have in the inscription referred to, in the Medo-Elamitic 
Jaima, and in the Bab.-Assyr. Jam{v)anu. Jauna is here 
described as a province of Darius. The name is introduced 
between Sparda and Mada [cf. Spiegel, Die altpersischen 
Keilinschriften 2 (1881), pp, 4,5]. 

In the Persepolis inscriptions (also of Darius) Jauna is 
again mentioned. Thus we find in Naqsh-i-Rustam, a, 
1. 12: — "Sparda Y(i3)auna tyaiy ushkahya, uta tya(i4)iy 
darayahya," or, " Lydians, Javanites of the continent and of 
the sea " ; also 1. 28 : — " Katapatu'ka, Sparda, Yauna, Saka 


tyaiy ta(29)radaraya sk'udra, Yauna takabara putiy." The 
"Yauna takabara" is translated by Spiegel [p. 55], "the 
Ionians who wear crowns" [cf. also Spiegel, pp. 119, 219]. 
Lenormant [Jour. d. Sav. (1882), p. 485] recalls the phrase 
Kapri KOfxo'a>i»T€s 'Axcuo£ which occurs so frequently in the 

It has been recognized that here only the Asia Minor 
Ionians can be referred to, and not the Greeks. The 
Persian references are, however, too meagre and of too 
late date to be of much use. 

(d) Assyria. Turning to the Assyrian records we find 
that here too the name crops up. The Javanites are men- 
tioned in the cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon (722-705 
B.C.). Azuri, King of Ashdod, as it would appear, had 
refused to pay tribute to Sargon. He also incited other 
kings in his neighbourhood to rebellion. Sargon accordingly 
deposed him and appointed Ahimiti, his " true brother," 
king in his stead. The Hatti dethroned this new ruler. 
In his place they set up a certain Jamani (var. Jatna) one 
who had no claim to the throne, " who was as they " and 
had no respect for Sargon's rule. Sargon at once started 
on a punitive expedition. The Jamani made a hasty flight 
toward the Egyptian frontier. The Egyptian king, however, 
surrendered him to Sargon [cf. Wiedemann, Agypt. Qesch., 

p.584] 1 . 

The variant Jatna is met with in Annal. 220 (36). Else- 
where we find the form Jamani — i.e. Saal XIV, 11 (82); 
Pr. 94 (114), 101 (114); Asd. Insc. 18 (186), 40 (188). 
Jamani, or Javani as it may also be read, is not, as has 
been argued by some scholars, a race-name used as the 
name of an individual, as, e.g. the word French used 
as a surname in England. In these inscriptions of Sargon 
the word Jamani is preceded by the single upright wedge. 
It is very probable that the idea of " a certain Javanite " 

1 Winekler [Keil. u. d. Alt. Test.', p. 72] argues that he was given up to 
Sargon by Pir'u (snD), king of Yemen, as in the name Jamani he would 
see a "native of Yemen." 


is thus intended to be conveyed. In the same text names 
of persons are preceded by the determinative ideogram 
amelu. Who was this Javanite % McCurdy [Hist Proph. 
and Mon., I, p. 416] conjectures that ho was one of the 
Greek immigrants who probably formed an influential 
part of the community in Ashdod, and that the Hatti were 
the people of Palestinian origin. There is, however, abso- 
lutely no evidence for a Greek immigration at this period . 
Winckler \K. A. T. 3 , p. 7a, but cf. also p. 70, note 1] argues 
that the Jamani was a native of Yemen, and suggests that 
pa-ti should be read instead of Hat-ti — i. e. pa for Hat. 
He would translate pa-ti as " abandoned men,'" connecting 
the word with nna [cf. Delitzsch, Assyr. HWB., p. 533 — 
only one instance]. It is highly improbable that such 
reading could have been intended, as elsewhere in the same 
connexion we have the name given in the fuller form Ha-at-ti 

[Pr. 95 (i4)]. 

We find further mention of the Javanites elsewhere in the 
Sargon inscriptions. Sargon records the dragging forth of 
certain Jamnai who " dwell like fish in the midst of the sea " 
[pp. 34 f. (148), Saal XIV, 15 f. (8a)]. Various explanations 
of the name Jamnai have been offered. Cheyne [Ency. 
Bib. (Javan)] finds here the only express reference to the 
lonians in the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions. Delattre 
[L'Asie Occid. dans I. Inscr. Assyr. (1885), p. 84] suggests 
connecting the name with 'Iajm'ct (mod. Jebna) in the 
neighbourhood of Joppa. The variant Jatna had led to 
the suggestion that Jamnai may have been a general 
designation for the inhabitants of Cyprus [cf. Hommel, 
Gesch. Bab. u. Assyr., p. 703, note 3], or may have been 
the race-name of the Cyprians proper [cf. Oberhummer, 
Cypern, p. 87]. 

It is, however, difficult to believe that Sargon here refers 
to the Cyprians or to Cyprus. That he drew forth [nw] 
the Javanites like fishes suggests that their island home 
was a small one, and probably within easy reach of the 
mainland. If we accept the testimony of ancient geo- 


graphers, Cyprus in early times was densely wooded [cf. 
Strabo (who quotes Eratosthenes), xiv. 6. 5], and would 
have afforded abundant cover for refugees. The Cyprians 
also could have early notice of Sargon's approach, and 
under such circumstances the " take " of the Assyrian king 
would have been small. Sargon, moreover, has no occasion 
to speak in such fashion of the Cyprians y since he refers to 
Jatnana only a few lines further down. It is probable that 
Sargon's reference is to the Phoenicians who had settled 
in Arvad (mod. Ruad), a small island about 1,600 yards in 
circumference. It is close to the mainland. On the latter 
are the ruins of an older settlement [cf. Kiepert, Ancient 
Geography (E. T. 1881), p. 102 £ ; Pietschmann, Phonizier, 
pp. 36 ff.]. According to Eusebius, Chron. Armen. [ed. 
Anchar, II, p. 172 f.], the island town was founded in 
761 B. c, and according to Strabo [xvi. 2. 13 f.] the 
founders were refugees from Sidon. If the date here given 
of the founding of the island settlement be correct, the 
little colony had been scarcely forty years in existence when 
Sargon came to the throne, and it might as yet have had 
no special name to distinguish it from the Arvad on the 
mainland. Consequently Sargon could very naturally 
describe the new colony as " the Phoenicians who dwell 
in the midst of the sea." The notices of Arvad previous 
to this date can very well be taken as referring to the 
older town on the mainland. There may, of course-, have 
been a settlement on the island before the Phoenicians 
took possession. It is certainly significant that Asurbanipal 
speaks of Jakinlu, King of Arvad, " in the midst of the sea, 
who like a fish had made his dwelling in the boundless 
waters" [cf. Smith, Assurbanipal (1878), p. 75 ; Keil. Bib., 
II, p. 170, note 2], words that bear a remarkable resem- 
blance to those of his illustrious predecessor concerning 
the Jamnai. There would appear, moreover, to be no 
mention, by name, of Arvad in the Sargon inscriptions. 

Of the Javanites' connexion with Sinaherib (705-681 b.c.) 
we learn indirectly. Through Berosus [Berosi Fragm., 

VOL. xx. L 1 


ed. Miiller, 12] we have word of a conflict between Sina- 
herib and "Ionians," who had landed in Cilicia. The 
" Ionians " were beaten back. Bawlinson [The Five Great 
Monarchies, II (1864), p. 453], and Schrader [Keil. u. Alt. 
Test. 2 , p. 81] think that these must have been Cyprian 
Greeks. The name further appears in the Assyr. Bab. 
version of the rock inscription of Behistun — Ja-ma-nu 
sa-nu-tu sa, ma-gi-du[?]-ta ina [kakkadi-su-nu na-]su-[u], 
i.e. "other Javanites who wear a magiduta (whatever 
that may mean) on their heads." 

(e) The Old Testament. In Gen. x. 2, 4, 1 Chron. i. 5, 7, 
the LXX reads 'luvav, or variations of this form, for the 
MT. reading \t>. In Ezek. xxvii. 19, where we have |1* in 
the Hebrew text, the LXX has otvos, and the Vulgate 
Graecia. Elsewhere the LXX renders }V by "EAAay, or 

As the result of his investigations Stade [De Populo 
Javan (1880)] x has come to the conclusion that only after 
the Persian period is it possible to render Javan of the 
Old Testament by " Greeks." Two classes of references 
are in consequence now distinguished by scholars. In 
Gen. x. 2, 4, 1 Chron. i. 5, 7, Isa. lxvi. 19, Ezek. xxvii. 13 
(Joel iii. [iv.] 6, Zech. ix. 13) Javan is held to mean Asia 
Minor Ionians, but in Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2 (Joel iii. 
[iv.] 6, Zech, ix. 13) the Greeks. 

The Javan of Gen. x. 4 [1 Chron. i. 7] would seem to 
represent not a colony, but a motherland. There are four 
" sons " of Javan. Is it possible then to represent it as 
a Greek colony in Asia Minor ? Each of the four " sons " 
has, moreover, been identified with Phoenician settlements 
[cf. Kiepert, Monatsb. Konigl. Pr. Ah. d. Wiss. (1859), 
p. 214) ; Budde, Urgeschichte (1883), p. 319, note 2], but in 
the uncertainty that exists with regard to these names, we 
cannot assume that the " parent " Javan must be Phoenicia. 
Stade recognizes that he is here confronted with a difficulty. 

1 Reprinted in Stade, Akademische Beden und Abhandlungen (1899), 
pp. 135 ff. 


He contends that the " sons " of Javan as inhabitants of 
islands and coast lands were on the same footing as the 
Ionians. They were, however, specially designated " sons " 
because they fell short of the Ionians in power and wealth. 
Such an explanation is very obviously unsatisfactory. 

Of the Javanites the O.T. does not give us very much 
information. From Ezek. xxvii. 13 we gather that the 
Javanites are traders. They deal in slaves. As slave- 
dealers, it may be remembered, the Phoenicians were 
notorious [cf. Pietschmann, Phonizier (1889), p. 280 ; 
Movers, II, 3, pp. 70-86]. As early as Homer they appear 
in this capacity [cf. Od. xii. 37a f., xv. 473 f.]. From this 
same passage we further learn that Javan has a trade in 
vessels of brass — also a special industry of the Phoenicians 
[cf. Movers, II, 3, pp. 65 ff.]. The reference in Isa. Ixvi. 19 
helps us but little. To Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, to Tubal 
and Javan, to the isles that are afar off, Yahveh will send 
" such as escape " of his enemies. Here Javan is closely 
associated with the "isles afar off," but dearly much cannot 
be made of this, which after all may be only coincidence. 
The passage in which Javan occurs in Zechariah [ix. 13] is 
a little more specific. Here the captive Israelites (Ephraim 
and Judah) are invited to return, when Yahveh will rouse 
them to victory over JV 1*33. Javan here clearly cannot 
mean Greece. Why should the Israelites be stirred up 
against " thy sons, O Greece ? " To obviate the difficulty 
Cheyne \Ency. Bib. (Javan)] has made the suggestion that 
the scribe wrote \f "]V2 inadvertently for DIN *J3. To other 
scholars, again, the manner in which "Greece" is here 
mentioned has proved a "grave obstacle" [cf. Driver, 
Introd., p. 349] in assigning a pre-exilic date to Zechariah, 
although the evidence for an early date is otherwise strong. 
Marti [Dodeeapropheton (1904), p. 396] thinks here of the 
Seleucid conquest, and a settlement by them in Syria 
between 197 and 142 B.C. If the ]f T"J3 were taken to 
mean Phoenicians, the difficulties tend to disappear. It 
would be quite natural that the Israelites should be stirred 

l 1 2 


up to a victory over a people in their immediate neighbour- 
hood. In Joel iii. [iv.] 6 " Tyre, Sidon, and all the regions 
of Philistia " are depicted as selling the children of Judah 
and Jerusalem to the DW »33. Here our identification would 
seem to break down, as Tyre and Sidon, Phoenician cities, 
are described as selling to the D'OV "03. Had, however, the 
Javanites been here intended the expression would have 
been not DW ^3, but JC ^3. It is just possible that in 
DW »33 we have a term in use at that time for " traders " or 
"slave-dealers." The Daniel references, viii. ai (}V i?d), 
x. ao (JV-IB'), xi. a (JV nttte) furnish little information. 
Here Cheyne would find a reference to the Graeco-Mace- 
donian Empire, "an expansion of the original conception 
which identified Javan with the important colonies of 
Asia Minor." 

Whatever be the correct interpretation of Javan in the 
Old Testament, it is at any rate certain that it does not 
mean the classical Greeks. Javan must be sought in Asia, 
not in Greece or amongst the islands of the Aegean. To 
attribute to Javan the meaning of Asia Minor Ionians is to 
attach to the Ionian colonies in Asia more importance than 
they seem entitled to have. Such meaning quite breaks 
down when applied to Javan in the " table of nations." 
Yet here, as in the Indian and Egyptian records, we note 
the curious fact that, although Javan cannot possibly mean 
Greece or the Greeks in the earlier notices of the name, yet 
in later ages it seems to have had unquestionably that 
meaning. The Greek translators of the Old Testament 
concur in rendering Javan by "EAAas or "EXXrjves, and in 
Talmudic literature it means unquestionably the Greeks. 

How then are the Javanites so intimately connected with 
the Greeks ? We have seen that the Javanites possess 
those characteristic features with which tradition has 
endowed the early Phoenicians. Is the history of these 
Javanites the early history of the Greeks ? Is it possible 
that the Greeks, or say the Ionian race, owed to their own 
ancestors that culture which they later developed, and 


whose origin they attributed to the Phoenicians ? Can we, 
in fact, trace any close connexion between the Ionians and 
the Phoenicians? 

(/) Greece. The Javanites are known in Greek literature 
as 'Idoves, recognized as a contraction from 'laFoves. We 
may approach a discussion of the early 'laoves without 
misgiving, since we have an adequate treatment of the 
subject by E. Curtius in his brochure Die Ionier vor der 
Ionischen Wanderung (1855). Curtius is one whose 
scholarship can scarcely be called in question. It will be 
here sufficient to bring together some of the results of his 
investigations as set forth in his essay. 

Curtius shows that the Ionians were a seafaring people 
whose settlements were to be found in all quarters of 
ancient Greece, but everywhere on the sea-coasts, on islands 
and promontories, in bays and straits, and at the mouths of 
rivers [p. 4]. In mental attainments they were closely 
related to the Phoenicians, and in many places were no 
doubt related to them by blood [p. 13]. They were the 
pupils and successors of the Phoenicians in their sea-routes. 
They acquired the arts and industries of their teachers, and 
knew how to make them their own. They it was who gave 
the name <foiwKes to the Canaanites, and 4><hi>ikjj to their 
settlements, many of which subsequently fell into their 
hands. They took over from the Phoenicians the trade in 
Grecian waters, and introduced there the knowledge of the 
East. They were the founders of the wine trade in the 
Archipelago, and spread through all Greece the fame of the 
Byblos wine. They planted the date-palm (<polvi£) in 
Delos and Aulis. Like the Phoenicians, they caught the 
tunny-fish, and established in many quarters purple-fisheries 
and the purple trade [p. 14]. They appear as the spreaders 
of the Syrian cults. They were often confused with the 
Phoenicians, and, in the earliest traditions of the western 
Greeks, are identified with them [p. 15]. " Cadmus is a name 
which — be its origin what it may — was at home in Ionia 
from the earliest times" [p. 36]. 


The theory of Curtius is that only in Asia Minor could 
the Ionians have had an opportunity of developing their 
national characteristics before scattering amongst the 
islands and shores [cf. Griech. Gesch. 6 (1887), I, p. 29]. 
From the description given by Curtius of the early Ionians 
it is not easy to see where the Phoenician stops and the 
Ionian begins. There would appear to be no break. The 
Phoenician is merged in the Ionian. Indeed, as Kenan 
[Hist. Ginir. d. Langues sSmit, 5 (1878), I, p. 44] remarks, 
" M. Ernest Curtius dans son Essai sur les Ioniens semble 
avoir e*tabli que le nom des Pheniciens couvrit en re'alite' 
des migrations de peuplades ioniennes vers l'occident." 

Here, then, the Javanites and the Phoenicians are asso- 
ciated in the closest possible manner. They are practically 
identified. We have tried all along to show the possibility 
of such an identification ; but here we seem to be on firmer 
ground. Yet if the Javanites or Ionians were of the same 
origin as the Phoenicians, how do we account for the 
different names ? How do we account for the difference of 
language, or for the Greek traditions that made the 
Phoenicians a distinct race ? These, and similar questions, 
very naturally call for an answer. 

Phoenicians and Javanites. — Stephanus Byzantinus 
shows in one or two passages the close connexion between 
Javan and Phoenike. Thus : "los, — vr\<ros t&v KvicXaboov, 
and 'Idvmv olicr]<ravTa>v .... eKakelro be Kai ^oivUrj y\ "los [cf. 
also Pliny, H.N., iv. 12 to the same effect]. Also TaCa — 
ttoAis 4>ou>umjs, vvv he ITaAaio-7-imjs, . . . kn\riOr\ he ml 'Idovrj 
and ri]s 'iovs. He also states that the sea between Gaza 
and Egypt was called 'loviov. 

The notes that follow will be as brief as the nature of the sub- 
ject will permit, and for the most part of a general character. 

According to the view mostly favoured by scholars at the 
present day, the Phoenicians entered Canaan as part of 
a great Semitic migration from Arabia at about 2500 b. c. 
Phoenician inscriptions in a language closely akin to 
Hebrew afford the main ground for behoving the Phoe- 


nicians were Semites. It is, however, notorious that these 
inscriptions are of comparatively late date. Thus Lidzbarski 
[Nordsemitische Epigraphik (1898), p. 118] thinks that of 
the seven inscriptions found in Phoenicia itself, none is 
older than the fifth century B.C., and that, of Phoenician 
inscriptions from all quarters, the oldest does not go 
further back than the seventh century B. c. All then that 
we are justly entitled to conclude from these inscriptions is 
that the Phoenicians made use of a Semitic language after 
about 1000 B. 0. 

There are good reasons why we should be careful to go 
no farther on the point of language than the facts warrant. 
It has been repeatedly held before now that the Phoenicians 
were originally of a non-Semitic race, and for some reason 
or another changed their language after settlement in 
Canaan. The Phoenician character, too, is so unlike the 
Semitic. We cannot do better than quote the words of 
so good an authority as Renan. " Since the Phoenicians 
spoke a Semitic language, the linguist is of necessity 
driven to conclude that they were themselves Semites. 
Here grave difficulties, however, present themselves to the 
historian, and cause him to suspend judgment on the real 
origin of this people which has played so important a part 
in the history of civilization. To begin with, the Hebrews 
firmly repudiated all relationship with Canaan, and attached 
him to the family of Ham. The critic is almost tempted to 
be of their opinion. As we pointed out before, the Semitic 
character knows neither industry, nor esprit politique, nor 
municipal organization. Navigation and colonization were 
foreign to it. The Semitic sphere of action remained 
purely oriental, only entering the current of European 
affairs indirectly. Here, on the contrary, we find an 
industrial civilization, political revolutions, the most active 
commerce known in antiquity, a nation ceaselessly spread- 
ing its influence abroad, and helping to shape the destinies 
of the Mediterranean world. In religion, too, the same con- 
trast ! In place of the stern monotheism, so characteristic 


of the Semitic peoples, we find amongst the Phoenicians 
a mythology of the grossest description, base and ignoble 
deities, lust exalted into a religious rite. . . . Indeed, if 
invited to select from amongst the ancient peoples that 
one whose character presents the greatest contrast to the 
Semitic, we would be tempted to name the Phoenicians " 
[Hist. GSnSr. d. Langues dmitiques 5 (1855), p. 173 f.]. 

Much has been added to our knowledge of the early 
eastern world since Kenan wrote these words. Now we 
require to depend for our information less on Greek writers. 
The researches of the Assyriologist and Egyptologist have 
furnished us with evidence older, more complete, and more 
trustworthy. Light can thus be brought to bear on 
Phoenicia from all sides, and we would naturally expect 
to learn more of these marvellous traders, whose fame has 
been so sounded by Greek trumpets. Yet, as Pietschmann 
rightly observes : " Among the nations, on whose history 
scarcely any light is thrown by the great discoveries 
resulting from researches into the ancient monuments of 
the East, must be placed the Phoenicians" [Phonicier, 
p. 4]. This fact would seem to indicate, if anything, that 
the Phoenicians did not play so important a part in the 
early world as Greek writers would lead us to believe. 
Phoenicia herself has supplied very little material for her 
own history. The only documents of importance origi- 
nating there are the letters in cuneiform character from 
the Phoenician towns to the Egyptian king, Amenophis IV. 
These tablets, which belong to the Tell-Amarna group, give 
us a valuable insight into the conditions then existing in 
Phoenicia. We find little in these letters to indicate that 
the Phoenicians were Semites. It is now established that 
Babylonian was the diplomatic language of the period. 
That the Phoenician petty princes made use of it proves 
nothing. The excavations carried on at Boghaz-Kevi for 
the last two summers have furnished results that make 
it almost certain that the main element of the population 
of Phoenicia was Indo-Germanic at this period. 


There has always been a delightful vagueness about the 
Phoenicians, what they did, and what they were capable of 
doing, and of this uncertainty full advantage has been taken 
before now by many scholars. The theorist has often found 
it convenient to bridge a gap in his theory by means of the 
magic word Phoenicians. But, touching the Phoenicians, 
we find ourselves face to face with numerous difficulties. 
The Phoenicians, for instance, are represented as having been 
above all a seafaring nation. Yet their coast-land is peculiarly 
devoid of good harbours. None are large, and none afford 
complete protection from the west wind [cf. Pietschmann, 
Pkon., p. 31]. This fact of itself is no argument against 
the possibility of resolute seafarers developing Tiere an 
extensive commerce. It is, however, a very strong argu- 
ment against a pastoral people entirely changing their mode 
of fife, and taking to the sea for a livelihood. Yet this is 
what we are asked to believe if we acquiesce in the modem 
view that the Phoenicians came originally from the Arabian 
desert. If the land on which they had settled were barren 
and unfruitful, and even if it were furnished with sheltered 
bays, or deep rjverg, -we might acknowledge that there was 
some inducement for the new settlers to alter their habits. 
But Phoenicia presented an uninviting coast-line, and was, 
moreover, a fruitful land — " one of earth's most productive 
gardens, emphatically a ' good ' land, that might well content 
whosoever should be so fortunate as to possess it. There 
is nothing equal to it in Western Asia" [so Rawlinson, 
Hist, of Phoenicia (1889), p. 28]. To whatever race the 
people belonged who developed a world-wide trade from 
that unsheltered coast, they certainly could not have been 
tyros in things nautical on their first settlement there. 

Again, we are told the Phoenicians traded from island to 
island and established colonies in all parts of the Medi- 
terranean. For their earliest trading ventures they sought 
the Aegean and the shores of Greece. How then did it 
come about that the colonies in Greek waters, presumably 
the oldest and most firmly established, disappeared so 


completely as to leave practically no trace of their former 
existence, whilst those of Carthage, Sicily, &c, flourished 
and developed? The Phoenicians, it is answered, were 
driven from their settlements by the Greeks. If so we 
should surely have some echoes in Greek history of such 
conflict. It is difficult to believe that Greek tradition 
would have remained silent on this most momentous 
struggle. If, on the other hand, instead of engaging in 
conflict, the Greeks had settled down alongside the Phoe- 
nicians, learning what they could of their methods, and 
gradually absorbing their colonies, the Greek language 
must inevitably have reflected such contact in a wealth 
of Semitic words. This is, however, not the case. Another 
explanation is sometimes offered. It is suggested that the 
Phoenician settlements were in reality mere trading stations. 
Those in Greek waters were absorbed by the Ionians, whilst 
those in Cyprus and the Western Mediterranean developed 
into colonies. This suggestion has received the attention of 
v. Landau [Ex Oriente Lux (1905), 1, 4, p. n f.], who shows 
convincingly that trading-stations of themselves can never 
develop into colonies. To establish a colony there must be 
conquest and settlement of people. Such an extensive 
colonization as has been ascribed to the Phoenicians could 
only have been effected after long centuries of development 
and continual intercourse between the mother-country and 
her colonies. It has been argued that the Phoenicians 
were driven to take to their ships and settle amongst the 
islands to escape from their enemies ; but such an argu- 
ment can scarcely be taken seriously. For the great 
colonial undertakings of the Phoenicians nothing short of 
a powerful, free, and united motherland could have sufficed. 
The Amarna letters make it clear that at the very time 
when Phoenicia might reasonably be supposed to be engaged 
in founding and developing her colonies, her cities were 
crushed under the heel of Egypt, and were vieing with 
each other in expressions of servility to the Egyptian 
monarch. When, indeed, in early times was Phoenicia 


powerful ? With Babylon on the one side and Egypt on 
the other Phoenicia was between two mill-stones, and it is 
difficult to find a time when the cities of Syria and Palestine 
were free from oppression. Assuredly the oppression of 
the Assyrian and the Egyptian left little scope for develop- 
ment. Nor was Phoenicia even united. There was no 
central authority. The land was divided into a number of 
independent townships. Concerted action for any length 
of time would be out of the question. Further, even if 
Phoenicia had the power to conquer, had she ever popula- 
tion enough to send forth to these colonies ? This problem 
becomes still more acute if we have to think of single towns 
establishing these colonies instead of a united land. Indeed, 
the whole question of Phoenician colonization presents so 
many difficulties that Winckler [Vorderasiatische Gesch. 
(1905), p. 4] and v. Landau [Ex Oriente Lux, I, 4 
(1905), p. 25 f.] agree in thinking that Carthage did 
not obtain its Semitic population from Phoenicia at all. 
They regard it as probable that the Semites made a 
lodgement there in the course of the same migration that 
brought them to Phoenicia, and that Carthage had a great 
deal to do with the colonization of the western Mediter- 
ranean. Further, to allow that the Phoenicians possessed 
mere trading-stations does not make the difficulties dis- 
appear. They must then have been entirely at the mercy 
of the nations, oftentimes savage, amongst whom they 
traded. To preserve trade under such conditions the 
Phoenicians must have been fair and honest dealers, and 
masters in the art of diplomacy. Rawlinson believes that 
such was the case, and introduces "adaptability" as 
a special feature of the Phoenician character [History of 
Phoenicia, p. 58 f.]. On the other hand, to believe the 
ancients the Phoenicians were by no means open and above 
board in their dealings. 

Again, to the Phoenicians the Greek writers were almost 
unanimous in attributing the invention of the alphabet. 
Modern criticism sees in the so-called Phoenician alphabet 


no invention, but the result of a long process of develop- 
ment. The alphabet has been evolved from an early 
system of picture-writing. Viewed as a stage in the 
process of development the alphabet of the Phoenician 
inscriptions may be said to come near the end, since the 
evolution has naturally tended towards simplification. 
This has implied reduction in the number of symbols 
used, as well as modification of the individual signs. 
If we are to believe the various expert critics who have 
busied themselves with the subject, the Babylonian, 
Hittite, Cretan, Cypriote, early Greek, and Phoenician 
characters are inter-connected, if one may use the term. 
The discovery of new Hittite monuments is adding rapidly 
to the number of Hittite signs. Omitting Cretan and 
Hittite, and arranging the others in order according to 
the number of signs possessed, we find the order is 
Babylonian, Cypriote, early Greek, Phoenician. It is 
rather remarkable that the early Greek alphabet pos- 
sessed more signs than the Phoenician. If the alphabet 
be the result of development, the early Greek alphabet 
must have preceded the Phoenician in point of time. 
Even if the old view that the Phoenicians invented the 
alphabet be maintained, the Greeks must be held to have 
supplemented the alphabet they obtained from the Phoeni- 
cians by signs of their own. Had the Phoenicians, however, 
been inventors of the alphabet it is only reasonable to 
expect that the names given to the letters would be Semitic. 
Taking the Hebrew names of the letters as closely approxi- 
mating to the Phoenician, we find that xn, pi, JVn, JVn, v i¥, 
t\1p, ID cannot be brought under known Semitic roots [cf. 
Bevan, Ency. Bib. (art. Writing)]. The name 1} occurs only 
in Hebrew, and is thus in all probability a loan-word in 
Semitic, as also may well be t\btt and rbl, which do not 
seem to be found in Arabic. The derivations of tay, *ik6, 
"jdd, too, are quite uncertain. Of the names of the twenty- 
two letters of the Hebrew alphabet a very considerable 
number would appear to be non-Semitic — a state of things 


which speaks eloquently against a Semitic invention of the 
alphabet, though not necessarily against their development 
of it. 1 

There is still another point which calls for attention. 
The impression formed after reading histories of the 
Phoenicians is that they were a people who traded far 
and near, both learning and teaching at the same time, 
and ingratiating themselves with the nations — in fact, a 
people welcomed everywhere and known everywhere. 
Such being the case, we would expect repeated reference 
to them in the early records of the various countries with 
which they came into so close contact. Such a people as 
the Phoenicians could not possibly be ignored. As a matter 
of fact, these records know nothing about the Phoenicians. 
A few references to the inhabitants of individual towns 
in Phoenicia occur in the Old Testament and in the 
Baby Ionian- Assyrian inscriptions. It has been thought 
that "Sidonians" was used as a general designation for 

1 The theory, originated by De Rouge', of the origin of the alphabet 
from the Egyptian hieratic writing, still finds, amongst others, a warm 
supporter in Halevy. A Babylonian origin has long been advocated by 
Assyriologists. Recently, Winckler and Hommel, working quite inde- 
pendently, have both come to the conclusion that the alphabet has an 
astral origin, and that it is to this quarter that we must look for the 
explanations of the names of the letters (vide Alt. Orient, III. i a (1904), 
p. 14.) Lidzbarski (Ephemeris, 190a, p. 134) contends that the so-called 
Phoenician alphabet was invented about the twelfth century, b. c. by 
a Canaanite with only a very imperfect acquaintance with the Egyptian 
system of writing. In place of the names F]ip, pi, to';, rfn, he would 
substitute, mop (bow), vm (snake), jru (axe), ~n (breast). The forms of 
the names of the letters, as they appear in the various Semitic dialects, 
have been examined and contrasted by NSldeke (Beitr. z. semit. Sprachw., 
I 9°4, PP- 124 if.). Whilst pointing out that the final a in the Greek 
names of the letters, is merely a helping vowel for pronunciation, and no 
argument for a Canaanite origin, he still inclines, with all reserve, to 
accept the traditional (Phoenician) origin. The theory of an Aegean 
origin, due as seems in the first place to Evans, is supported by Dussaud 
(J. As., 1905, pp. 357 ff.), whilst Praetorius (Urspr. Kanaan. Alphab- (1906)) 
believes that the forms of the letters developed from Asianic (Hittite) 
pictographs — the Cypriote syllabar, as a parallel but distinct development 
from the same source, giving a clue to the intermediate stages. 


Phoenicians, but there is nothing to support such a view. 
A reference to Phoenicians is sought- for in vain in Brahman 
literature. As regards Egypt, great interest was attached 
to the discovery in the quarries of Turrah near Cairo of 
two tablets, on one of which was recorded that the people 
employed at the opening up of the quarries belonged to 
the Fenkhu. Two bare notices of the same name are to 
be found in the inscriptions of Tahutimes III. It was 
thought that here at last was a long-looked-for reference 
to the Phoenicians from the Egyptian side. There was 
naturally much disappointment when Muller [Asien und 
Europa, p. 308 £] showed that the name was really a general 
designation for " aliens," thus depriving Egyptologists of 
what seemed their only reference to the Phoenicians. 

In short, the whole Phoenician question presents so many 
difficulties that one begins to wonder how much the Greeks 
really did know about the Phoenicians. It is suggested 
by v. Landau 1 that Homer's presentation of the "Sidonians" 
may have helped to mould Greek ideas on this subject. 
It is at least certain that there was no consensus of opinion 
amongst Greek writers as to the extent of Phoenicia itself. 
Its boundaries, as given by Herodotus, Scylax, Strabo, 
Pliny, and Ptolemy differ materially [cf. Meyer, Ency. Bib. 

But to return to the Javanites ! We have tried to show 
in a preceding part of this article that the Javanites occupy 
in the history of the early world the very position which 
Greek traditions have assigned to the Phoenicians. The 
name Javan, moreover, is found in the records of all the 
nations with whom the Phoenicians are said to have traded. 
Of the attainments of these Javanites we learn mainly 
from Indian sources. They were possessed of a very high 
culture. Their wide knowledge is specially praised. They 
excelled in astronomy and navigation. From them, indeed, 
the first Indian astronomers acquired their knowledge. So 
well known were they as traders that many of their wares 

1 Ex Oriente Lux, I, iv, p. 10, 


received their name. Their name too was intimately 
associated with writing. 

Where was the home of the Javanites? It cannot be 
supposed that the Javanites were a mere wandering race. 
The culture which they possessed they could never have 
acquired as wanderers. The question is, where could a 
people be settled so as to acquire the highest degree of 
civilization possible in earliest times, and still come into 
contact with India and Egypt ? Evidently only in Baby- 
lonia, or South Arabia. It is now well known that in 
Babylonia dwelt a race who had attained to an advanced 
state of culture before the Semites came in from the desert 
and took possession. To this people is ascribed the origin 
of the cuneiform writing, and hence probably writing in 
general. Inscriptions in an unknown language, presum- 
ably theirs, are found side by side with the Babylonian- 
Assyrian. It was in Babylonia that the science of 
astronomy originated. Here flourished art and the epos : 
here were in existence great civil and political institu- 
tions. The people seem to have dwelt together in towns, 
each with its own ruler. The religion was astral and 
thus polytheistic. It is not unnatural to believe that 
this people spread eastwards and westwards, trading and 
bearing their culture to India and the Mediterranean. The 
name of this people has not been handed down, so that 
we run counter to no tradition in suggesting that these 
predecessors of the Semites were Javanites. 

The arrival of the Semites in Babylonia produced many 
changes. The Semitic language naturally prevailed. The 
Semites on the other hand absorbed the culture of the 
conquered, and there is good reason to believe that the 
advance of civilization in Babylonia received a check. 
Political changes followed. Instead of the independent 
townships we find that the whole land was gradually 
united under one ruler. Since we have no echoes of 
a conflict, it is reasonable to suppose that the Semites 
settled amongst the earlier inhabitants of the land and 


intermarried with them. From the mingling of races 
arose a people strong and energetic, eminently suited for 

Let us follow the pre-Semites as they spread to the 
Mediterranean. The stronghold of the Asia Minor Javanites 
seems to have been Ionia, whence they scattered amongst 
the islands and shores. The high state of Ionian civiliza- 
tion is known to all readers of Greek history. Amongst 
them it, may be noted, reappeared the epos. 

A number of the Javanites settled in Phoenicia. As 
in early Babylonia and Greece, they dwelt in independent 
towns, and developed that navigation which they had 
learned on the Lower Euphrates and Persian Gulf. This 
is quite in accord with Phoenician tradition, which, 
according to Herodotus [I, I, 2, VII, 89], fixes their 
original home on the Persian Gulf — a tradition which 
Kenan [Hist. d. Langues semit. 5 (1855), p. 183] upholds. 
The position of these towns in Phoenicia was one of per- 
petual difficulty and danger. The great powers Egypt and 
Babylonia, and later Assyria, repeatedly marched victorious 
armies through the land and levied tribute without ceasing. 
The Hittites, too, came storming from the north. The towns 
had no chance to develop. Their rulers were minions of 
the Egyptian or Babylonian or Hittite kings. There can 
be no doubt that their proximity to Cyprus was of supreme 
importance to them during the long years of oppression. 
Cyprus was almost secure from invasion. No doubt Ja- 
vanites settled here shortly after their appearance on the 
coast of the Mediterranean ; and here to-day is one of the 
most interesting fields for the historian and antiquarian. 
The language concealed by the peculiar Cypriote characters 
has been identified as Greek. Phoenicia could never have 
been the centre of trade in early times. If we have to 
look for it at all in that quarter, we must seek it in 

Yet the Phoenician towns must have kept in the 
forefront of civilization. That was determined for them 


by their close contact with Egypt and Babylonia at 
different times, and with the Aegean through Cyprus. 
All that was wanting was an opportunity for development. 
Their chance came about 1 200 B. c. Babylonia and Egypt 
were simultaneously weak. For over 300 years Syria 
and Palestine were to be free from their tyranny. The 
impulse to development came with the Israelites, who 
crossed the Jordan and entered the " promised land " about 
the end of the twelfth century B. c. What then happened 
in the case of the Phoenician towns is related in the 
opening chapters of the Book of Judges — our only source 
for the history of Phoenicia at this period. " Asher drave 
not out the inhabitants of Accho , nor the inhabitants of 
Zidon, &c. ; but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, 
the inhabitants of the land" [i. 31, 3a]. The Israelites, 
moreover, intermarried with the Canaanites. " The chil- 
dren of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites . . . and they 
took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their 
daughters to their sons, and served their gods " [iii. 5, 6]. 
Nothing could be more explicit. The Semites overran 
Phoenicia, but were conquered by the civilization of those 
whom they had vanquished. It was an exact repetition 
of what had taken place in Babylonia more than i,oco 
years before. 

As in Babylonia, so in Phoenicia, the mingling of the 
races made for energy and progress. The Phoenician 
towns entered on their period of greatest prosperity. The 
effort towards centralization resulted in the beginning of 
the glory of Tyre. The language that now prevailed was 
the Semitic, the language of the conquerors. No great 
impression was made by the new race on Cyprus. Only 
the eastern part of the island seems to have been at 
all Semitized, and we may safely conclude but small 
impression was made on the Aegean islands and Greece. 
There was no opportunity for establishing fresh Semitic 
settlements, though they doubtless traded in Greek 
waters. Taking the line of least resistance, the expansion 

vol. xx. M m 


of Phoenicia was towards Carthage and the Western 

Phoenicia's invasion by the Semites, and Phoenicia's 
period of prosperity, came a few centuries before the 
awakening of Greece. In a back-eddy, away from the 
tide of progress that ebbed and flowed between Mesopo- 
tamia and Egypt, a great civilization lay slumbering 
amidst the Greek islands and shores. Long ere Greek 
historians commenced to write, Phoenicia had taken and 
held the leading place in the world's trade, and in the 
development of culture. It is not surprising that Greek 
writers attached so much importance to the Phoenicians. 
This mongrel race, speaking a Semitic language, had no 
doubt inherited traditions to which they had but half 
a right. Before the epoch which saw the beginning of 
Grecian records, the industries, trade, talent, and enterprise 
of the Phoenicians must have become a tradition. In how 
far, indeed, the Phoenicians were responsible for the 
awakening of Greek civilization, it would be difficult to 
say. They may have taught the Greeks much. They 
probably did so ; but it is impossible to believe that 
when the Semitic-speaking Phoenicians appeared in the 
Aegean they found these peoples, either savage or half- 
civilized. It is certainly hard to imagine that Arabs 
wandered, settled, and taught amongst these islands in 
very early times ; but it seems probable that the Semitic 
Phoenicians made their first appearance there about the 
time of Homer.