EVIDENCES OF THE MIGRATION OF ABEAM. 143 



they deserve. I noticed, however, that in one or two cases he seems to have 

 misunderstood what I have stated. In regard to his remark connecting 

 Serng with Sargon, I agree with Mr. Budge, and should certainly not have 

 identified the name with that of Sargon myself. M. Bertin has criticised 

 my paper closely, and I thank him for having bestowed so much attention 

 upon it, and, although I differ from him, I must point out that not only 

 does he disagree with me, but he also is opposed to other Assyriologists, 

 including Dr. Delitzsch and Professor Schrader. With regard to the 

 question of the diorite, M. Bertin would seem to doubt its use in Chaldea. 

 Such being the case, I think there is strong evidence, and it certainly was, 

 as Mr. Flinders Petrie has proved, in use by the early pyramid builders, 

 and I do not see why it should not have been in use in Chaldea. I 

 have read the remarks of Sir Henry Eawlinson, which refer to tha 

 land of Magan ; but they fail to convince me. If Sir Henry Eawlinson 

 can show a land which has diorite and porphyry in its mountain 

 ranges, and which has copper and turquoise mines in its boundaries, I 

 am willing to believe him ; but the resemblance of the Egyptian name 

 Mafka to that of the turquoise, and the fact that Professor Sayce and 

 M. Lenormant both identify the land of Magan with the Mafka, or 

 turquoise land, is, to my mind, a strong argument in favour of its being the 

 Sinaitic peninsula of the Egyptians,* and not the land of the Persian Gulf. 

 I should add that this paper was finished in June, and since then one or 



inscription of Eri-aku. The lecturer accepts too easily statements which 

 are not proved, though generally accepted — as the identity of Agade or Agane 

 with Akkad, the Akkadian origin of the civilization and writing, &c. The 

 identity of the four kings mentioned in the Bible with those as yet found 

 mentioned in the inscriptions is also very doubtful; to obtain a similarity of 

 names the author has to translate two of them. One thing is certain, that 

 is the non- Semitic origin of the dynasty of Dintir-ki, in which appears the 

 name of Khammurabi, as the Babylonians themselves give us the translation 

 of this name ; the lecturer, however, gives this name as Semitic. It seems 

 impossible also to admit that the father of Khammurabi was the vassal of 

 the King of Elam, an assumption which nothing as yet supports. It is also 

 doubtful that Gudea ever ruled over Sinai, and that he brought from 

 this district the stones for his statues ; the carriage of great blocks of stone 

 across the desert seems impossible. These stones come more likely from the 

 other Malukhkha, on the Arabic coast of the Persian Gulf, as shown by Sir 

 H. Eawlinson. As for the names of the Patriarchs, it was more rational to 

 see in them allegorical and not personal names, many of them having pro- 

 bably been given after the bu-th of the individual. M. Bertin, after having 

 referred to several other parts of Mr. Boscawen's paper, added that his critics 

 do not destroy the historical character of Abram. The mistake is to look for 

 this period so late as Khammurabi ; the age of Abram is no doubt several 

 centuries before. The Assyriologists are always glad to see any subject 

 connected with their study investigated, for truth cannot suffer by dis- 

 cussion, and now what they discover too often remains unknown to the 

 general public." 



■" Since this was written, Professor Hull, in his report of the geology of 

 the peninsula of Sinai, mentions the existence of rock formations of 

 diorite and porphyry in that region. 



L 2 



