^{page 215 note 1} Outlines of Assyrian History, attached to the Anniversary Report for 1852.

^{page 215 note 2} For a resumé of the argument relating to this subject, see the third and fourth sections of Prichard's Note on the Biblical Chronology, appended to the fifth volume of his Researches into the Physical History of Mankind.

^{page 215 note 3} It hardly requires to be stated that the first portion of Genesis consists of a number of independent documents, each qualified by a distinct title, and belonging to a different age. The fragment which forms the 10th chapter bears the Hebrew title of Toldoth Beni Noah, or the Genealogies of the Noachidæ, and is probably of the very greatest antiquity, inasmuch as it relates exclusively to the affiliation of races, and is independent of that chronological computation which is attached to the Toldoth Beni Adam and Toldoth Beni Shem, and which is indicative of a comparatively advanced period of civilization. Portions, however, of this chapter, such as the 13th verse, must assuredly belong to a period subsequent to the Hebrew occupation of Palestine, since explanations are there given which could only be intelligible to parties well acquainted with the geography of the province. The reasons which lead me to regard the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th verses as a gloss of even later date, are as follows:—1stly. The general tenor of the document is simply that of the affiliation of races, while at the 9th verse the ethnic series is abruptly interrupted to introduce a popular saying about Nimrod, and to describe the geography of Babylon, neither one subject nor the other possessing any interest for the Jews, or being by possibility within their cognizance at the time of their passage from Egypt to Palestine, or indeed at any period of their history earlier than the Babylonian captivity. 2ndly. If we accept the text as it stands at present, Asshur is anticipated, and transferred from the line of Shem to that of Ham; while we must further suppose the city of Babylon to have been built three generations before the tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, in which latter event, however, we are expressly told (dhap. xi. v. 9) the name originated. 3rdly. Whatever may be said of the Babylonian names; those of the Assyrian capitals are all comparatively modern. Calah was not founded till about 1000 B.C., nor was Nineveh more than a few centuries more ancient. The primæval Assyrian capital was Asshur or Ellasar, and the name was not exchanged for Resen till towards the close of the empire. 4thly. The Samaritan version is well known to follow the Samaritan text in general with the most scrupulous fidelity; yet in the particular verses in question almost all the names are altered, and it is difficult to believe that the translator would have taken such a liberty with the passage, had it formed an integral portion of the inspired text. At any rate, it is more reasonable to suppose that the Samaritan translator found the verses still retaining their original form of a gloss, and that he thus interpreted them without hesitation, according to his own geographical knowledge; the example, moreover, which he gave of explaining, rather than transcribing, being followed by most of his successors.

I Will only add that these remarks are not penned in any irreverent spirit for the authority of Scripture. Chevalier Bunsen has already familiarized lis with the idea that the Toldoth Seni Noah is a mere “historical representation of the great and lengthened migration of the primitive Asiatic races of mankind;” and there can be nothing repugnant, therefore, to the religious feeling of the age in the explanation which I have ventured to give of a portion of this document. I would refer indeed to Dr. Prichard's temperate and enlightened note on the Biblical Chronology, already quoted, as a proof that the severest criticism may be applied to the book of Genesis without in any way impugning its canonical authority.

^{page 217 note 1} Berosus flourished from the time of Alexander at Babylon (B.C., 331) to the reign of Antiochus Soter, his great historical work having been dedicated to the latter king in B.C. 279. For the authorities, see Müller's, Frag. Hist. Græc., vol. II. p. 492. As Cuneiform tablets, therefore, have been lately found, differing in no respect from the ancient writing, and which are dated in the reigns of Seleucus and Antiochus, I am quite justified in asserting that the original historical records of Babylon were accessible to the researches of BerosusGoogle Scholar.

^{page 217 note 2} This fragment, which is a quotation by Alexander Polyhistor from the Bαζυλωνιακ of Berosus, was first published in the Armenian Eusebius (see Aucher's, Eusebii Chron. vol. I. p. 40). Syncellas (p. 78) has the same extract (copied probably from Eusebius), but he has so altered the numbers, and distorted the entire sense, that the value of the passage is lost. It is, however, to this source alone that we are indebted for our knowledge of Berosus having mentioned the name of ZoroasterGoogle Scholar.

^{page 217 note 3} See the Rerum Assyriorum Tempora Emendata of Dr. Brandis (Bonn, 1853), and the reference to Gutschmid's, Essay in the Mus. Rhen., given in p. 16Google Scholar.

^{page 217 note 4} I do not, I confess, find it anywhere stated that this Cycle was known to the Babylonians. The Germans seem to have merely inferred that, as the Nerus, or ordinary great year, according to Josephus consisted of 10 Sossi (60 × 10 = 600), so the astronomical great year must have consisted of 10 Sari (3600 × 10 = 36,000). That the Babylonians did really make use both of the centesimal and sexagesimal notation, as stated by Berosus, is abundantly proved by the monuments; and from the same sources we can illustrate the respective uses of the Sarus, the Nerus, and Sossus in the calculation of the higher numbers. The phonetic reading, moreover, for a Soss, constantly occurs, Sussu in the singular, and — Susi in the plural; and though I have never yet determinately recognized the words written phonetically which represent a Nerus and a Sarus, they will no doubt be discovered in time. Soss, or Suss, is of course the Hebrew but I doubt if there are any Semitic analogies for Ner and Sar. To give a specimen of the ordinary Babylonian sexagesimal notation, I append the concluding portion of a table of squares, which extends in due order from 1 to 60.

In Roman numerals this is simply

Now as we here find the unit, the Soss, and the Sar, to be each represented by , while the decades of each series are indicated by , it is evident that the Babylonian notation consisted of a double recurring series, in which the elements and were used respectively for the decades and units of the integers of 60. Applying this system of notation to the numbers of Berosus, 34,080 will be represented by , which I should read as 9 Sari and 29 Soss, but which may be equally well expressed by 9 Sari, 2 Neri, and 9 Soss, the very words quoted by Syncellus from Polyhistor. If there bad been any fractional parts of a Soss, a third series of the signs and would have been added. There was probably also a higher number in the next ascending series of 60 beyond the Sar, which gave as its product 216,000, and two of these periods constituted the antediluvian cycle of Berosus, computed by Syncellus at 432,000 years.

And while I am now discussing the notation of the Babylonians, I may as well give the phonetic reading of the numbers, as they are found in the Assyrian vocabularies.

That is—

On another fragment we have—

That is—

These readings are valuable, net merely for their Semitic forms, but also for their grammatical peculiarities.

Mons. Oppert communicated to me last year a theory, which he has probably published before this, that the use of the Soss, Ner, and Sar originated in the minor divisions of time. The Soss he supposed to be tire hour of 60 minutes; the Ner (Arab. ) the day of 10 hours; and the Sar () the month, containing 60 of these 10-hour periods. But this explanation does not, I confess, appear to me at all satisfactory, I know of no authority for a decimal horary division. I doubt much if or , although used for the day-light, ever designated a period either of 10 hours or 12; apd I question still more the existence in Babylonian of the Arabic word Shahar for a month. Having stated that the phonetic forms of Ner and Sar are still desiderata, I may add that in two passages of the Assyrian syllabary Níru is given as the phonetic plural for a very complicated monogram , which is explained in the left hand column as Sudun, a term perhaps, allied to six, though the initial sibilant is of a different class; whether indeed does really represent the Nηρ of Berosus I consider extremely doubtful.

^{page 221 note 1} See Simplicius ad. Aristot. de Cœlo, lib. ii. p. 123. There is, I believe, also an allusion to this date in the Scholiast to Aristophanes; but I have not the authority to refer to at Baghdad.

^{page 221 note 2} I have not made much progress as yet in reading the primitive Babylonian manuscripts; indeed, until within these few days, I have not had sufficient materials at my disposal; for the bricks and seal cylinders contain nothing but names and titles expressed by arbitrary monograms, and afford, therefore, very little insight into a language. Now, therefore, that I have received Mr, Loftus's collection of primitive Chaldæan tablets from Senkereh, I hope to make good progress. I already see, indeed, that the same pronouns and particles occur as in the later Babylonian, and that the verbs and participles are formed in the same manner; so that I have no hesitation in pronouncing the language to be Semitic; and this be it observed, is in opposition to my former opinion, which, from the want of such evidence, questioned the Semitic affinity of the language. Although it was always clear that the same monograms expressed the same ideas, it by no means followed that the same phonetic terms were employed in the two languages; indeed, the analogous comparison of the Armenian with the Assyrian rather led to a contrary conclusion.

^{page 222 note 1} The ethnic character to be assigned to the Elymæans still continues to be one of the most obscure questions connected with cuneiform research. Elam is allied with Asshur and Aram in the Toldoth Beni Noah, and a Semitic origin would seem, therefore, to be proved; but the native inscriptions of Susa and Elyrnais are undoubtedly written in Scythic dialects, more nearly related to the language of the second column of the trilingual Achæmenian records, than to any other class of cuneiform documents. As these inscriptions, moreover, are certainly of very great antiquity, I can only suppose that the Semitic Elymceans gave way to Scyths before the historic period, and that these latter inherited the name as well as the country of the race which they had dispossessed. In fact, I conceive the same irregular nomenclature to have prevailed in Susiana, although reversed, in its application, which has often been remarked upon in Syria. In that country, the Hamite or Scythic name of Sidon was retained after the city was peopled by the Semites, in Susiana; and the Semitic title of Elam was preserved after the country was peopled by the Scyths.

^{page 222 note 2} I have recently met with a date which confirms, in a most remarkable manner, the testimony of Callisthenes, and the restoration of the numbers of Berosus. I had always been aware, of course, that Pliny, in his discourse on the invention of writing, quoted the authority of Berosus and Critodemus for assigning to the Babylonian stellar observations an antiquity of 480 years—“ex quo apparet æternus literarum usus;” but, as I presumed these numbers to refer to the age of Berosus, and thus to ascend no higher than the eighth century, I could only suppose some fatal corruption of the text. On re-examining, however, the passage of Pliny, I see quite clearly that the numbers of Berosus refer to the era of Phoroneus, and record, in fact, a genuine Babylonian date adapted to the Greek calendar. “Anticlides,” says Pliny, “reports that letters were invented in Egypt by a certain man of the name of Menon, fifteen years before Phoroneus, who was the most ancient king of Greece, and endeavours to prove this from the monuments; but Epigenes, on the other hand, a first-rate authority, maintains that the Babylonians had recorded their sidereal observations inscribed on tablets of baked clay for 720 years [before that era]; and even Berosus and Critodemus, who are the most moderate calculators, say for 480 years, from which we may infer the extreme antiquity of the use of letters.” (See Plin. Nat. Hist., lib. vii. c 56.) Now, as Clinton, from a very large field of induction, and irrespectively altogether of the coincidence I am about to mention, has fixed the age of Phoroneus, as understood by the Greeks, to be B.C. 1753, we have an exact identity between the numbers of Berosus and Callisthenes; 1753 + 480, and 330 + 1903, giving the same result of B.C. 2233, for the primitive Semitic era of Babylon. In the text I have followed the Germans in placing Alexander's conquest of Babylon in B C. 331, instead of in 330, which is the usual chronological date, and there is thus the difference of a year in the Babylonian epoch; but this is of no consequence. The numbers of Epigenes, which exceed those of Berosus by 240 years (or by 230, if we follow some of the MSS. of Pliny), include, no doubt, the Median dynasty, which preceded the Semites in Chaldæa, the duration of which was calculated by Berosus at 224 or 234 years; but it may fairly be questioned, in the absence of all local evidence, if the Scyths really recorded their observations upon tablets. Consult Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. I. pp. 9, 139, and 282.

^{page 223 note 1} Stephen de Urbibus, in voce β;αζυλὼν

^{page 223 note 2} The value of this quotation is of course impaired by the discrepant numbers of Eustathius, who, in his commentary on verse 1005 of the Periegesis of Dionysius, writes the date in full, χιλίοις κτακοσιοις, so that, whether he followed Stephen or Philo, he must have read the numbers instead of p/3'—1,800 years, however, before the Trojan war falls in with no era whatever; and Eustathius, therefore, in all probability, was misled by a textual error. See MUUer's Greek Fragments, Vol. III. p. 575.

^{page 223 note 3} See Gaisford's Eus. Pr. Ev. 1, 9, 2; and Müller's Fragments, Vol. III. p. 563.

^{page 223 note 4} For the Trojan era I have merely consulted Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, Vol. I. p. 123; Larcher's Herodotus, torn. VII. p. 352–404; and Mailer's Fragments, Vol. I. p. 571.

^{page 223 note 5} That is, 747 + 526, according to the computation of Berosus preserved by Polyhistor, as already quoted.

^{page 224 note 1} The Assyrian reigns of Ctesias, with their respective duration, and the period at which the dynasty closed, were differently computed by all the chronologers, although they drew their information from the same source. The calculation of Syncellus was the nearest to the truth, though quite wrong iu its details; for, by assigning the close of the empire to B.C. 826, under Ayiphron at Athens, and by computing its duration at 1460 years, he obtains the date B.C. 2285 for its commencement; And if from this number we deduct 65 years for the reign of Belus, we have B.C. 2230 for the era of Ninus, which only differs by four jears from the Babylonian date of CallJBthenes, See Clinton's Fast. Hell., Vol. I, p. 266.

^{page 224 note 2} Clinton believes the statement, which is only found in Diodorus, to proceed from Ctesias, and even speculates that Ctesias, like his contemporary Isocrates, placed the fall of Troy a few years below the epoch of Eratosthenes (Fast. Hell. I. 268); but I should rather ascribe the calculation to Diodorus himself, since it is not mentioned either by Eusebius or Syneellus, and is even at variance with their numbers.

^{page 225 note 1} The Greek synchronisms are, the war of Perseus and Bacchus, the Argonautic expedition, the Trojan war, the era of Lycurgus, &c. The principal scriptural dates are, for the birth of Abraham and the Exodus from Egypt, calculated according to the numbers of the Septuagint; but the canon of Eusebius of course aims at a complete scheme of general comparative chronology from the most ancient times to his own days.

^{page 225 note 2} This solitary instance of accuracy in regard to names is in the notice of Bolochus and Śemiramis (or Phulukh and Sammuramit) and their being followed by Balatar (or Tiglath Palatsar), but in this case even it is doubtful if Ctesias recognized a change of dynasty; for Agathias and Syncellus, although using nearly the same names that are found in Ctesias, quote Bion and Polyhistor as their authorities for the revolution.

^{page 225 note 3} As Diodorus also places the capital of Sardanapalus on the Euphrates, it has been supposed that there was this radical geographical error in Ctesias' notice of Nineveh; but Nicolaus of Damascus, who also follows Ctesias in his account of the taking of Nineveh, names the river correctly the Tigris, and it thus seems probable that Ctesias, in his first description, where the river Euphrates is twice mentioned, really alludes to a capital of Ninus, distinct from the Assyrian Nineveh. The German geographers, indeed, upon these grounds, often place a “vetus Ninus” on the Euphrates near Babylon. If the primæval capital of Ctesias, however, have any historic identity, it is to be looked for at Warka or Mugheir; at any rate, in the lower basin of the Euphrates, and not on the upper part of the river, where canals of irrigation, the invention of a later age, were requisite for the production of corn and the other necessaries of life.

^{page 226 note 1} Epiphanius and the chronologers define “Seythism” as the period extending from the flood to the age of Peleg or of Terah, the father of Abraham; and Plutarch and Pliny allude to the same period of exteme antiquity, when they place the age of the Scythic Zoroaster 5000 years before the Trojan war.

^{page 227 note 1} I refer especially to Epiphanius, John of Malala, the author of the Paschal Chronicle, John of Antioch, Cedrenus, &c.

^{page 227 note 2} Diogenes Laertius (i. 8, de Magis), quoting Hermodorus and Dinon. Numerous explanations have been given of the etymology of this name by Bochart, Kircher, and others, more or less in accordance with the Greek translation, and all referring to Semitic sources (See Stanley's Philosophy, p. 758); but the critical judgment of the present age seems to prefer an Arian derivation, and to agree with Burnouf in referring all the Greek forms to the Zend word, Zarath-ushtra, “the possessor of yellow camels”. I venture, however, to revive the Semitic theory, and to propose as the original form of the name Ziru-is¯tar, “the seed of the goddess”, a regular Babylonian compound, very much resembling the of Scripture. ziru (answering to the Heb. comp. Zerubbabel) is everywhere put for the Persian tumá (tukhm); and Ishtur, denoting specifically the planet Venus, is used generally for female deities, like the Ashtaroth of Scripture. I must add that although we have not Ziru-ishtar in the inscriptions, as far as I know, for Zoroaster or the Hamites, yet we have constantly the analogous compound Ziru-banit or as an epithet for Belus, the prototype of the Semites. I am in doubt about the meaning of banit or panit, but the epithet is of course the Zerwan of later times, who was understood to be the same as Shem, although the Berosian Sybil confounded this Zerwan with Zoroaster. See Moses of Chorene, Winston's edition, p. 17.

^{page 228 note 1} The name does not occur in the extract from Polyhistor given in the Armenian Eusebius, but has been preserved by Syncellus.

^{page 228 note 2} See the extracts of Cephalion, collected from Syncellus and Moses of Chorene, in Müller's Fragments, Vol. III, p. 623. In Syncellus, the name is Ζωροάστρου μάγου; in Mos. of Chorene, “Zaravaste, mago Bactrianorum rege”. In another passage of Hoses, also from Cephalion (lib. i. c. 16), Zoroaster is called “the Magian chief of the Medes”, and is said to have been placed in the government of Assyria by Semiramis.

^{page 228 note 3} Arnobius, it must be observed, where he quotes the first book of Ctesias, which, as we learn from Photius, treated exclusively of the Assyrian “origines”, expressly terms Zoroaster a Bactrian; and it is almost certain, therefore, that the passage quoted in the text, which commences “Ut, inter Assyrios et Bactrianos, Nino quondam Zoroastreque ductoribus”, must also be drawn from the same source. I mention this, as Ctesias has often been cited as an authority for placing Zoroaster under Darius Hystaspes. I shall have occasion to refer to the famous Zoroastrian passage of Arnobius in another place. In the first book of Stanley's Chaldee Philosophy, the subject of Zoroaster is treated with all the learning that belonged to the age in which it was written.

^{page 228 note 4} The objection to this etymology ia, that the word “leopards” often occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions under the form of or that is, Nirmri, whereas the ethnic title is written Namri, so that, if the two words were identical in their origin, their connection had been at any rate forgotten in later times.

^{page 229 note 1} This title, written as is distinctly seen on an alabaster vase belonging to Naram Sin, one of the primitive Chaldæan kings, which has been lately obtained by Mons. Freshel at Babylon. In the ordinary Chaldæan titles, however, seems to Constitute of itself a distinctive epithet; and I cannot, therefore, depend on its phonetic power.

^{page 229 note 2} These traditions are to be found in the Paschal Chronicle, Cedrenus, and the Anonymous Chronicle prefixed to John of Malala.

^{page 229 note 3} Equivalent to the Hebrew , Gibbur, which is the particular title given to Nimrod in Scripture.

^{page 229 note 4} See Paschal Chron. ed. Dind., p. 67; and compare the following page, where the ancient Assyrian traditions are given on the authority of an ancient writer named Σεμηρώνιος ό Βαξυλώνιος Πέρσης. Suidas, Cedrenus, and the anonymous clironologers repeat the same tradition.

^{page 229 note 5} See passage of Histiæus in Müller's Frag., Vol. IV. p. 434, where, moreover, there is the remarkable phrase ɛἰζ Σɛναρ τζ Bαυλωναζ.

^{page 229 note 6} Ούτος (i.e. Nimrod) διδάσκει Άσσυρίους σέζειν τ πῡρ —PasC. Chron., p. 50. The most determinate proof, however, of the identity of Nimrod and Zoroaster is to be found in the common attribution to them of the invention of Astronomy, Astrology, Magic, and Genethlialogy. See particularly Anon. Chron. (John of Malala), p. 17, where the description given of Nimrod is precisely that which ordinarily belongs to the primitive Chaldeean Zoroaster.

^{page 230 note 1} So at Birs-i-Nimrud, Kutha, Akherkuf, Wárka, &c. The Arabs generally derived, no doubt, their knowledge of Nimrod and Abraham from the Koran; but the commentaries and geographical explanations of the very early traditionists, who drew their inspiration both from the Talmud and from local sources, prove that the legend must have existed in the country long before the Mohammedan conquest. I suspect, indeed, that the Jewish rabbis adopted their forced reading of “fire” for , in order to fall in with the current popular tradition which connected Nimrod with the fire-worship; and this reading is at least as old as the third or fourth century, as it was known to, and partially approved by, St. Jerome.

^{page 230 note 2} In the mere sketch which I am now writing, I cannot of course enter upon any general discussion of primitive Noachide ethnography. Referring, however, to the four sons of Ham, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan, I may note as follows: The sons of Cush in the Bible, excluding Nimrod, designate the original Scythic colonization of Arabia from Susiana, the traditions of these colonists having been well traced by Caussin de Perceval, in the first book of his Hist des Arabes. Of Mizraim, or Egypt, I will only remark that the (or Χασμωνιειμ of the LXX), from whom sprung the Philistines, are certainly the race called in the inscriptions, who held all Southern Syria as a dependency of Egypt in the time of Tiglath Pileser I. (B.C. 1125). The reading of the name is doubtful, for, curiously enough according to the vocabularies, has the power of khaslu as well as khuzma: the concluding syllable is nim. Phut, although peopling Lybia, also left a large remnant in the mountains of Elymais; hence, Cush and Phut are joined with Pars in Ezek. xxxviii. 5; and the Kushiyá and Putiyá are associated in the inscriptions of Darius. The latter, whose Babylonian name was Budu, are the Median Bοδιοι of Herodotus. All the Canaanites were, I am satisfied, Scyths; and the inhabitants of Syria retained their distinctive ethnic character until quite a late period of history. According to the inscriptions, the Khetta or Hittites were the dominant Scythic race from the earliest times, and they gave way very Blowly before the Arama?ans, Jews, and Phoenicians, who were the earliest and probably the only extensive Semitic immigrants. The Hittite capital was at Carchemish; but this city had nothing to do with Circessium at the mouth of the Khabor, as is generally presumed; it was on the Euphrates, immediately contiguous to Hierapolis. Hence, the Syrians translated Carchemish by Mabog (2 Chron. xxxv. 20), which latter title, moreover, was a regular Achcemenian compound for “Mother of the Gods”, the famous Dea Syria of Lucian.

^{page 231 note 1} Compare especially the ten antediluvian generations, the building of the ark, the sending out of the birds, the very connexion between Babel and the confusion of tongues, which, although no doubt a popular belief, is disproved by the cuneiform orthography Bab-il, “the gate of the God II”. This Il is no doubt the Ἤλοζ of Sanchoniathon, and as the name is expressed by the letter ra, I suspect an Egyptian origin, the same sign being used which would have been phonetically rendered Ra “the sun”; while the Semitic pronunciation was given of el or il, which may have been used by the primitive Semites for the same deity, though of this there is no proof. The god is almost unknown in the later Babylonian and Assyrian mythology. I must also notice, in regard to the traditions of Berosus, that his Xisuthrus is, I think, to be recognized in the god which name, on the Tiglath Pileser Cylinder, replaces the ordinary or . I read the t w o names doubtfully as Sisirsu and Nuha (Noah). That the God in question represents the Greek Neptune is at any rate almost certain; he was worshipped on the sea-shore, and ships of gold were dedicated to him. His ordinary title is “King…;” and the latter word is explained in the vocabulary as Sing.; Plural; that is, apzu, which may be allied to Ποσ in Ποσɛιδν, as it is also joined with nun, “a fish” (or ). His other epithets are , sar marrat, “king of the sea”, and , probably “god of the ship or aik”. Other titles I cannot explain; but they seem to be all connected with traditions of the biblical Noah.

^{page 232 note 1} Lepsius raises the historic period of Egypt at least as high as 4000 B.C.; and Mons. Gobineau, in his excellent work “Sur I' Inégalité des Races Humaines” (tom. i. p. 367), assumes, as an established fact, that history is to be traced beyond the year 5000 B.C. When I speak of historic and prse-historic periods in this memoir, I refer especially to Semitic records.

^{page 235 note 1} Thus, the King of Babylon assembles against Shamas-phul, on one side the Aramæans and Chaldæans, on the other the Elymæans and Namri. It must be confessed that, on the Nimrud obelisk, the kings of the Namri have Semitic names, that is, names compounded of the Assyrian gods; and the same remark applies in some cases to the kings of Elymais; but I suspect that these are instances of a foreign nomenclature, or that the Assyrians translated the Scythic vernacular names. At any rate, in the inscriptions of Susa and Elymais, the name of a Semitic god has never yet been found.

^{page 235 note 2} This association is not clearly given in the published inscriptions of Khursabad; but on Mons. Place's new cylinders of Sargon it is distinctly stated.

^{page 236 note 1} I may here mention that in one of my vocabularies the phonetic power of Elam is assigned to the character , and that there is accordingly no longer any doubt as to the Babylonian name of Susiana.

This correction was first brought to my notice by Mr. Norris, who discovered the error in copying, by pantograph, the Babylonian paper casts of the Bisitun Inscription deposited with the i^oyal Asiatic Society; and, on referring to my own note book, I found that I had in both passages copied the initial letter for the Babylonian name of the Sacæ as which is equivalent to the Assyrian , but had afterwards altered the form to , on the authority of Westergaard and Tasker'a copies of the Babylonian tablet at Nakliah-j-Rustam. I have no doubt now bnt that or is the true form of the initial sign.

^{page 236 note 2} The Babylonian is probably to ba compared with , “archers”, in Job, xvi. 13, and perhaps has the same meaning in Gen. xxi, 20. Compare also the names of Sarancæ and Comani, both signifying “archers”, and the general name of “the nation of archers” applied by the Armenians to the Tartars. See St. Martin's Armenia, torn. H. p. 439.

Before quitting the subject of the Namri, I must give some further illustrations of their habitat and their connexion with the Sacæ. In the Assyrian Inscriptions they are usually the first nation met with after crossing the Jesser Zab and approaching the mountain barrier of Zagros (compare the expeditions of the 16th, 25th, and 31st year of the Assyrian king on the Nimrud Obelisk). Their principal settlement, therefore, was in the modern plain of Sheherixor; and here, at the time of the Arab conquest, the capital, now marked by the extensive ruins of Tassin Teppeh, was still named Nimrah. It is true that the early Arab geographers, Ibn Khordadbeh, &c., who were always seeking for Persian etymologies, read this name as nim az rái, and pretended it was so called from being half-way between the fire-temple of Shiz (or Ganzaca) and Ctesiphon; but I oonsider this explanation to be certainly spurious, and prefer regarding Nimrah as a genuine relic of the old Scythic inhabitants.

Again, there is no doubt but that the title Nim-ruz (meridies) was applied to countries by the Persians of the Sassanian age, to denote a southern position (see Bún-dehesh, Moses Chorenensis, and Massudi); but this geographical indication will by no means explain the application of the name of Nimroz to the province of Seistan, which was in fact to the east or north-east Of all the great Persian settlements. Bearing in mind, then, that Seistan, Segestan, or ΣακασΓηνη, was inhabited by tiie Sacs division of the Persian Scyths, at least as early as the time of Isidore of Charax, does it not seem probable that the title of Nimruzis a mere corruption of the Scythic name of Namri, nearly, in fact, reproducing the biblical form of Nimrod? The ethnic affinity of these Sacæ is at any rate proved by their association with the Scythic Kushan to the north and the Scythic Turan and Kusan immediately to the south; and it is certainly, therefore, not a little curious to find them designated by the same name whioh is applied to the Persian Saká in the Babylonian version of the Achsemenian tablets. My own idea of the connexion between the Namri and Sacæ is simply this, that the names were given to the Scythian “hunters” by the Semites and Arians respectively, to denote their passion for the chase, the one race using as a type the hunting leopard, and the other the hunting dog. I will mention, at any rate, another instance of the association of the leopard and dog, which may be accidental, but which certainly seems to me worthy of being noticed. St. James of Seruj, describing the idols which were anciently worshipped at Edessa, Harran, and in the neighbouring countries, assigns Bel and Nebo to the former plaee, and Sin and Beel Shemin, or “the moon and sun” to the latter; he then goes on, “ba bar Nimra va Mari di Kalbuti, Tarata va Gadlat”. Assemanni supposes all these to be names of Chaldeean idols at Harran, and accordingly translates “the leopard son (Bacchus), the dog lords Tarata and Gadlat”; but I take Bar Nimra and Mari di Kalbuti to be geographical names, to denote, that is, the tribes who worshipped Atargatis and Gadlat, or Venus and Diana, two particular deities being throughout assigned to each locality. If it be so, then Bar Nimra, or the “leopard sons”, will be the Scythian Nimri, and Mari di Kalbuti will be the “Sacan Medes”, who may, at the time in question, have inhabited the skirts of Taurus, At any rate, the Chaldeans of Harran, whose books we still have, certainly never worshipped “leopards” or “dogs”; and if the names, therefore, in St. James do really designate idols, they were the personifications of the ancient Scythic tribes. The Syriac passage is farther of interest ia giving us the true orthography () of the Greek Atargatis, which also occurs in the Talmud (De Idol. c. 1, f. 11, b) as . The Syriac Tar'atá and Gadlat are no doubt the two supreme goddesses of the Inscriptions, and , to adopt the most common types of expression; but there is no reason to suppose that the Syriac names were used at Nineveh and Babylon. On the contrary, Venus was almost certainly known to the Assyrians as Ishtar, and to the Babylonians as Nana. To the phonetic name of Diana, I have no positive clue as yet; but Dr. Hineks is certainly wrong in suggesting Gula, for is the same goddess with , or , as may be proved by a host of examples; and the ideographs for the other goddess are , or , or , or , or . In one instance only have I ever found substituted for , and that is on a primitive Chaldean brick, before a due distinction probably had been established.

I also observe, in that most important list of the Chaldsean gods of Harran given in the Pihrist, Bel, the destroyer of the Nemour (or Nimrt), joined with Baaltis, the protectress of the Maari (or Medes). See Jour. Asiat., 3rd Ser. vol. XII. p. 267. This list would be invaluable, if a correct MS. of the Fihrist could be consulted.

^{page 238 note 1} This passage, moreover, seems to me to afford a most valuable explanation of the celebrated Zoroastrian notice of Arnobius, which has been so much discussed, and so variously understood. I would freely translate the passage as follows:—“Let us now speak of the Cushite Zoroaster at the torrid zone, the Magian of Inner Asia, a Bactrian if we agree with Hermippus, and let him be compared with the Armenian Zoroaster, whose exploits are related by Ctesias in his first book; or with the nephew and disciple of Hostanes, called Eras Pamphylius”. The only novelty which I propose is to understand Quis, which is nonsense as the text now stands, to denote a Cushite. The torrid zone, then, exactly answers to the Greek idea of Æthiopia and “ab interiore orbe” will be the same as τηνεσωτεραν IIεοσίος. It is impossible to say whether “Bactrianus” is given on the authority of Hermippus or Ctesias; but from Cephalion we may infer that the latter author did really assert the Armenian descent of Zoroaster; and “Armenius, Pamphylius, Erus”, agrees, moreover, with Plato. See the elaborate discussion of the passage in question in Stanley's Philosophy, p. 758.

^{page 239 note 1} For Mr. Norris's opinion on the Afar of Susiana, see Journ. R. A. S., vol. XV. p. 3 and 164. The Amardi of the Greeks may have been a branch of the same Scythic family; but I doubt myself that there was any close or immediate connexion between them and the Afar of Susiana. I see traces of the latter name in the and the of Ezra v. 6, and iv. 9, these compounds being probably “the Sacan Afar” and “the Afar of Sittace”. Afruniyeh, the ancient name of Wasit, may be derived from the same source; and there is also an Abara in the Peutingerian Table near the site of, if not identical with, Niffer.

^{page 239 note 2} In the Scythic inscription of Susa, the name of Surinaga, occurs in almost every line—compare Heb. of Ezra iv. 9. The Assyrians wrote simply Sushan, like the Heb. .

^{page 239 note 3} Mons. Caussin de Perceval (Hist, des Arabes, torn. i. p. 13) has already remarked on the evident connexion between the Arab traditions of the conquest of Egypt by Sheddád, and his residence at Awar, the after site of Alexandria, with Manetho's account of the Hycsos invasion, and the building of the city of Avaris, so named αχοτινοςαοχαίαςθεολογίας.

^{page 240 note 1} I have noticed the ancient ethnic relationship of the Kushan of Khorassan in a preceding note, and now add a few words regarding their later history. Under the disguised Chinese form of Kwei-shaang they are well known to Indian numismatists, being the particular race who, under the name of the Kadphises dynasty, occupied Afghanistan about the period of the Christian era. ID the title of Kojoulo we have probably a trace of the ethnic name, and Korsoko is the very epithet which, according to Solinus, these Scyths applied to their Persian neighbours. The point, however, on which I particularly insist is, that the successive tribes of Scythians who overran Bactria and Upper India, between the Greek conquest and the era of Islam, were the aborigines of Persia, and did not come from the frontiers of China. The Szusof the Chinese are the Shus or Shos, who had their capital at Σονουί in the time of Alexander. The Ασωί (perhaps the Azes of the coins and Asvas of the Puranas) may be the Άσόα τν μεγάλων Ίνδν, the name given to Eastern Persia by the Zoroastrian Scyths, according to the legend in the Paschal Chronicle. At any rate, the Τοχαροί, joined with the Asii and Sacarauli by Strabo, and also mentioned by Trogus Pompeius, were settled in the Armenian mountains in the time of Sennacherib. It is only, indeed, through Persia that a Semitic alphabet, and the Semitic worship of Nanaia or Venus, could ftave been introduced into Bactria by the Scythic invaders.

^{page 240 note 2} See the names of Gomer, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Ashkenaz, and Togarmah, Gen. x. 2, 3.

^{page 241 note 1} There is no geographical indication better established in the inscriptions of Assyria, than the location of the and that is, the Tuplai and Musical, in the countries which intervened between Syria and Cappadocia. Kummukha, or Κωμαγήνη, was apart of Muska; and the king of this country, who paid tribute to Tiglath Pileser II., was named Kustaspa, which is evidently an Arian compound. The kings of the Moschi and Comtnagene, who contended with Tiglath Pileser I. (about B.C. 1130), have names of a very uncertain etymology, but which cannot possibly be Semitic; they are—1st, Kililteru, son of Kalilteru, son of Isarupin-Sihusun; and 2ndly, Shadilteru, son of Khattukhin.

^{page 241 note 2} For this important extract from Massoudi's Tenbih, see Notice des Manuscrits, tom. VIII. p. 148. It is, indeed, all the more interesting to find this assimilation of Arian with Nimrud, that Massoudi himself was evidently not aware of the connexion between and .

^{page 242 note 1} See Moses of Ohorene, lib. ii. c. 43, and, in fact, all the Armenian historians and geographers. The dragon race of Media is also constantly mentioned in Moses of Chorene, from the old traditions.

^{page 242 note 2} “Barbarâ linguâ Mauros pro Medis appellantes”.—Sall, de Bell. Jugurth.

^{page 242 note 3} Argonaut, verse 742. For the Æthiopians or Scyths of Colchis, see all the authorities collected by Bochart, Phaleg., lib. iv. c. 31; and in Larcher's Herodotus, tom. II. p. 373.

^{page 242 note 4} The names of the countries subdued by Tiglath Fileser beyond the mountains to the east are difficult to be read, and absolutely unknown in later history. They are—

Asshur-akh-pal crossed the mountains more to the south, after ravaging Upper Babylonia, and perhaps, therefore, never entered Media Proper.

^{page 243 note 1} The Bartsa seem to have dwelt between the Namri and the Medes (See Nimrud Obelisk, Is. 120 and 185). I now question whether this name can represent the Persians. The first authentic notice of the Persians is, I think, in a late inscription of Sennacherib, where the Partsu are associated with the Elymæans, as allies of the Chaldaeans and Aramaeans, in an attempt made by the son of Merodach Baladan to drive out the governor who had been placed by the Assyrian king in charge of Babylonia.

^{page 243 note 2} What I particularly remark in the geographical nomenclature of Media is the constant use of kin or kind, evidently as a prefix or affix of locality; and as this same term was further extensively used among the nations of Asia Minor, I compare it with the Turkish kend, rather than with the Semitic .

^{page 243 note 3} If the name of this country is really to be read Bikni, I can offer no possible explanation of it. In some passages, however, the last letter is , and if this form be correct, the entire name will be Bikrat, which nearly answers to the Vaekeret of the Vendidad, denoting, as I think, Khorassan. I may also observe that the stone for which Bikni or Bikrat was celebrated (see B. M. Series, p. 24, 1. 9), is almost certainly the lapis lazuli, as it applies to the enamelled bricks of Babylon and Nineveh; and this product no doubt came to Assyria from Khorassan or Bactria.

I should wish to read the word as Khasmat, and thus to compare the Babylonian name for the lapis lazuli with the Egyptian Chesbet; but I am not sure that has in any case the power of Khas. According to the ordinary power of the letters we might read either Khamat or Khasat, but I still lean to Khasmat. The lapis lazuli was taken to Egypt from Babylon.

^{page 244 note 1} See B. M. Series, p. 24, 10, and 25, 22. The Sennacherib passage is in the 34th line of Grotefend's Cylinder.

^{page 244 note 2} There is a Daiukka carried off from Armenia by Sargon, and placed in Hamath; but no other name occurs at all resembling Δηίοκης in the annals of Sargon, although, according to the dates of Herodotus, they must have been contemporaries. It seems to me, indeed, that Herodotus has fallen into the same error in distinguishing Δηίοκης and Αστυάγης, which we find in the Zend Avesta itself, where the name of “the biting snake”, personifying Media,—which is given in the Vendidad in full as Ajis daháka (in the nom.), is abbreviated to Daháka alone, in the hymn to the god Homa: the same tradition, however, of the destruction of the snake by Thritaon or Feridun, which typifies the transfer of power from the Medes to the Persians, applying to both the names (see Journal As. 1844, p. 498). By the Dejoces of Herodotus, I understand the genuine Median nation, the Mar or snakes; and I further suspect that he took his Phraortes from the Frawartish of Bisitun, who was the antagonist of Darius Hystaspes, and did really gain great advantages over the Persians. I am supported, indeed, in this explanation, not Wily by the negative evidence of the Assyrian inscriptions, during the supposed reigns of Dejoces and Phraortes, but by the fact that Diodoros substitutes the name of Cyaxares for the Dejoces of Herodotus, and by the remarkable boast of both the rebel leaders, Frawartish of Media, and Chitratakhma of Sagartia, that they were of the race of Huwakhshatra, or Cyaxares, in allusion, as it would seem, to the well-known chief of some great and recent Arian immigration. The Sagartii were a race who, according to Herodotus, spoke the same language as the Achæmenian Persians; but they inhabited far to the east of the Caspian Gates, and at first sight, therefore, it seems difficult to understand how a native Sagartian could have claimed to be of the blood royal of Media. If we assume, however, that the great Arian immigration took place in the first half of the seventh century B.C., everything comes out satisfactorily. Acæemenes, the leader of the Persian division, was the fifth ancestor of Darius Hystaspes. Cyaxares, or Huwakhshatra, leader of a cognate division of Sagartians, was the third ancestor of Cyrus. The former turned to the south and took possession of Persis; the latter proceeded due west from Khorassan, leaving colonies along the mountains south of the Caspian, and gradually established an Arian supremacy over the Scythic Medes, an event for which we have the direct authority of Herodotus himself. All this is singularly in accordance both with the line of immigration indicated in the Vendidad, and with the traditions of Feridun at Damawend and along the Elburz. It further, too, explains a host of difficulties, not only in regard to dates, but with respect to the linguistic and religious relationship of the Medes and Persians of history.

^{page 245 note 1} It is probable, indeed, that this connexion of the Scyths with the earlier Medes is indicated by the name of their king, Madyas, who was the antagonist of Cyaxares; and it May be further observed that the building of Agbatana by Dejoees is a mere type of astronomical Magism, the seven walls being the seven concentric spheres of the heavens, each ruled by its dominant planet, and characterized by its particular colour. That a nation, moreover, which held all Asia in subjection, and was strong enough to march from Assyria to Palestine in order to attempt the conquest of Egypt, should have been suddenly annihilated at a small dinner party, is a fiction so gross that it could hardly have imposed even on the credulity of Herodotus.

^{page 245 note 2} In order to explain more fully the view which I take of the primitive Zoroastrian faith, of its relationship on the one hand to Theism, before the latter merged into idolatry, and on the other to Dualism, and of the respective attribution of these three faiths in Western Asia to the Scyths, Semites, and Arians, I venture to append some further illustrations in a note. Moses of Chorene (p. 17), after quoting the Berosian Sybil and some old Greek traditions of Olympiodorus, states, as a well-known, fact, that the people of the east termed Zerwan, Sim or Shem; and that the memory of the conflict between the three Noachide brothers, and the rise of their respective names, were preserved in the popular songs of Armenia to his day. Now Zerwan is, as I have said before, in all probability, the Ziru-banit of the inscriptions, which is the ordinary epithet of Bel, or Belus, evidently the prototype of the Semitic race. At the same time, a host of ancient traditions, both Christian and Talmudic (collected by Bochart, Phaleg. col. 204; and Stanley, Chald. Philosoph., p. 760), identified the Greek Zoroaster with Ham. I therefore think it almost certain that Zerwan and Zoroaster are antithetical names applied to the Semites and Scyths. To explain the name of Zoroaster, or Ziru-ishtar, I further observe that, during the conflict of the brothers, their sister Asteria conveyed away the children of one of them to the far east, or the borders of Bactria. (The sybil says this of Shem; but I understand it of Ham.) Here, then, we have the exact word Ziru-ishtar, or “the seed of Asteria,” for the primitive Noachide race which emigrated from Babylonia to Bactria; and we have further an admirable illustration of the Greek traditions, which connected Zoroaster, the founder of the Magian religion, on one side with Bactria, and on the other with the Hamite Nimrod in Babylonia.

Pursuing this subject, I conjecture that there was to a certain extent an interchange of knowledge and religious tenets between the Scyths and Semites before their final separation. The Zoroastrians must have imparted the elements of Magism and astronomy to the Chaldæans, while they received from them the worship of Bel Ziru-banit, typifying time. Hence, there is to be explained the Greek identification of Belus, the father of Ninus, with κρóνος and hence we may see the origin of the confusion of Zerwan with Zoroaster, as well as the reason why Zerwan signified “time” in Zend (no satisfactory Sanscrit etymology having been found); and how it happened that Zerwan, as the type of a pure theism, came to be irregularly amalgamated with dualism in the religion of the Parsees. A radical and irreconcilable distinction between theism and dualism, or the religion of Zerwan and the religion of Zoroaster, is perceptible in all the Greek and Armenian accounts of the Magian faith, as well as throughout the pages of the Zendavesta. Among later inquirers, Sheheristani alone seems to have understood this distinction in classifying the three divisions of Magi as Zerwainíyeh, or worshippers of infinite time; Zoroastrians, or true magi; and Thanawíyeh, or dualists; these divisions being referable to three primitive sources—Semitic theism, before the introduction of idolatry; the Scythic worship of the elements; and the Oromasdian faith of the Arian Achæmenides. See, on this really interesting subject, the second chapter of Wilson's Parsi Religion; note on Zerwan, in Brockhaus's Vendidad; Burnouf, in Jour. As., 1845, Avril, p. 275; St. Martin's Armenia, vol. II. p. 477, &c.

Whilst on the subject of the famous Zarwan akarana, or “time without bounds,” regarding whom so much has been written with, really so little success, I must add an illustration from the inscriptions which, for the present, can be received only as a conjecture, but to which, nevertheless, I attach some importance. The winged and horned bulls of Assyria are, perhaps, sometimes indicated by the words which are read phonetically by Dr. Hincks as illip illil, or the bull idols; but admitting even the correctness of the application of the names, I see very little for, and very much against, this reading. In one of my vocabularies, is explained by in the singular, and in the plural; that is, lamsu and lamassu, to which I cannot assign any Semitic equivalent. In another passage, however, the explanation of is given as that is khaltsu, which may be derived from (Hiph. “to make strong”), or from “to exult.” The second term is explained by or that is, karan in the singular, and karanu in the plural; and it seems to refer both to “time” and to a class of animals, otherwise represented by . I conjecture, therefore, that karan is the Hebrew , and signifies, as in Arabic, both “a horn” and “time” or “eternity,” typified by horns. Is not then, this karan the Greek κρóνος (so written when referring to Belus)? and is not Zerwan akarana “Zerwan the horned,” rather than merely “time without bounds”? I do not certainly suppose the Nineveh bulls to represent the image of or Bel-Ziru-banit; but they may have been emblems of strength and eternity, and have been thus named lamassu karanu. As a further evidence that refers to [horned] animals, I would also draw Dr. Hincks's attention to the fact that, on the Sennacherib bulls, the title is constantly replaced by that is, I think, “beasts of the field,” being a determinative generally used for [horned] goats, and or saddi or siddi being a well-known word answering to the Hebrew or .

It need not at all surprise us to find karan, “time,” answering to the Greek κρóνος, when we observe the near identity between the Babylonian khuratsu, “gold,” and χρνσòς and a host of other examples. The connexion which I have sought to establish between the winged and horned bulls of Nineveh and Persepolis, and the Zerwan akarana of later times is a more important and interesting matter. I would suggest even that Darius Hystaspes gladly admitted the horned type of eternity into his palace at Persepolis, notwithstanding his hostility to the magi, because Zerwan, or Ziru-banit, was of Semitic origin, and did not form an essential part of Magism as it then stood. This intricate question, however, will not be properly understood until we ascertain the meaning of the Assyrian word which is written or or banit or panit, and thus obtain an insight into the mythic genealogy of Belus.

^{page 247 note 1} I cannot too much insist on the importance of this remarkable notice of Herodotus, and on the striking contrast which his description exhibits both to the religion indicated in the Achæmenian records and to the dualistic faith afterwards known to the Greeks as Magism.

^{page 248 note 1} Thalia, c. 65.

^{page 248 note 2} See Bisitun Inscriptions, col. I. par. 14.

^{page 248 note 3} Herodotus, Thalia, c. 79. The festival is also mentioned by Ctesias and Agathias.

^{page 248 note 4} Observe, too, that Dino, the father of Clitarchus, and the oldest certain Writer among the Greets on the subject of Magism, describes in the same terms the incantations with the divining rod practised by the Scythian Magians and the Medes. (Schol. Nicand. Ther. 613.) From all the fragments, indeed, of Dino that have survived (see Müller's Fragments, vol. II. p. 88), I should suppose that he treated exclusively of pure Magism, and did not take any note of the dualistic heresy. I quote Dino as the earliest Greek author on the subject, because it is doubtful whether the first Alcibiades, where the notice occars of the Magic of Ζωροστρου το Ὠρομζου, be really Plato's.

^{page 248 note 5} For the native traditions regarding the fire-worship in Azerbaijan, and the birth of Zoroaster in that country, see my Memoir on the Atropatenian Ecbatana, in the Royal Geographical Society's Journal, vol. VIII.

The most westerly position that can be certainly identified in the first Fargard of the Vendidad, is Raga or Rhages. It is possible that Varene, “the squared,” where Thritaon destroyed Aj-dahak, may be the capital of Media Atropatene, the Vera or βρις of the Greeks; but the tradition of the transfer of power from the Medes to the Persians, or the defeat of Astyages by Cyrus at Ecbatana, was more determinately preserved in the story of the capture of Afrasiab, the true Scythic eponym, by Kai Khuzru at Shiz. Although, indeed, the Ajis dahaka of the Vendidad must almost certainly indicate the “snake” race, who afterwards inhabited Media, I think it most unlikely that the legend of Feridun and Zohak can refer to such a late period of history as the age of Cyrus.

In the hymn to the god Homa, Thritaon represents the second historical phase of the Arian immigrants, and refers, therefore, I should suppose, to their first collision with the Scythic Medes in their progress westward, about the meridian of the Caspian Gates, where we may infer from the Assyrian inscriptions the Madai were located as late as the eighth century B.C. This is further corroborated by the traditions which describe Rei and Damawend as the capitals of Feridun (the epithet of threzanta, or “three-germed,” which is applied to Raga, in the Vendidad, referring probably to the name of Thritaon and the triple division of his empire), and which further suppose Zohak to have been imprisoned under the mountain of Damawend, where magicians went to consult him. All things considered, therefore, I am inclined to identify Varene with the city of Damawend itself.

^{page 249 note 1} The Scjthic god of fire I suppose to be since I have found this term substituted for the ordinary or also constantly occurs in the names of cities, both in Media and Asia Minor. The Venus Urania of the Scyths, which Herodotus says they borrowed from the Assyrians, and which he confounds with the Arian Mithra, seems also, from the inscription of Artaxerxes at Susa, to have had a special title, which Mr, Norris reads as Tanata, and compares with the Greek Ταναḯς, As the Arian term in the same inscription is written Anahata, its connexion with the Zend anáhita and Sanscrit anasita (Yaçna, p. 432, note 289) is rendered doubtful, though the Babylonian orthography of anakhita, and the Greek Αναĩτιc, are in its favour. In the inscriptions of Nabonit, the goddess in question is always named Anunil, the second element being almost certainly the Egyptian Nειθ.

^{page 250 note 1} I allude of course to the introduction of the name of the god Ammon. See Bunsen's Egypt, p. 372.

^{page 250 note 2} See Poole's Horæ Ægyptiacæ, p. 201; and Kenrick's Egypt, vol. II. p. 245.

^{page 250 note 3} Pliny, quoting Eudoxus and Aristotle, gives the date of Zoroaster at 6000 years before the death of Plato. Hermippus, following Hermodorus Platonicus, as he is quoted by Pliny and Diogenes Laertius, fixes the date at 5000 years before the Trojan war, and Plutarch (in Isid. et Osir.) has the same statement. See Pliny, lib. xxx. c. 1; and Diog. Laer., i. 2. Aristotle also, in his treatise on Philosophy, maintained that the Magians were older than the Egyptians; and the 500 years before the Trojan war of Suidas is no doubt an error for 5000. The most complete collection of Magian and Zoroastrian authorities to which I have access, is in Brisson's second book, De reg. Pers. Princip.; but there is nothing like critique in any of the old dissertations. The main difficulty, however, in analysing Magism, lies with the Greeks themselves, who, misled by the anomalous faith which sprung up under the Achæmenians, constantly confounded Dualism with the religion of the primitive Zoroaster. If the first Alcibiades be genuine, Plato himself fell into this error. Aristotle (quoted by Diogenes Laertius, i. 8; Müller's Frag. vol. III. p. 53) certainly endorsed it, and his disciple Eudemus explained Magism, the faith of the Arian race, as the worship of the two principles. If Aristotle, however, really wrote the work on magic quoted by Diogenes, he maintained that the ancient Persians or Dualists were ignorant of the magic art; and the same distinction was advocated by Dino. I see, indeed, from a passage quoted from Clem. Alex, by Brisson, p. 232, that Dino positively asserted the Magian Medes to have no objects of worship but fire and water. As the astrologer Hermippus, at the same time, is one of the authorities quoted by Diogenes for the Dualism of the Magi, and is probably also the source from whence Plutarch drew his description of Zoroastrian Dualism, it must be presumed that the two millions of verses which he indexed and explained had been put together after the priesthood of the later Achæmenians had tampered with the original documents, and had engrafted on them their own Dualistic tenets.

^{page 251 note 1} Among the Vedic names in the Vendidad have been recognized Yimo, the son of Vivenghan, or Yama the son of Vivaswan, Mithra, and Homa, for and or the “sun” and “moon,” &c. The name of Haraqaiti again (Hara'utwatish, and Greek Άραχσια), exactly answering to applied by the primitive Arians to Candahar, seema to show that the colonists came from the true Kurukhshetra, and the banks of the Sarasvati river. The proper names of men, too, both in the Vendidad, in the cuneiform inscriptions, and even in the Greek notices of Persia, are in many cases Vedic or Puranic, and can almost always be referred to a Sanscrit etymology, thus authenticating the connexion of the races. Cyrus has the same name as the progenitor of the Kuruvas. Cambyses was named after the province of . The great point of interest at present would be to discover the Vedic correspondents of Athvi and Thritaon, and, if possible, of Sama and his two sons, Urvákhshaya and Keresáspa, as we should thereby obtain a clue to the approximate date of the Arian Exodus, and the progress of the colonists to the westward.

^{page 251 note 2} Compare the names of Sughdu, or Sogdiana; Mouru, or Merv; Ba´hdi, or Bactria; Nisáya, or Nisa; Haróyu, or Herat; Vehrkan, or Hyrcania; Haraqaiti, or Arachosia; Haetumat, or Hindmand; Ragha, or Rhages; and Hapta Hindu, or the seven Indies. Among the names which are still obscure, I observe that Vaeheret is named Daháko sayanem, thereby showing that the country was inhabited by the “snake” race, or Medes: I believe it to be Western Khorassan. Urvan, with its epithct of Pouru vastrám, is very difficult; it was probably in the Elburz range. I suspect a connexion between Chakh-ra and Kasu, in Casvin, Caspia, &c, kh in Zend representing su, although the epithet surein asavanem would indicate Semitic inhabitants. Verene, the birth-place of Feridun, must be Damawend; and Rañghaya for Rasya, as Danghu for dasyu, must be the cuneiform east of Susiana (or about Isfahan), which again is probably the Rosh of Ezekiel.

^{page 252 note 1} For instance, I take the Sakiti (translated “flies”), who annoyed the Arians in Sughd, to be ζκαι or ζκθαι; and the Dariwika (translated “wasps”), who contended with them at Herat, to be δερζικκο or δρεβικκο of the Greeks. It would be a very curious subject to analyse all the Zend names, and search for their geographical application.

^{page 252 note 2} I will here give the explanation of the word Selm, which has hitherto baffled etymologists. It is a simple transcription of the Word or or shalamu, or shalam which every where expresses “the west,” or “the setting sun” (from , because the day is “completed”?), in Assyrian and Babylonian. It thus exactly denotes the geographical position of the Semites in regard to the Arians. In all probability, the Salem of Melchizedek, who was the prototype of the Semite race in Syria, comes from the same source, as also do the mountains of the Solymi, which were known even to Homer. I believe even that the name of Jerusalem signifies nothing more than “the city of the west,” the sea-board of Syria having the general name of Shalam, from its geographical relation to Babylonia.

^{page 252 note 3} I have sometimes thought that in the first element of the name of Afrasiáb, we might perceive a trace of the Scythic Afar, and that the termination was the Ἀσο of the Paschal Chronicle, the name applied by the Scyths to Inner Persia; but this is a mere conjecture.

^{page 252 note 4} There is some probability that the great Arian movement to the west from the Caspian Gates began at an earlier period than is here indicated; that, in fact, it was an Arian invasion which produced the Assyrian revolution of B.C. 747; for Perseus, the Arian eponym, is continually mixed up by the Greeks, as the antagonist of Sardanapalus, with this revolution, and the joint government of Phulukh or Belochus, who was the victim of the crisis, with Semiramis (or Atossa, the latter being certainly an Arian name), is now an established fact. See my note on Semiramis, published in the Athenæum, No. 1388, of 3rd June, 1854, p. 690.

If, however, the Arians did really thus early descend upon Assyria, they could not have maintained their position; for the Scyths held the Kurdish mountains during the four or five following reigns, to the end, in fact, of the reign of Esar Haddon; and I thus think I am justified in naming Cyaxares as the first Arian king who obtained a permanent footing in the country.

In my notes on Semiramis, published in the Athenæum, whilst assuming an Arian origin for Sammuramit, the wife of Phulukh, on the strength of her other name, Atossa, I omitted to notice the direct authority of Hellanicus to this effect. In his two fragments, 163 a and 163 b, quoted by Müller, vol. I. p. 68, Atossa, who, from the description, can only be the wife of Phulukh or Belochus, is called the queen of the Persians and the daughter of Ariaspa, the latter being a pure Arian name.

^{page 253 note 1} Huwa-khshatra, or “self ruling,” is a genuine Achæmenian compound, and there can be little doubt but that Astyages is the same name as the Ajis-daháka of the Zendavesta, although that name was applied by the Arians to the Scyths of Media.

^{page 253 note 2} The best proof that Afrasiab continues in Persian romance to represent the Median race, even after Arian kings had succeeded to power, is to be found in the tradition of the capture of Afrasiab by Kai Khusru, at Shiz or Canzaka, which exactly corresponds with the capture of Astyages by Cyrus at Ecbatana, as described by Herodotus and Ctesias.—See my Ecbatana Mem. p. 82, and compare Mujmel el Tawarikh,—Journal Asiatique, 3 sér. tom, xi., p. 290 and 329. There can be no doubt but that the concealment of Afrasiab in the reservoir of the lake at Shiz, described by Massoudi, and in the Mujmel el Tawarikh is the exact event related by Ctesias of Astyages, the hidden caverns of the lake answering to his obscure word κρισκρνοι.

^{page 253 note 3} If Pythagoras really studied philosophy at Babylon under Cambyses, as is reputed by Apuleius, Jamblichus, Porphyry, &c, it was Chaldæan science and not Scythic magic that he imbibed, and the name of Zoroaster is therefore used improperly. From the numerous cuneiform tablets which I have consulted, referring to sacrificial worship and to the economy of the temples, it can now be positively asserted that the Babylonian religion underwent little or no modification from the Achæmenian conquest and occupation, or even from the infusion of Greek civilization which the Macedonians afterwards introduced into the country. The knowledge which Democritus acquired at Babylon, was essentially the same that existed in the country one thousand years previously.

^{page 254 note 1} The remarkable notices of Agathias and Ammianus with regard to Zoroaster exemplify the difficulty that well-instructed men experienced in reconciling the hybrid traditions of the Persians of the Sassanian age with authentic Greek history. Agathias in the first place mentions the double name of Zoroaster and Zarades (the latter name being probably the same as Ziru-ishtar, inasmuch as Hesychius explains Ἀδα to be the Babylonian Hera), and he then goes on to express his doubts if the Hystaspes whom the Persians maintained to have been contemporary with the Oromazdian Zoroaster, could possibly be identical with the father of Darius. Ammianus, as I understand him, does not attempt to identify the two periods, though he gives the exact Persian description of the divine inspiration of the Zendavesta (a description, too, which is given in greater detail by Dion Chrysostom). Ammianus places the Bactrian Zoroaster, who introduced the occult Chaldæan sciences, “seculis priseis;” while he takes it for granted that the Hystaspes contemporary with the Zoroaster of the Zendavesta, was the father of Darius. See Agath. (Dind.) p. 117, Ammian. Marcellin., lib. xxiii., and Dio Chrysostom, Orat. Boristh.

^{page 255 note 1} See Pliny, lib. xxx., c. 2. Diog. Laert., in proœmio, p. 1, and Tatian, Orat. contra Græcos, p. 172. It is of course this Osthanes whom Arnobius (if I have explained the passage rightly in page 24) connects with the Armenian Zoroaster of Ctesias, using, moreover, the same epithets of Erus and Pamphylus which were employed by Plato, in describing the Proto-patriarch of Magism. It is quite certain, however, that Ctesias (whom Arnobius seems to quote) never eould have confounded a priest, whose doctrines were only acquiring form and consistency in his own day, with the Scythic antagonist of Ninus.

^{page 255 note 2} I would draw particular attention on this head, to the notices of Strabo with regard to the religion of the Persians, the Medes, the Armenians, and the Cappadocians, the rites and ceremonics of the latter people being described from the Greek geographer's own personal experience. In the pages of Strabo occur the names of Omanus, Anandates, and Anaitis, but nowhere is there any mention of Oromazdes and Arimanes. The Persian religion is described almost in the words of Herodotus, while among the Arians of Cappadocia the worship of fire seems to have been the predominant observance. Compare, too, the accounts of the visits of the Parthian princes to Rome, where their adoration of the elements is alone noticed. Plutarch, and writers of that age, who described Dualism, followed Eudoxus, Theopompus, and Hermippus, who certainly drew for their information on materials of the Achæmenian age.

^{page 256 note 1} See Prichard's Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, where the mythos of the Zend Avesta is epitomised from Rhode, vol. IV. p. 39. Compare also Heeren's criticism in his Researches, &c, Asiatic Nations, vol. II. p. 367. Rhode's I have never had an opportunity of consulting.

^{page 256 note 2} Thus Tashter, or Jupiter, Who governed the eastern quarter, I take to be Mushteri , the m and t being nearly the same in Pahlevi. Venant, or Mercury, must be the Μóνιμος of Julian, which Jamblichus identified with that planet. Satevis is a mere Pahlevi form of Saturn. Sura is Sirius, &c.

^{page 256 note 3} This hymn, which is probably one of the most ancient portions of the Zend Avesta, was translated and analyzed by Mons. Burnouf in the Journal Asiatique for 1844–45; and the Roman text and translation, extracted from this work, are given as an appendix to the Vendidad of Brockhaus.

^{page 256 note 4} Burnouf leaves the identification of Athvi for future explorers of the Vedas. Thritaon he compares with Trita, but there is no apparent connexion between the names beyond their etymology. An identity not merely of name but of character would be a subject well worthy of Dr. Max Müller's research in his present labours on the Vedas.

^{page 256 note 5} Gerschasp the son of Sam, or Keresaspa the son of Sama, Mons. Burnouf compares with Krˇçâçva, the son of Sa˜yama (Jour. Asiat. Avril—Mai, 1845, p. 255), mentioned in the Bhágavat Purana; but a king of Váiçáli, or Bengal, could hardly have, been referred to Central Persia. Sam was probably a native chieftain or dynasty of Seistan or Eastern Khorassan, where local traditions regarding him abound; and he must have risen into power long after the Persian Arians had been severed from their brethren on the Sutlej. The age, indeed, of Feridun and his sons is the latest point at which we can expect to trace any link of connexion between the traditions of the Vedas and Puranas and those of the Zend Avesta.

^{page 257 note 1} I presume that the general features of the Greek myth are too well known to require any references. The double location of the Court of Cepheus in Africa and Babylon, compared with the local tradition at Joppa of its being the scene of Andromeda's rescue, furnishes a good argument for the ethnic relationship of the Cushites at these three widely distant points.

^{page 257 note 2} See the fragments of Hellanicus, 159 and 160 in Müller's Fragments, vol. I, p. 67; and Herodotus, II. 91, VI. 53 and 54; VII. 61. Herodotus, indeed, was so strongly impressed with the idea that the Argive hero and the Persian eponym were one and the same, that he actually described Xerxes as claiming kindred with the Argives through Perses, the son of Perseus and Andromeda, the latter being the daughter of Cepheus, the son of Belus. Nicol. Dam. and the Schol. to Plato both connect Achæmenes with Perses and Perseus; and Xenophon gives the same genealogy for the Persidæ, kings to whom Cyrus and Cambyses belonged. Perses and Perseus are of course the same as the Pars and Pehlev of Persian romance, but the names do not occur in the Zend Avesta.

^{page 257 note 3} See Steph. de Urbibus, in voce Χαλδαĩα; and compare Eustath. in Iliad. v. 1005, where Arrian is quoted as applying the name of Cephenia to Babylon.

^{page 257 note 4} The passage of Hellanuicus is given at length in Müller's Fragments, vol. I. p. 67.

^{page 258 note 1} Choge is the Jukhá of the Arabs, or the country intervening between the lower Tigris and the mountains; it is mentioned repeatedly by the best Arabic historians and geographers, as well as by the Syrians generally, and also in two passages of the Sabæan Sidr, tom. III. pp. 83, 89. In Pliny, again, the lower Tigris cuts the Cauchian plains, and it is the same district of which the name is written , or Kugha, in Ezekiel xxiii. 23.

^{page 258 note 2} For these statements I rely on Ibn Mokaffa, Massoudi, Tabari, Abu Rihan, and Ibn Athir, who all quote traditions long anterior to Islam. The celebrity of Gáu, the blacksmith, is no doubt owing to Firdousi, who, as usual, personified a dynasty or race, and thus converted history into fable. I am not able, however, to explain whence the Persians of the Sassanian age drew their traditions of the Kábis, for the name does not occur in our present fragments of the Zend Avesta.

^{page 258 note 3} The name is found, under various disguises, in Strabo, Cornelius Nepos, Diodorus, Polybius, Dionysius, and in the historians of Alexander, and very possibly it survives in the title of Jye, which still attaches to the quarter of Isfahan on which is built the modern town of Julfa. The Achæmenian palace of Gabæ, noticed by Strabo, would be well worth the search of antiquarians in their rambles about Isfahan.

^{page 259 note 1} I take this opportunity of stating that the present section on “the Ante Semitic period of Eastern history,” consists of a mere series of notes taken from a far more elaborate paper on “the early Scythic population of Asia,” which I commenced last year, in illustration of Mr. Norris's philological Memoir on the Scythic Inscri´tions of Bisitun, and which I hope to be able to submit before long to the Royal Asiatic Society for publication, in extenso, in their Journal.

^{page 259 note 2} Ibn Mokaffa, quoted by Abu Rihán, enumerates eight princes of the line of Kávah among the predecessors of Feridun; while Ibn Athir, confounding this family with the paternal ancestors of Feridun, raises the number to ten, and says that they were generally named Athvian, but had each a particular title. In reality, the Athvian were Arians, the Kavas, Scyths, and it was the fusion of the two races or families which led to the first establishment of an independent dynasty in Central Persia.