1810.] 
bounded on the north by Georgia, on the 
south by Curdistan, the ancient Assyria, 
and on the west by Natolia, or the Les- 
ser Asia. This province includes the 
sources of the Tigris and Euphrates, of 
the Ataxis and Phasis. 2. Shinar wasa 
considerable extent of level country, and 
included Babylon, and probably a tract 
of land farther south. Moses expressly 
says, that Babel (Babylon) and Erech 
were situated in the land of Shinar. 
Hence it would, seem, that Babylonia 
formed a part of the land of Shinar, 
rather than the land of Shinar a part of 
Babylonia; and this would lead us to 
consider the land of Shinar as that tract 
of country which was situated between 
the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, and 
which was afterwards called Mesopota- 
mia. With this agrees the opinion of 
Michaelis, who extends Shinar so far 
north as to include Nisibis and Edessa. 
It therefore appears, that Armenia is not 
only not east, but that it is very much to 
the north, and considerably to the west 
of Slinar. This difficulty has been ob- 
served by commentators, and different 
solutions have been offered. Bochart 
says, that Assyria being divided into two 
parts, One on this, and the other on the 
further side of the Tigris, they denomi- 
nated that part beyond the Tigris the 
east country, though a great part of it 
was really north of Armenia, It would, 
however, have been more to the purpose, 
had it been supposed that mankind jour. 
neyed from some other place than Ar- 
menia, and that as they travelled from 
the east, they must have come to Shinar 
from a tract of land east of that country. 
Captain Wilford says, that ‘ according 
_to the Pauranics, and the followers of 
Buddha, the ark rested on the mountain 
of Aryuvarta, Aryawart, or India, an 
appellation which has no small affinity 
with the Araraut of Scripture. These 
mountains were a great way to the east- 
ward of the plains of Shinar or Mesopo- 
tamia, for it is said in Genesis, that some 
time alter the flood ‘they journeyed 
from the east’ till they found a plain in 
the land of Shinar, in which they settled. 
This surely implies that they came from 
a very distant country eastward of Shi-. 
nar.”* We are therefore led to suppose, 
that mankind, after the flood, migrated 
from the vicinaye of Caucasus, a series 
of mountains of which Ararat and Taurus 
nr tee 
* Asiatic Researches. 
Migration of Mankind, after the Flood. 7 
form certain parts; and I think that this 
Opinion is not only extremely probabie, 
but corroborated by biblical history. in 
consitlering the geography of Eden and 
Paradise, captain Wiltord observes, that 
“ according to a uniform tradition of a 
very long standing, as it is countenanced 
by the Hindu sacred books and Persian 
authors, the progenitors of mankind lived 
in that mountainous tract which extends 
from Balkh and Candahar to the 
Ganges.*” Hence it would appear, that 
in the same country as the first father of 
mankind inhabited in the early days of 
the world, the second father of mankind 
quitted that floating residence which 
had been the means of his deliverance; 
and that from the same country, the de- 
scendants of Noah and his sons migrated, 
and as the Scripture says, journeyed 
westward, and settled in the land of 
Shinar.+ 
The learned prelate says, that the 
whole race of men moved from. their 
original habitations m Armenia, and 
settled in the plains of Shmar. In a 
note he says, “In the first two editions of 
thiswork, I stated that a part only of the 
inhabitants of the earth ¢jouracyed from 
the east’ and settled in the plains of 
Shinar; but from a more attentive con- 
sideration of the subject, to which [ have 
been led by the learned and ingenious 
Remarks on the Eastern Origination of 
Mankind, by Mr. Graaville Penn, pub- 
lished in the second volume of the 
Eastern Collections, [ have been induced 
to change my opinion.” Efowever, con- 
siderable doubts may arise whether the 
whole race of mankind meved in a wes- 
tern direction. [t seems, indeed, en- 
tirely unaccountable and incredible, that 
all mankind should have journeyed west, 
from any supposeable point where they 
were orivinally settled, and that none of 
them should have journeyed in any other 
direction. The . eastern parts were 
equally inviting to colonies, and at this 
day are at least equally populous as the 
west. If we suppose that all mankiud 
journeyed west, we must suppose thag 
the east was left without people; and 
this is an absurdity which few, [ appre- 
hend, will attempt to defend. The rea- 
son of our attributing so much to the 
west is, because we are seated in the 
west, and derive our information from 
* Asiatic Researches. 
+ Taylor's Sacred Geography. 
writers 
