1903] JASTROW — THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 177 



advance movement of northern hordes during the seventh century 

 B.C. The case is somewhat different with Javan, which is to be 

 identified with Ionia/ While none of the subdivisions of Javan 

 enter into direct relations with the Hebrews, with the possible 

 exception of Tarshish,^ until the time of the inpouring of the 

 Greeks into Semitic settlements after the conquest of the Greeks, 

 Cyprus, represented by Kittim, as well as Rhodes, represented 

 by Rodanim,* must have been at all events familiar names to 

 the Hebrews in pre-exilic days. A certain amount of interest 

 due to commercial relations may also have been attached to the 

 settlements of the Greek archipelago, comprised under the desig- 

 nation, '' Islands of the Nations." For all that, the sons of Javan 

 have little to do with Hebrew history proper until a comparatively 

 late period. Among the sons of Ham — Cush, Put, Mizraim and 

 Canaan — we might have expected the two last-named to have been 

 taken up in detail and carried down into further subdivisions. If 

 instead of this, it is Cush that is carried down into two subdivis- 

 ions, the conclusion appears justified that in this case, likewise, 

 the point of view is not that of one primarily interested in Hebrew 

 history ; and it is equally remarkable that of the sons of Aram, 

 viz., Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash, the last three are never mentioned 

 again in the Old Testament, while Uz appears only as the home of 

 Job and in a passage in Lamentations (4, 21) where it is used in 

 parallelism with Edom.' To be sure, we have the genealogy of 

 Shem in the line Peleg-Eber once more introduced in P, namely, 

 Genesis 11, 10-26, and this time carried down to the immediate 

 ancestor of the Hebrews, Abram. But the very fact that this is not 

 done in the loth chapter is a further proof for the proposition that 



1 The term is, however, extended to include Greeks in general (see Meyer, 

 Geschichte aes Altert/iums/\,^. ^()2). In a paper read before the American 

 Oriental Society at Washington, April 8, 1904 (to be published in Vol. 25 of the 

 Journal of the ATuer. Or. Soc), Prof. C. C. Torrey showed that in the book of 

 Daniel (8, 21 ; 10, 20; II, 2) and in the first book of Maccabees, as well as in 

 the Talmudic notices, Javan is even used to designate the Greek kingdom of Syria, 

 replacing the earlier usage as, e-g.^ in the lo'h chapter of Genesis, for which we 

 would thus have as a terminus ad quern the fourth century B.C. 



2 See Haupt's discussion of the historical and archaeological problems 

 connected with Tarshish in his paper published in abstract in the Proceedings 

 of the Thirteenth International Congress of Orientalists (1902), Section v, 



3 Ter. 25, 20, is to be excluded, because of the doubtful state of the text. 

 PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XLIII. 176. L. PIUXTED JULY 13, 1904. 



