JEWISH, PH@NICIAN, AND EARLY GREEK ART, ETC. 43 
the countries through which the migrations of man proceeded, pro- 
minence being given, in the first place, to the country eastward of the 
Land of Shinar. I think we may be the more inclined to look east- 
ward, from the circumstance that the Bible itself, in speaking of the Land 
of Shinar, tells us' that the people who came to occupy it came from 
the east. There are various points in the history of primitive peoples 
that tend in one direction. The early books of the Hindoos, which are 
among the oldest in the world, say that the people who settled in the country 
between the Sutlej] and the Jumna came from the north-west. Here we 
have a very specific and distinct bearing, as distinct as the one relating to 
the Land of Shinar ; and in the earliest of the Chinese books we are told 
that the people with whom we become acquainted for the first time on the 
banks of the Yellow River came from the west. Now, it is at least an 
understood matter that we should mark off on the globe these several bear- 
ings and see where they meet. It so happens that they meet exactly in that 
region pointed out by the Zend-Avesta as the first nest of mankind, from 
which man was driven by the snows. It is the Arianem Vaejo of the 
Vendidad, as distinguished from the Ariana of the present day. The Arianem 
Vaejo, or ancient Ariana, is the land of the Pamir which lies at the source of 
the Oxus, and where, at the present moment, the great races which divide the 
ancient world find their meeting-place. The Turanian and the Mongol, the 
Turk, the Hindoo, and the Iranian—all these people meet just at that great 
mountain-knot. But I find I am wandering off—as one finds it very difficult 
to refrain from doing when led away by so tempting a text as this. I will, 
therefore, endeavour to confine myself, as far as possible, to the remarks 
called for by this paper. We cannot fail to see that in tracing the origin of 
art and architecture we are, in fact, also tracing the origin of religion. The 
author of the paper says: “It is worthy of note that this ancient site”— 
speaking of Baal-bek—“ bears the name to this day of the Pheenician sun- 
god, Baal. Baal-bek signifies ‘City of Baal.’” Now, what does “Baal” 
signify ? This, we are told a little further on, in page 7, signifies “ Lord” or 
‘* Master,” and we have to distinguish between “ Baal” and ‘‘ Bel” ; and, 
although the latter word is frequently confused with the Assyrian deities, it 
signifies “to confound,” and is identified with Kush, whose name is identical 
with “ chaos,” the father of Nimrod, who took a leading part in that con- 
fusion—that permanent and primitive confusion—the confusion of tongues, 
so that he may well be called “the confounder.” Now, although Dr. Porter 
ascribes the plan of Solomon’s Temple to the Phcenicians, nevertheless, when 
he seeks for examples with which he may compare the famous pillars, Jachin 
and Boaz, at the entrance to King Solomon’s Temple, he draws the com- 
parison, not with anything in Pheenicia, but with the pillars of the famous 
ruins of Persepolis, on the borders of Assyro-Babylonia. It is remarkable 
that no reference is made in this paper to the labours of a very distinguished 
man who has only recently gone to his account—Mr. James Fergusson. Mr, 
Fergusson drew a plan of Solomon’s Temple, and he distinctly looks for the 
