"within 160 years of the Flood.' Now even on the Eu"lerian ratio this number would increase only to about 6 "millions in his interval of 90 years, which is far from many "millions." There is no inconsistency in my argument. I have assumed as probable that the numbers would double themselves every twelve years for 300 years after the Flood. In 156 years these thirteen periods would produce 49,152, and in 168 years fourteen periods would produce 98,304. I was therefore justified in concluding that at 160 years from the Flood the numbers would be at the least 50,000. Again, in 240 years twenty periods would produce 6,291,456, and in 252 years twenty-one periods would give 12,582,912. Therefore in 250 years from the Flood the numbers of mankind were fast advancing to this latter amount, and might be assumed as nine or ten millions. The term many is relative, and its value is fixed by the other circumstances. Nine millions or even six millions would be many in Holland but few in France; would be many in Egypt but few in China. If the inhabitants of the earth had been 9 or 10 millions, these might be called many at 250 years after the Flood. When Abraham after the 75th year of his life visited Egypt, the population of the earth upon the lower estimate had attained more than two hundred millions. The date which I assigned, after Niebuhr, for the capture of Babylon by the Medes, B. C. 2233, was founded upon a testimony in Simplicius. It is now known that the text of Simplicius has another meaning, and the date of that capture is brought down to B. C. 2212, and that event is placed at the distance of 270 years from the Flood, and 110 years from the assumed date of the dispersion in the days of Peleg. But a new form has been given of late to the objection founded on the shortness of the time by many able enquirers, which view upon this subject, before we proceed to the other remarks of Professor Wallace, it is important to consider. It is inferred from the analogy of languages that the descendants of Japhet dwelt together in Iran for a considerable period before their separation; that this period preceded b See F. H. Vol. 3 p. 522, 2nd ed. Epitome of F. H. see 113, 114. the earliest records of the most ancient nations, records which nevertheless ascended to a remote antiquity; and that on these accounts the space is to be enlarged between the Flood and Abraham. Admitting however the proposition that the Japhetic families inhabited Iran before they occupied Greece and India and other countries, and accepting this as a historical fact, we are enabled to shew that it may be reconciled with that chronology, which, being founded upon the Hebrew text, places the flood at B. C. 2482 and the dispersion in the days of Peleg, 160 years afterwards at B. C. 2322. We may assume that the race of Japhet dwelt together for 200 years B. C. 2322—2122 in this Iranian upland, which in its fullest extent, including all the countries between the Tigris and the Indus, is more than five times larger than France. But if the Japhetic family remained in Iran before their separation 200 years, they remained there till the 360th year after the flood, and at 360 years from the flood they had attained 100 millions. For, as in 300 years from the flood the numbers of mankind would have reached 200 millions (see F. H. I p. 295), it is plain that in 360 years the ! population of the earth would attain 300 millions; and at least a third of that number would belong to the children | of Japhet. Nor is it incredible that a country five times larger than France should at the end of those 200 years have contained 100 millions of inhabitants. When the great Iranian or Japhetic family was broken up, the Brahmans migrated eastwards to Hindostan; the children of Javan issuing from Iran to the northward and westward colonised Asia Minor and the coasts and islands of the Ægæan sea; and under the name of Pelasgi occupied Greece. The Germanic tribes passed into Germany. The Celts occupied Gaul, Spain, and Britain. They had been preceded by their brethren the Lappes and Finns, whom they had driven c Iran as limited eastward in F. Rom. Vol. 2 p. 257 contains 1,001,345 square English miles. Add the countries eastward as far as the Indus. Add to the east of the limitary line between the parallels 34° and 24° the countries to the Indus which in aftertimes were ascribed to India. These coun tries contain 123,449 square English miles; and the whole country occupied in that primeval period by the family of Japhet has an area of 1,124,794 square miles. Compare the area of France, 206,350 × 51=1,134,925. This space therefore is to the space contained in France nearly as 5 to one. northward or reduced to subjection. The Sclavonians were spread over the vast countries of Russia. The Tartarians passing the Oxus took possession of Central Asia, where they are found ages afterwards under the various names of Turks, Monguls, and Mandchews. In process of time a tribe of the Tartar race entering China from the north-west gradually peopled that vast level as far as the Eastern Sea. The Medes and Persians meanwhile remained in Iran. In these movements of the Iranian family we discern nothing inconsistent with our dates. The capture of Babylon by the Medes in B. C. 2212 (270 years after the flood and 110 years after the dispersion in the days of Peleg) was more than a century below the time at which the children of Japhet were seated in Iran. The first date assigned to the Pelasgi in Greece is B. C. 1697. But this was more than 425 years later than the date which we have marked for the migration out of Iran. 66 66 66 66 The Indian chronology is thus given by Prichard. Vol. 4 p. 98–104: “ All Indian chronology is matter of doubtful computation and even of conjecture down to the period when "the history of the Hindoos comes into contact with that of "Europe." p. 101: "The war of the Mahabharata was fought "in the Gangetic countries. The era of this war is fixed by a conjecture of the probable length of reigns to the 14th century before the Christian era." p. 103: "The date of recorded astronomical observations is fixed to B. C. 1391.” p. 104: "The Vedas were not compiled till the 14th century "before the Christian era." "The era of the Mahabharata or "Great War, the astronomical observations of Parasara, and the compilation of the Vedas belong nearly to the same period." p. 105: "The age of the Great War being con"sidered as a historical epoch, attempts have been made to "calculate further upwards, and to estimate the antiquity of "the older Indian monarchies, by means of the princes of the "Solar and Lunar lines, who are said to have reigned over "different parts of India from the earliest periods. Colonel "Tod was of opinion that 55 reigns might be reckoned upon "satisfactory evidence from the age of Krishna, which was "that of the Mahabharata, to Budha, the founder of the "Lunar race. He makes this period 1100 years. He adds "an equal number of years for the interval between Krishna 66 66 = "and the era of Vickramaditya, which is known to have com"menced at B. C. 56. He obtains therefore 1100+1100+ "56 B. C. 2256. At that period colonel Tod supposes that "the first colonies of Hindoos arrived in India from the "countries of Central Asia, where the Indian race originated." But Prichard observes p. 106 that "many circumstances pre"vent our wholly relying upon the accuracy of the results "of these calculations; that, according to Mr. Elphinstone's "more critical judgment, the lists of the two parallel lines "of Lunar and Solar kings are so contradictory as to be un"worthy of implicit confidence." "Previous to the Mahab"harata war every thing is mixed with fables and ana"chronisms." We must therefore reject the date of Col. Tod, for Budha the founder, as not supported by sufficient evidence, and we must rest upon the epochs which are assigned to the 14th century before Christ as the highest authenticated dates in Indian Chronology. And yet the date of the Great War is rendered doubtful by Col. Tod himself; for he places the reign of Krishna, who was contemporary with that war, at B. C. 1156. If however we accept the epoch named to us, or B. C. 1391, as an ascertained and authentic period, that epoch is 730 years after the time at which the Brahmans might first enter the Punjab. The authentic annals of China, by the testimony of Confucius himself, do not ascend higher than B. C. 1100, and this period is a thousand years later than the epoch given for this migration of the Tartars out of Iran. It has been shewn then that none of the records of these ancient nations, the Pelasgi, the Babylonians, the Indians, and the Chinese interfere with what has been assumed; namely that the dispersion in the days of Peleg was 160 years after the flood, and that the migration of the family of Japhet out of Iran was 360 years after the flood. This point of time, 200 years after the first entrance into Iran, and 360 after the flood, is assumed as about the period of these great migrations, which might have occurred partly a few years before, partly a few years after that epoch. The most probable dates for Egypt seem to be that, about 160 years after the flood, the children of Ham might occupy Egypt, and found the kingdom of the Pharaohs in B. C. 2322. Menes is placed at about B. C. 2220, a century after that occupation. Abraham at 427 years from the flood found a Pharaoh reigning in Egypt, 267 years after that first colony. The chronology of the Egyptians themselves is at variance with this account; for they reckoned 8000 years to the time of Solon, which would carry back the rise of the Egyptian kingdom to about B. C. 8600. But this is totally irreconcilable with the Mosaic genealogies. For by the longest estimate of the Mosaic generations, adopting the longer computations of the Septuagint, and including the second Cainan, we can only obtain B. C. 5478 for Adam and B. C. 3217 for the flood d. The era then assigned by the Egyptian priests for their state, being more than 3000 years higher than the highest possible date for Adam, and more than 5400 years higher than the highest possible date for the flood, must be rejected, as a fabricated epoch. An objection founded on the physical varieties of man is reported by Prichard to the following effect: "One of the "greatest difficulties connected with the opinion that all man"kind are descended from one primitive stock arises from the "shortness of the period allowed by the received chronology " for the development of those physical varieties which distin"guish the different races of men." It is contended that the physical influences of soil and climate must have been exerted during a long course of years before such phenomena could have become so diffused by propagation as to be "found com"mon to a whole family or breed." Dr. Prichard himself observes, that "the force of this objection rests in the period "of time from which the varieties can be proved to have existed." But the only evidence produced is that certain Egyptian paintings which may be dated at 1000 or 1500 years before Christ, display the forms and complexions of the Negro, the Egyptian, and of some Asiatic nations distinctly "marked." The whole force of this evidence depends upon the date of these paintings, and this is so uncertain that the dates proposed are not within 500 years of each other. Nor is it shewn to us that the lower of these dates rests on any proof. The uncertainty then of the date destroys the value of the 66 66 66 66 d These are the dates of Cuninghame. Hales places these epochs at B. C. 544 and B. C. 3155, 62 and 67 years below the dates of Cuninghame. |