In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם) was first used to refer to alanguage family of West Asian origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Ahlamu, Akkadian, Amharic, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite(Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge'ez, Old South Arabian, Modern South Arabian, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Sutean, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, among others.
As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended culturesand ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[1] Today, the word "Semite" may be used to refer to any member of any of a number of peoples of ancient Southwestern Asia descent including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), Arabs, and their descendants.[2]
Contents
[hide]Origin
A Semite is a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in the Near East, including; Akkadians (Assyrians andBabylonians), Ammonites, Amorites, Arameans, Chaldeans, Canaanites (including Hebrews/Israelites/Jews and Phoenicians/Carthaginians), Eblaites,Dilmunites, Edomites, Ethiopian Semites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maltese, Mandaeans, Mhallami, Moabites, Shebans and Ugarites. It was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn's "Repertorium", vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his "Einleitung in das Alte Testament" (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45). In his "Geschichte der neuen Sprachenkunde", pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term.[3]
The word "Semitic" is derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in Genesis 5, Genesis 6, Genesis 1021, or more precisely from theGreek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite.
The concept of "Semitic" peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. In an effort to categorise the peoples known to them, those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their forefather Shem.
In Genesis 10:21–31, Shem is described as the father of Aram, Ashur, and Arpachshad: the Biblical ancestors of the Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc., all of whose languages are closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named "Semitic" by linguists.
The Canaanites, Amalekites and Amorites also spoke languages very closely related to Hebrew and attested in writing earlier, and are therefore termedSemitic in linguistics, despite being described in Genesis as sons of Ham. Shem is also described in Genesis as the father of Elam and Lud (Lydians). However the Elamite language is not classified as Semitic, but is a language isolate, while the Lydians by at least 700 BC spoke an Indo-Europeanlanguage.[4] Genesis makes no claims that all descendants of Shem necessarily preserved a similar language, indicating only that the languages of all peoples became thoroughly confused following the failure of the Tower of Babel.
History
The region of origin of the reconstructed Proto-Semitic language, ancestral to historical and modern Semitic languages in the Middle East, is still uncertain and much debated. However, a recent Bayesian analysis identified an origin for Semitic languages in the Levant (modern Syria and Lebanon) around 3750 BC with a later single introduction from what is now Southern Arabia into the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia) around 800 BC.[5] Other theories include an origin in either Mesopotamia, the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa. The Semitic language family is also considered a component of the larger Afroasiatic macro-family of languages. Identification of the hypothetical proto-Semitic region of origin is therefore dependent on the larger geographic distributions of the other language families within Afroasiatic, whose origins are also hotly debated.
The earliest positively proven historical attestation of any Semitic people comes from Mesopotamia, with the East Semitic Akkadian-speaking peoples entering the region originally dominated by the non-Semitic Sumerians (who spoke a language isolate). The earliest known Akkadian inscription was found on a bowl at Ur, addressed to the very early pre-Sargonic king Meskiang-nuna of Ur by his queen Gan-saman, who is thought to have been from Akkad. However, some of the names appearing on the Sumerian king list as prehistoric rulers of Kish have been held to indicate a Semitic presence even before this, as early as the 30th or 29th century BC.[6] By the mid 3rd millennium BC,[7] many states and cities in Mesopotamia had come to be ruled or dominated by Akkadian speaking Semites, including Assyria, Eshnunna, Akkad, Kish, Isin, Ur, Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Ekallatum, Nuzi, Akshak,Eridu and Larsa.
During this period (circa 27th to 26th century BC), another East Semitic speaking people, the Eblaites, appear in historical record from north western Syria, founding the state of Ebla, whose language was closely related to Akkadian.
The Akkadians, Assyrians and Eblaites were the first Semitic people to use writing, using the Cuneiform script originally developed by the Sumerians circa 3500 BC, with the first writings in Akkadian dating from circa 2800 BC. The last Akkadian inscriptions date from the late 1st century AD, and Cuneiform script in the 2nd century AD, both in Mesopotamia.[8]
Mesopotamia is generally held to be the cradle of civilisation, where writing, the wheel and the first organised nation or city states arose during the mid 4th millennium BC. The Sumero-Akkadian states that arose in Mesopotamia between circa the 36th century BC and the 24th century BC were the most advanced in the world at the time in terms of engineering, architecture, agriculture, science, medicine, mathematics, astronomy and military technology. Many had highly sophisticated Socioeconomic structures, with the worlds earliest examples of Written Law, together with structurally advanced and complex trading, business and taxation systems, a well structured civil administration, currency and detailed record keeping.[9] Schools and educationexisted in many states, Mesopotamian religion was highly organised, and astrology was practiced widely. By the time of the Middle Assyrian Empire in the mid 2nd millennium BC, early examples of zoology, botany and landscaping had emerged, and during the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the early to mid 1st millennium BC, the world's first library was built.
All early Semites across the entire Near East appear to have originally been Polytheist. Mesopotamian religion is the earliest recorded and for three millennia was the most influential,[10] exerting strong influence on the later recorded Canaanite religions then practiced in what is today Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian territories and the Sinai Peninsula, and also those of the Arameans, Chaldeans, Phoenicians/Carthaginians and Arabs. The influence of Mesopotamian religion can also be found in Armenian and Graeco-Roman religion and to some degree upon the later SemiticMonotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, Mandaeism, Gnosticism and Islam.[11][12]
Some of the most significant of these Mesopotamian deities were Anu, Ea, Enlil, Enki, Ishtar (Astarte), Ashur, Shamash, Shulmanu, Tammuz, Adad(Hadad), Sin (Nanna), Dagan (Dagon), Ninurta, Nisroch, Nergal, Tiamat, Bel, Ninlil and Marduk, many of whom were to find contemporaries throughout the Near East, and to some degree in Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Greece, North Africa and Rome.
The Akkadian Empire (2335 BC - 2193 BC), arguably the first empire in history, enabled the Mesopotamian Semites to unite all of Mesopotamia under one rule, and further spread their dominance and cultural and technological influence over much of the Near East, Asia Minor (Anatolia) and Ancient Iran.
A people known as the Turukku appeared in northwestern Ancient Iran during the Akkadian empire, and appear to have been a synthesis of both Hurrians and East Semites.
Of the West Semitic speaking peoples who occupied what is today Syria (excluding the East Semitic north east), Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, thePalestinian territories and the Sinai peninsula, the earliest references concern the Canaanite speaking Amorites (known as "Martu" or "Amurru" by the Mesopotamians) of northern and eastern Syria, and date from the 24th century BC in Mesopotamian annals.[13] The technologically advanced Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians of Mesopotamia mention the West Semitic speaking peoples in disparaging terms;- The MAR.TU who know no grain... The MAR.TU who know no house nor town, the boors of the mountains... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after death.[14]
However, after initially being prevented from doing so by powerful Assyrian kings of the Old Assyrian Empire intervening from northern Mesopotamia, these Amorites would eventually overrun southern Mesopotamia, and found the state of Babylon in 1894 BC, where they became Akkadianized, adopted Mesopotamian culture and language, and blended into the indigenous population. Babylon became the centre of a short lived but influential Babylonian Empire in the 18th century BC, and subsequent to this southern Mesopotamia came to be known as Babylonia, with Babylon superseding the ancient city of Nippur as the primary religious center of southern Mesopotamia. Northern Mesopotamia had long before already coalesced into Assyria. After the fall of the first Babylonian Empire, the far south of Mesopotamia broke away for circa 300 years, becoming the independent Sealand Dynasty.
In the 19th century BC a similar wave of Canaanite-speaking Semites entered Egypt and by the early 17th century BC these Canaanites (known asHyksos by the Egyptians) had conquered the country, forming the Fifteenth Dynasty, introducing military technology new to Egypt, such as the warchariot.[15]
A number of Pre-Arab Semitic states are mentioned as existing (in what was much later to become known as the Arabian Peninsula) in Akkadian and Assyrian records as colonies of these Mesopotamian powers, such as Meluhha and Dilmun (in modern Bahrain). A number of other non-Arab South Semitic states existed in the far south of the peninsula, such as Sheba/Saba (in modern Yemen), Magan and Ubar (both in modern Oman), although the histories of these states is sketchy (mainly coming from Mesopotamian and Egyptian records), as there was no written script in the region at this time.[16]
Proto-Canaanite texts from northern Canaan and the Levant (modern Lebanon and Syria) around 1500 BC yield the first undisputed attestations of awritten West Semitic language (although earlier testimonies are possibly preserved in Middle Bronze Age alphabets, such as the Proto-Sinaitic scriptfrom the late 19th century BC), followed by the much more extensive Ugaritic tablets of northern Syria from the late 14th century BC in the city-state of Ugarit in north west Syria. Ugaritic was a West Semitic language, the same language family as the Amorites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Moabites, Edomites and Israelites.
The Shasu appear in Egyptian records circa 14th century BC, as a semi-nomadic Canaanite speaking people inhabiting Moab and northern Edom (a region stretching from the Jezreel Valley to Ashkelon and the Sinai), and a number of scholars believe the Shasu were synonymous with the Hebrews, who went on to eventually found Israel.[17][18]
The appearance of nomadic Semitic Aramaeans and Suteans in historical record also dates from the late 14th century BC, the Arameans coming to dominate an area roughly corresponding with modern Syria (which became known as Aram or Aramea), subsuming the earlier Amorites, and founding states such as Aram-Damascus, Luhuti, Bit Agusi, Hamath, Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram, Aram-Rehob, and Zobah, while the Suteans occupied the deserts of south eastern Syria and north eastern Jordan.
The Chaldeans, closely related to but distinct from the Arameans, appeared in south east Mesopotamia (Babylonia) circa the 12th century BC, where they settled and became Akkadianised.
A Canaanite group known as the Phoenicians came to dominate the coasts of Syria, Lebanon and south west Turkey from the 13th century BC, founding city states such as Tyre, Sidon, Byblos Simyra, Arwad, Berytus (Beirut) and Aradus, eventually spreading their influence throughout theMediterranean, including building colonies in Malta, Sicily, the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain), the coasts of North Africa, founding the major city state of Carthage (in modern Tunisia) in the 9th century BC.
The Phoenicians created the Phoenician alphabet in the 12th century BC, which would eventually supersede Cuneiform. Phoenician became one of the most widely used writing systems, spread by Phoenician merchants across the Mediterranean world and beyond, where it evolved and was assimilated by many other cultures. The still extant Aramaic alphabet, a modified form of Phoenician script, was the ancestor of modern Hebrew, Syriac/Assyrian and Arab scripts, stylistic variants and descendants of the Aramaic script. The Greek alphabet (and by extension its descendants such as the Latin, theCyrillic and the Egyptian Coptic scripts), was a direct successor of Phoenician, though certain letter values were changed to represent vowels. Old Italic,Anatolian, Armenian, Georgian and Paleohispanic scripts are also descendant of Phoenician script.
Between the 13th and 11th centuries BC, a number of small Canaanite speaking states arose in Southern Canaan, an area approximately corresponding to modern Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Sinai Peninsula, these were the lands of the Edomites, Moabites, Hebrews/Israelites, Ammonites and Amalekites, all of whom spoke closely related west Semitic Canaanite languages.
Edom and Moab were first to appear in historical record during the mid to late 13th century BC, both coming into conflict with Egypt. The Hebrews (who spoke a Canaanite dialect) make an appearance in historical record, with the founding of the state of Israel in the late 11th century BC in southern Canaan. Later, a part of Israel broke away, becoming Judea, with a further Jewish kingdom Samarra (the land of the Samaritans) also founded as a puppet kingdom by the Assyrians.
In Israel the very first example of monotheism gradually evolved with the founding of Judaism and the belief in one single god, Yahweh. The Hebrew language, closely related to the earlier attested Canaanite language of the Phoenicians, would become the vehicle of the religious literature of theTanakh and Torah, and thus eventually have global ramifications.
Alongside and at the same time as the Hebrews/Israelites, another closely related West Semitic/Canaanite nation of Ammon also appeared, often involved in local rivalries with Israel, as did the Amalekites, who did not appear to have a unified state of their own.
The South semitic Arabs first appear in record in Assyrian Annals from the mid 9th century BC as desert dwelling nomadic inhabitants of what is todaySaudi Arabia. They were regarded as conquered vassals of the Assyrians. Later still, written evidence of Old South Arabian and Ge'ez (both related to but in reality separate languages to the Arabic language) offer the first written attestations of South Semitic languages in the 8th century BC in Sheba,Ubar and Magan (modern Oman and Yemen). These, along with writing in the form of the Ge'ez script, were later imported to Ethiopia and Eritrea by migrating South Semites from part of Southern Arabia (modern west Yemen) during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, who after intermingling with the native non-Semitic African peoples, gave rise to Ethiopian Semitic speaking peoples, whose languages survive to this day.
The East Semitic Mesopotamian states of Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia proved to be not only the oldest, but the most advanced in the Near East and its surrounds, between the mid 24th and late 6th centuries BC, often asserting dominance over the West, Northwest and South Semitic speaking peoples, as well as the Non-Semitic peoples of the region.
The non-Semitic Philistines, (one of the Sea Peoples, and not to be confused with modern Palestinian Arabs) seem to have arrived in southern Canaan sometime in the 12th century. The Philistines are conjectured to have spoken an Indo-European language, as there are possibly Greek, Lydian and Luwian traces in the limited information available about their tongue, although there is no detailed information about their language.[19] An Indo-European Anatolian origin is also supported by Philistine pottery, which appears to have been exactly the same as Mycenaen Greek pottery.[20]
In Egypt, the people were speakers of a stand alone Afroasiatic tongue, a language loosely related to but distinct from those of the Semitic peoples, as were the Berbers of the Sahara and the coasts of North Africa, Semitic Carthage aside. Nilotic peoples such as the Nubians and Kushites dwelt to the south of the Egyptians, and Puntites to the south east of Ethiopia.
A number of non-Semitic peoples were eventually absorbed by Semites; The Sumerians were absorbed into the Akkadian speaking Assyro-Babylonianpopulation of Mesopotamia by around 2000 BC, and the Kassites who ruled Babylonia for almost five centuries from the early 16th century BC, eventually blended into the native population. Similarly, the Philistines eventually disappeared into the native Israelite-Canaanite population, and in northern Aram (Syria) and south central Asia Minor, there was a synthesis between the Semitic Arameans and Indo-European Neo-Hittites, with the founding of a number of small Syro-Hittite states fro the 12th century BC until their destruction by Assyria in the 8th and 7th centuries BC.
During the Middle Assyrian Empire (1366-1050 BC) and in particular the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-605 BC) much of the Near East, Asia Minor,Caucasus, Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, Ancient Iran and North Africa fell under Assyrian domination. During the 8th century BC the Assyrian emperorTiglath-Pileser III introduced Aramaic as the lingua franca of their empire, and this language was to remain dominant among Near Eastern Semites until the early Medieval Period. Mesopotamian cities such as Nineveh, Babylon and Ashur (Assur) were the largest in the world during the Iron Age.
The Assyrian Empire collapsed by 605 BC after decades of internal civil war followed by a combined attack on the weakened sate by an alliance of its former subject peoples (their own Babylonian relations, together with the Chaldeans, Medes, Persians, Scythians and Cimmerians), and after the collapse of the succeeding Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC, the Semitic peoples found themselves largely under the domination of various Indo-European speaking empires for over twelve centuries; the Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Roman Empire, Sassanid Empireand Byzantine Empire.
Babylonia was often erroneously referred to as Chaldea from the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire onwards, although only the first three or four rulers of the empire were certainly Chaldeans, and the last ruler was Assyrian. The Chaldeans, like the Amorites and Kassites of southern Mesopotamia before them, eventually blended into the indigenous population, and disappeared as a distinct people, and Babylonia itself was subsumed into Assyria (Assuristan) by the Parthian Empire.
During these periods there were spells of varying degrees of independence from the Indo-European empires. In Israel/Judea, the powerful Hasmonean dynasty arose, which at its height expanded into Syria, Jordan and the Sinai. Independent states arose among the Assyrians between the 1st century BC and 4th century AD with the Neo-Assyrian states of Adiabene, Osrhoene and Hatra, and in the 3rd century AD the old Assyrian capital of Ashuritself. Osrhoene became the first independent Christian country in history. The Aramean state of Palmyra founded a short lived Palmyrene Empirebased in northern Syria in the 3rd century AD, briefly rivalling Rome. The Nabateans, an Aramaic-speaking people of mixed Canaanite, Aramean and Arab origins appear in the 4th century BC around the Negev, Sinai Peninsula and northern Arabia, forming an independent Nabatea between the 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD, with its capital at Petra. Most notable was the powerful Phoenician state of Carthage which colonised much of theMediterranean coastline, including those of eastern Spain and southern Portugal, southern France, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria as well asSicily, Malta, Gibraltar, Sardinia and Corsica. For centuries it rivaled the Roman Empire before being finally destroyed in the 3rd century AD.
The Mandeans, a gnostic ethno-religious sect venerating John the Baptist as the true Messiah, appear in the 1st century AD first in Assyria, and then Southern Mesopotamia. Their origins are unclear, but most scholars believe that they are originally a Canaanite or Aramean people originating from around the River Jordan, while others believe them to be native Mesopotamians.
By the 1st century AD various Aramaic dialects had come to dominate an area stretching from eastern Asia Minor in the north to the northern Arabian Peninsula in the south, and from Assyria, Mesopotamia and north western Persia in the east, to the Eastern coasts of the Mediterranean in the west.
Particularly Semitic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Mandaeism, Sabianism, Manicheanism and Gnosticism took root among the Semites, with Judaism long centered in Judaea (Israel) and Mesopotamia, and Christianity first spread initially among the largely Aramaic speaking Semitic races of Judaea, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, Nabatea and Phoenicia during the 1st century AD, an area encompassing the modern states of Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, south eastern Turkey and the Palestinian territories. Syriac Christianity was largely centered in areas outside of Roman control, such as in Persian-occupied Assyria (Athura/Assuristan) from whence in the form of the Assyrian Church of the East and Nestorianism, it spread toCentral Asia, India and China, and Coptic Christianity spread from Egypt to the Ethiopian Semites by the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Mandaeism and Sabianism were centered in Assyria and Mesopotamia, and gnostic sects were to be found all over the Semitic world.
With the advent of the Arab Islamic conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries AD, the hitherto largely uninfluentialArabic language (and Islamic culture) slowly but surely replaced many (but not all) of the indigenous Semitic languages and cultures of the Near East. Both the Near East and North Africa saw an influx of Muslim Arabic people from the Arabian Peninsula. The previously dominant Aramaic dialects gradually began to be sidelined, however descendant dialects of Aramaic, including Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, survive to this day among the Assyrians(and Mandaeans) of Iraq, Northwestern Iran, Northeastern Syria and southeastern Turkey, with the dialects of the Assyrians still containing hundreds of Akkadian loanwords and an Akkadian grammatical structure.[21]
Long extant Semitic geopolitical regions such as Judaea, Assyria, Phoenicia, Carthaginia and Syria were dissolved by the Arabs. Indigenous Semitic peoples became citizens in a greater Arab Islamic state, and those who resisted conversion to Islam had certain restrictions imposed upon them.[22]They were excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, did not enjoy certain political rights reserved to Muslims, their word was not equal to that of a Muslim in legal matters, they were subject to payment of a special tax (jizyah), they were banned from spreading their religions further in Muslim ruled lands, but were otherwise expected to adhere to the same laws of property, contract and obligation as the Muslim Arabs.[23]
The Arabs spread their South Semitic language to North Africa where it gradually replaced Coptic and Berber (although Berber is still largely extant), and for a time to the Iberian Peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal).
A number of South Arabian languages distinct from Arabic still survive, such as Soqotri, Mehri and Shehri which are mainly spoken in Socotra, Yemen and Oman, and are likely descendants of the languages spoken in the ancient kingdoms of Sheba, Magan, Ubar and Dilmun.
By the 21st century AD, people identifying as Arabs now make up the largest population of Semites in the Near East, followed by large numbers of non-Semitic Berbers in North Africa and Ethiopian Semites in the Horn of Africa.
However a significant number of the once dominant indigenous, ancient pre-Arab and pre-Islamic Semitic peoples of the Middle East maintain their identities to this day, including the Jews, Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, etc., despite being often persecuted ethnic (and often also religious) minorities.
In Israel, the majority population are Hebrew-speaking ethnic Jews, with a tiny minority of Samaritans still extant.
In Iraq and the areas of northeast Syria, northwest Iran and southeast Turkey bordering northern Iraq, the indigenous Assyrians (also known as Chaldo-Assyrians) still maintain their Akkadian-influenced dialects of Eastern Aramaic as spoken and written tongues, together with their ancient forms ofEastern Christianity. In these same areas the Mandaeans retain their distinct pre-Arab Mandaic language and Gnostic religion.
Among the Syrian Christians and Mhallami of modern Syria, the advocacy of a pre-Arab Aramean or Syriac-Aramean identity is still strong, although only tiny minorities now speak their native Western Aramaic tongue.
In Lebanon and some coastal regions of Syria the concept of Phoenicianism is endorsed, particularly by Maronite Christians who reject Arab identity and instead assert their ethnic roots lie with the pre-Arab and pre-Islamic Canaanites and Phoenicians.
Semitic-speaking peoples
The following is a list of ancient and modern Semitic speaking peoples:
- Mandaeans
- Akkadians (Assyrians/Babylonians) — migrated into Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC and amalgamate with non-Semitic Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians and Babylonians of the Late Bronze Age.[24][25] The remnants of these people became the modernAssyrians (also known as Chaldo-Assyrians) of Iraq, Iran, south eastern Turkey and northeast Syria.
- Eblaites — 23rd century BC
- Chaldeans — appeared in southern Mesopotamia circa 1000 BC and eventually disappeared into the general Babylonian population.
- Aramaeans — 16th to 8th centuries BC[26] / Akhlames (Ahlamu) 14th century BC.[27]
- Mhallami – Tiny minority of Syriac-Arameans who converted to secular Islam but retained Syriac identity
- Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
- Suteans – 14th century BC
- Canaanite-speaking nations of the early Iron Age:
- Amorites — 20th century BC
- Ammonites
- Edomites
- Amalekites
- Hebrews/Israelites — founded the nation of Israel which later split into the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The remnants of these people became the Jews and the Samaritans.
- Moabites
- Phoenicians/Carthaginians — founded Mediterranean colonies including Tyre, Sidon and Carthage. The remnants of these people became the modern Maronites of Lebanon.
- Old South Arabian speaking peoples
- Sabaeans of Yemen — 9th to 1st centuries BC
- Shebans
- Ubarites
- Maganites
- Ethio-Semitic speaking peoples
- Aksumites — 4th century BC to 7th century AD
- Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins
- Gindibu's Arabs 9th century BC
- Qedarites tribe 7th-century BC descendants of the Ismaelites and descendant of the Patriarch Ismaels son Kedar
- Lihyanites — 6th to 1st centuries BC
- Thamud people — 2nd to 5th centuries AD
- Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th centuries AD
- Nabataeans — Mix of Aramaiac and Arabic speakers
- Maltese
Languages
Main article: Semitic languages
The modern linguistic meaning of "Semitic" is derived from (though not identical to) Biblical usage. In a linguistic context the Semitic languages are a subgroup of the larger Afroasiatic language family (according to Joseph Greenberg's widely accepted classification) and include, among others: Akkadian, the ancient language of Babylon and Assyria; Amorite, Amharic, the official language of Ethiopia; Tigrinya, a language spoken in Eritrea and in northern Ethiopia; Arabic; Aramaic, still spoken in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Armenia by Assyrian-Chaldean Christians and Mandaeans; Canaanite; Ge'ez, the ancient language of the Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox scriptures which originated in Yemen; Hebrew; Maltese; Phoenician or Punic; Syriac (a form of Aramaic); and South Arabian, the ancient language of Sheba, which today includes Mehri, spoken by only tiny minorities on the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula.
Wildly successful as second languages far beyond their numbers of contemporary first-language speakers, a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Syriac and Ethiopian Christianity (Aramaic/Syriac and Ge'ez). Millions learn these as a second language (or an archaic version of their modern tongues): manyMuslims learn to read and recite Classical Arabic, the language of the Qur'an, and many Jews all over the world outside of Israel with other first languages speak and study Hebrew, the language of the Torah, Midrash, and other Jewish scriptures. Ethnic Assyrian followers of The Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East and some Syriac Orthodox Christians, both speak Mesopotamian eastern Aramaic and use it also as a liturgical tongue. The language is also used liturgically by the primarily Arabic speaking followers of the Maronite, Syriac Catholic Church and some Melkite Christians. Arabic itself is the main liturgical language of Byzantine-rite Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, who compose the patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Mandaic — another dialect of Aramaic — is both spoken and used as a liturgical language by followers of the Mandaean faith.
Geography
Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and 20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta.
The earliest historic (written) evidences of them are found in the Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia) circa the 30th century BC, an area encompassing the Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (modern Iraq), followed by historical written evidence from the Levant, Canaan, Sinai Peninsula southern Asia Minor and the Arabian peninsula.
Ethnicity and race
Further information: Archaeogenetics of the Near East, Caucasian race, Hamitic race and Scientific racism
In historical race classifications, the Semitic peoples are considered to be of Caucasoid type, not dissimilar in appearance to the neighbouring Indo-European, Northwest Caucasian, Berber and Kartvelian speaking peoples of the region.[28]
Some recent genetic studies have found (by analysis of the DNA of Semitic-speaking peoples) that they have some common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been found, Y-chromosomal links between modern Semitic-speaking Near-Eastern peoples like Arabs, Hebrews, Mandaeans, Syriacs-Arameans, Samaritans and Assyrians have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron).
Semitic-speaking Near Easterners such as Jews, Assyrians, Arabs, Maronites, Mandaeans, Druze, Samaritans, and Mhallami, from the Fertile Crescent (Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the Sinai peninsula and the Palestinian Territories), were found to be far more closely related to both each other (and indeed the later arriving non-Semitic speaking Near Easterners, such as Iranians, Anatolians, and Caucasians) than to the Semitic-speakers of the Arabian peninsula, Ethiopian Semites (Falasha, Beta Israel, Amharic and Tigrean speakers), and the Arabic speakers of North Africa.[29][30]
Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Syriacs-Arameans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples.[31]
Anti-Semitism and Semiticisation
Main article: Antisemitism
The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associatedlanguage family.[32][33] The term "anti-Semite", however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular.[34]
Anthropologists of the 19th century such as Ernst Renan readily aligned linguistic groupings with ethnicity and culture, appealing to anecdote, science and folklore in their efforts to define racial character. Moritz Steinschneider, in his periodical of Jewish letters Hamaskir (3 (Berlin 1860), 16), discusses an article by Heymann Steinthal[35] criticising Renan's article "New Considerations on the General Character of the Semitic Peoples, In Particular Their Tendency to Monotheism".[36] Renan had acknowledged the importance of the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia, Israel etc. but called the Semitic races inferior to the Aryan for their monotheism, which he held to arise from their supposed lustful, violent, unscrupulous and selfish racial instincts. Steinthal summed up these predispositions as "Semitism", and so Steinschneider characterised Renan's ideas as "anti-Semitic prejudice".[37]
In 1879 the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, in a pamphlet called Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums über das Judenthum ("The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism"), began the politicisation of the term by speaking of a struggle between Jews and Germans. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr's adherents founded the "League for Anti-Semitism"[38]which concerned itself entirely with anti-Jewish political action.
ncyclopedia
Hamitic is a historical term for the peoples supposedly descended from Noah's son Ham, paralleling Semiticand Japhetic. It was used to label non-Semitic languages in the Afroasiatic language family, which was thus formerly labelled "Hamito-Semitic". The Hamitic languages were said to include the Berber, Cushitic andEgyptian branches. However, since, unlike Semitic, these branches have not been shown to form an exclusive (monophyletic) phylogenetic unit of their own, separate from other Afroasiatic languages, the term is obsolete in this sense. Each of these branches is instead now regarded as an independent sub-group of the larger Afroasiatic family.
In the 19th century, as an application of "scientific racism", European authors classified the Hamitic race as a sub-group of the Caucasian race, along with the Semitic race – thus grouping the non-Semitic populations native to North Africa, the Horn of Africa and South Arabia, including the Ancient Egyptians. According to theHamitic theory this "Hamitic race" was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. In its most extreme form, in the writings of C. G. Seligman, it asserted that all significant achievements in African history were the work of "Hamites" who migrated into central Africa as pastoralists, bringing technologies and civilizing skills with them. In the early twentieth century, theoretical models of Hamitic languages and of Hamitic races were intertwined.
Contents
[hide]Hamitic race[edit]
Concept of the Curse of Ham[edit]
Further information: Curse of Ham
The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples said to be descended from Ham, one of the Sons of Noah. According to the Book of Genesis, after Noah became drunk and Ham dishonored his father, upon awakening Noah pronounced a curse on Ham's youngest son Canaan, stating that his offspring would be "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cushthe Cushites, and Phut the Libyans.[1]
During the Middle Ages, Ham was considered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to be the ancestor of all Africans. Noah's curse on Canaan as described in Genesis began to be misinterpreted by some scholastic leaders in Europe as having caused visible racial characteristics in all of Ham's offspring, notably black skin. According to Edith Sanders, the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates."[2] Arab slave traders used the account of Noah and Ham in the Bible to justify African slavery, and later European and American slave traders adopted a similar argument.[2][3]
The Bible says Noah restricted his curse to the offspring of Ham's youngest son Canaan, whose descendants occupied the Levant, and it was not extended to Ham's other sons who populated Africa. According to Edith Sanders, 18th-century theologians increasingly emphasized this narrow restriction and accurate interpretation of the passage as applying to Canaan's offspring. They rejected the "curse" as a justification for slavery.[2]
Hamitic hypothesis[edit]
Many versions of this perspective on African history have been proposed, and "applied" (via colonialism) to different parts of the continent. The essays below focus on the development of these ideas regarding the peoples of North, East and Southeast Africa. However, Hamitic hypotheses operated in West Africa as well, and they changed greatly over time.[4]
In the mid-19th century, the term Hamitic acquired a new meaning as a few European writers claimed to identify a distinct "Hamitic race" that was superior to "Negroid" populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. The theory arose from early anthropological writers, who linked the stories in the Bible of Noah's sons to actual ancient migrations of a supposed Middle-Eastern sub-group of the Caucasian race.[2] The theory that this group migrated further south was introduced by British explorer John Hanning Speke, in his publications on his search for the source of the Nile River.[2] Speke believed that his explorations uncovered the link between "civilized" North Africa and "barbaric" central Africa. Describing the Ugandan Kingdom of Buganda, he argued its "barbaric civilization" had arisen from a nomadic pastoralist race who migrated from the north and was related to the Hamitic Oromo people of Ethiopia (known as the "Galla" to Speke).[2] In a section of his book entitled "Theory of Conquest of Inferior by Superior Races", Speke wrote:
These ideas under the rubric of "science" provided the basis for some Europeans' asserting that the Tutsi were superior to the Hutu. In spite of both groups being Bantu-speaking, the Tutsi were thought to have experienced some "Hamitic" influence on grounds of their comparatively more narrow facial features than the Hutu. Later writers followed Speke in arguing that the Tutsis had originally migrated into the lacustrine region as pastoralists and had established themselves as the dominant group, having lost their language as they assimilated to Bantu culture.[6][page needed]
Sergi[edit]
Later scholars expanded on these ideas; the most influential was the Italian race theorist Giuseppe Sergi. In his book The Mediterranean Race (1901) Sergi argued that there was a distinct Hamitic racial group which could be divided into two sub-groups: the northern Hamites, which comprised Berbers, Toubou, Fulani and theGuanches; the Eastern branch, which comprised Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Oromo, Somali, and Tutsis.[7]Some of these groups had "lost their language" and so had to be identified by physical characteristics. In Sergi's theory, the Mediterraneans were the "greatest race in the world", and had expanded north and south from the Horn of Africa, creating superior civilizations.[2][8] Sergi described the original European peoples as "Eurafricans". The ancient Greeks and Italians were born from "Afro-Mediterraneans" who migrated from western Asia and had originally spoken a Hamitic language before the advent of Indo-European languages.[8]
Seligman[edit]
The Hamitic hypothesis reached its apogee in the work of C. G. Seligman, who argued in his book The Races of Africa (1930) that:
Seligman asserted that the Negro race was essentially static and agricultural, but that the wandering Hamitic "pastoral Caucasians" had introduced most of the advanced features found in central African cultures, including metal working, irrigation and complex social structures.[2][10]
Despite criticism, Seligman's thesis remained unchanged in new editions of his book into the 1960s.
Negro-Hamites[edit]
Seligman and other early scholars also believed that invading Hamites from North Africa and the Horn of Africahad mixed with local Negro women in East Africa and parts of Central Africa to produce several hybrid "Negro-Hamitic" populations, such as the Tutsi and the Maasai:
In the African Great Lakes region, the various migration theories of Hamitic provenance were in part inspired by the long-held oral traditions of local populations like the Tutsi and Hima (Bahima or Wahuma). These groups asserted that their founders were "white" migrants from the north (interpreted as the Horn of Africa and/or North Africa), who subsequently "lost" their original language, culture and much of their physiognomy as they intermarried with the local Bantus. The British explorer John Hanning Speke recorded one such account from a Wahuma governor in his book Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile.[11] According to Augustus Henry Keane, the Wahuma king M'tesa also claimed Oromo (Galla) ancestors and still reportedly spoke aHamito-Semitic Oromo language as a mother tongue, though such speech had long since died out elsewhere in the region. The original Hamitic migrants to the Great Lakes were thus said to have "gradually blended with the aborigines in a new and superior nationality of Bantu speech."[12]
While some scholars accepted the idea of Sub-Saharan tribes like the Tutsi and the Maasai being Negro-Hamites, others such as John Walter Gregory emphasized that the putative Hamitic element in these peoples was at best minimal and consequently assigned them to a sub-group within the Negro race (where they had historically been classified). Citing the considerable physical disparity between the ethnic groups traditionally considered Hamites and the aforementioned "Negro-Hamites", Gregory wrote:
Great Lakes[edit]
Further information: Rwandan genocide and Burundi genocide
The Hamitic hypothesis affected the policies of European imperial powers in the twentieth century. In Rwanda, it was linked to the German and Belgian preferential attitudes to the Tutsis over the Hutu during the colonial period of rule. Some scholars believe this colonial bias was a significant factor contributing to the Rwandan genocide by the Hutus in 1994.[14][15]
The League of Nations Mandate of 1916 appointed Belgium to govern Rwanda after Germany's defeat in World War I; Philip Gourevitch claims that “the terms Hutu and Tutsi had become clearly defined opposing “ethnic” identities, and the Belgians made this polarization the cornerstone of their colonial policy.”[16] Belgian officials measured numerous Rwandans to define traits among the various tribes; they used the differences to justify the Tutsis' majority of control throughout the country.
They defined racial differences between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples, differences which would impose a wholly inflexible ceiling on those classified as Hutu, rather than one that varied with social status.[17]
Scholars such as Mahmood Mamdani suggested that the Hutu began to view the Tutsi as outside invaders to their land, as "aliens" and usurpers, and that this led, in the end, to genocide. He states that reforms of local government by the Belgian colonial rulers in the 1920s led to a situation in which the Hutus "were not ruled by their own chiefs but by Tutsi chiefs. The same reforms constructed the Tutsi into a different race: the Hamitic race."[18] A major contributing force to the animosity between Hutu and Tutsi is derived from Speke's “Hamitic hypothesis”. Namely the notion that since the Tutsi were considered the Hamitic race, "the Hutu could frame the Tutsis as foreign invaders, as by definition, the Hamitic race is synonymous with a settling identity."[19]
Following World War II, Belgium’s colonial administration had been placed under United Nations trusteeship; it was to prepare Rwanda for eventual independence as a self-governing nation. Hutu political activists emerged in great numbers and exploited this as an opportunity to rally the masses to unite in their "Hutuness," as this was their chance to finally gain power after decades of oppression.[20] This philosophy, coupled with other political incidents, led to the social revolution of 1959 when Hutus killed ten thousand Tutsis, predominantly those within the political structure, and displaced thousands more from their homes. What followed was essentially a racial and ethnic hierarchy similar in most respects to that of one year prior; however, the roles were simply reversed – Hutu dominated the institutions and established discrimination against Tutsi in education, the civil service and armed forces.[21]
This creation of an artificial racial caste was unique to Rwanda and Burundi. While other ethnic groups outside Rwanda, such as the Bahima, were also identified by Europeans as "Hamites", they were not given institutionalised superior status. "Only in Rwanda and Burundi did the Hamitic hypothesis become the basis of a series of institutional changes that fixed the Tutsi as a race in their relationship to the colonial state."[22][page needed]
African-American views[edit]
African-American writers were initially ambivalent about the Hamitic hypothesis. Because Sergi's theory proposed that the superior Mediterranean race had originated in Africa, support for the Hamitic hypothesis could be used to challenge claims about the superiority of white Anglo-Saxons of the Nordic race, promoted by writers such as Madison Grant. According to Yaacov Shavit, this generated "radical Afrocentric theory, which followed the path of European racial doctrines". Writers who insisted that the Nordics were the purest representatives of the Aryan race encouraged "the transformation of the Hamitic race into the black race, and the resemblance it draws between the different branches of black forms in Asia and Africa."[23]
In response, historians published in the Journal of Negro History stressed the cross-fertilization of cultures between Africa and Europe: for instance, George Wells Parker adopted Sergi's view that the "civilizing" race had originated in Africa itself.[24][25] Similarly, black pride groups adopted the concept of Hamitic identity. Parker founded the Hamitic League of the World in 1917 to
These ideas evolved into the concept of the "Asiatic Blackman" in the theories of Timothy Drew and Elijah Muhammad.[27] Many other authors followed the argument that civilization had originated in Hamitic Ethiopia, a view that became intermingled with biblical imagery. The Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) (1920) believed that Ethiopians were the "mother race". The Nation of Islam asserted that the superior black race originated with the lost Tribe of Shabazz, which originally possessed "fine features and straight hair", but which migrated into central Africa, lost its religion, and declined into a barbaric "jungle life".[23][28][29]
But, writers who supported a Pan-African view of the unity of black African peoples considered the Hamitic hypothesis to be divisive, since it asserted that superior Africans were not Negroid. W. E. B. Du Bois wrote that "the term Hamite under which millions of Negroes have been characteristically transferred to the white race by some eager scientists" was a tool to create "false writing on Africa".[30]
Hamitic language family[edit]
Further information: Afroasiatic languages
These racial theories were developing alongside models of language. The term "Hamitic" was used for the first time in connection with languages by the German missionary Johann Ludwig Krapf (1810–81), but in the traditional biblical sense to refer to all languages of Africa spoken by African people deemed "black".
Friedrich Müller named the traditional Hamito-Semitic family in 1876 in his Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, and defined it as consisting of a Semitic group plus a "Hamitic" group containing Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic; he excluded the Chadic group. It was the Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius (1810–1884) who restricted Hamitic to the non-Semitic languages in Africa, which are characterized by a grammatical gender system. This "Hamitic language group" was proposed to unite various, mainly North-African, languages, including the Ancient Egyptian language, the Berber languages, the Cushitic languages, the Beja language, and the Chadic languages. Unlike Müller, Lepsius considered that Hausa and Nama were part of the Hamitic group. These classifications relied in part on non-linguistic anthropological and racial arguments. Both authors used the skin-color, mode of subsistence, and other characteristics of native speakers as part of their arguments that particular languages should be grouped together.[31]
In 1912, Carl Meinhof published Die Sprachen der Hamiten (The Languages of the Hamites) in which he expanded Lepsius's model, adding the Fula, Maasai, Bari, Nandi,Sandawe and Hadza languages to the Hamitic group. Meinhof's model was widely supported into the 1940s.[31]Meinhof's system of classification of the Hamitic languages was based on a belief that "speakers of Hamitic became largely coterminous with cattle herding peoples with essentially Caucasian origins, intrinsically different from and superior to the 'Negroes of Africa'."[32] But, in the case of the so-called Nilo-Hamitic languages (a concept he introduced), it was based on the typological feature of gender and a "fallacious theory of language mixture." Meinhof did this although earlier work by scholars such as Lepsius and Johnston had substantiated that the languages which he would later dub "Nilo-Hamitic" were in fact Nilotic languages, with numerous similarities in vocabulary to other Nilotic languages.[33]
Leo Reinisch (1909) already proposed linking Cushitic and Chadic, while urging their more distant affinity with Egyptian and Semitic. However, his suggestion found little acceptance. Marcel Cohen (1924) rejected the idea of a distinct "Hamitic" subgroup, and included Hausa (a Chadic language) in his comparative Hamito-Semitic vocabulary. Finally, Joseph Greenberg's 1950 work led to the widespread rejection of "Hamitic" as a language category by linguists. Greenberg refuted Meinhof's linguistic theories, and rejected the use of racial and social evidence. In dismissing the notion of a separate "Nilo-Hamitic" language category in particular, Greenberg was "returning to a view widely held a half century earlier." He consequently rejoined Meinhof's so-called Nilo-Hamitic languages with their appropriate Nilotic siblings.[33] He also added (and sub-classified) the Chadic languages, and proposed the new name Afroasiatic for the family. Almost all scholars have accepted this classification as the new and continued consensus.
Greenberg's model was fully developed in his book The Languages of Africa (1963), in which he reassigned most of Meinhof's additions to Hamitic to other language families, notably Nilo-Saharan. Following Isaac Schapera and rejecting Meinhof, he classified the Hottentot language as a member of the Central Khoisan languages. To Khoisan he also added the Tanzanian Hadza and Sandawe, though this view remains controversial since some scholars consider these languages to be linguistic isolates.[34][35]Despite this, Greenberg's model remains the basis for modern classifications of languages spoken in Africa in which the Hamitic category (and its extension to Nilo-Hamitic) plays no part.[35]
Anti-Hamitism[edit]
Anti-Hamitism is a term popularized by the anthropologist and historical linguist Harold C. Fleming to describe literature that a priori rejects Hamitic populations, cultures and influences on the basis of social considerations or personal prejudices rather than scientific evidence. According to Fleming, such anti-Hamitic ideology was originally born out of a desire to combat anti-Semitism and racism in general within academia during World War II. The movement subsequently lost its focus, degenerating into literary attacks against Hamitic peoples themselves. Fleming asserts that this anti-Hamitic bias has over the past few decades become widespread within African studies. In a 1978 book review of the historian Christopher Ehret's Ethiopians and East Africans: The Problem of Contacts (1974), a work which Fleming characterizes as "ostensibly aiming to denigrate the Cushites but giving seventy-seven percent of its space to them and their donations to other peoples," he charges Ehret of attempting "to exorcise the Hamites from East African history [to] establish his ideological purity." Fleming writes:[36]
See also[edit]
Japhetite (also Japhethitic, Japhetic) in Abrahamic mythology is a term for the peoples supposedly descended from Japheth, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible. The other two sons of Noah, Shem and Ham, are the eponymous ancestors of the Semites and the Hamites, respectively.
In medieval ethnography, the world was believed to have been divided into three large-scale racial groupings, corresponding to the three classical continents: In addition to the Japhetic peoples of Europe, the Semitic peoples ofAsia and the Hamitic peoples of Africa.
The term has been used in modern times as a designation in physical anthropology, ethnography and comparative linguistics. In anthropology, it was used in a racial sense for "white people" (the Caucasian race). In linguistics it was used as a term for the Indo-European languages. These uses are now mostly obsolete. In a linguistic sense, only the Semitic peoples still form a well-defined family. The Indo-European group is no longer known as "Japhetite", and the Hamitic group is now recognized as polyphyletic within the Afro-Asiatic family.
Contents
[hide]Biblical genealogy[edit]
Genesis: "The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. and the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. By these were the Isles of the Gentile divided in their lands everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." (Gen 10:2-5)
In the Bible, Japheth is ascribed seven sons and seven grandsons:
The intended ethnic identity of these 'descendants of Japheth' is not certain; however, over history, they have been identified by Biblical scholars with various historical nations who were deemed to be descendants of Japheth and his sons — a practice dating back at least to the classical encounters of Jew with Hellene, for example in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, I.VI.122 (Whiston). Josephus wrote:
- Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tanais (Don), and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names.
Josephus detailed the nations supposed to have descended from the seven sons of Japheth.
Ancient and medieval ethnography[edit]
Pseudo-Philo[edit]
An ancient, relatively obscure text known as Pseudo-Philo and thought to have been originally written ca. 70 AD, contains an expanded genealogy that is seemingly garbled from that of Genesis, and also quite different from the much later one found in Jasher:[1]
- Sons of Japheth: "Gomer, Magog, and Madai, Nidiazech, Tubal, Mocteras, Cenez, Riphath, and Thogorma, Elisa, Dessin, Cethin, Tudant."
- Sons of Gomer: Thelez, Lud, Deberlet.
- Sons of Magog: Cesse, Thipha, Pharuta, Ammiel, Phimei, Goloza, Samanach.
- Sons of Duden: Sallus, Phelucta Phallita.
- Sons of Tubal: Phanatonova, Eteva.
- Sons of Tyras: Maac, Tabel, Ballana, Samplameac, Elaz.
- Sons of Mellech: Amboradat, Urach, Bosara.
- Sons of Ascenez: Jubal, Zaraddana, Anac.
- Sons of Heri: Phuddet, Doad, Dephadzeat, Enoc.
- Sons of Togorma: Abiud, Saphath, Asapli, Zepthir.
- Sons of Elisa: Etzaac, Zenez, Mastisa, Rira.
- Sons of Zepti: Macziel, Temna, Aela, Phinon.
- Sons of Tessis: Meccul, Loon, Zelataban.
- Sons of Duodennin: Itheb, Beath, Phenech.
Later writers[edit]
Among the nations that various later writers (including Jerome and Isidore of Seville, as well as other traditional accounts) have attempted to assign to them, are as follows:
- Gomer: Scythians, Turks, Bulgars, Armenians, Welsh, Picts, Irish, Teutons (Germanic peoples)
- Magog: Scythians, Goths, Swedes, Finns, Huns, Slavs, Magyars (Hungarians), Irish;
- Madai: Mitanni, Mannai, Medes, more generally Persians, or even more generally Indo-Aryans;
- Javan: Ionians (Greeks)
- Tubal: Tabali, Circassians, Georgians, Italics, Iberians, Basques;
- Meshech: Phrygians, Moschoi, Meskheti, Georgians, Armenians, Illyrians;
- Tiras: Thracians, Etruscans, Teutons (Germanic peoples).
Renaissance to Early Modern ethnography[edit]
Book of Jasher[edit]
The "Book of Jasher", a midrash (elaboration of the biblical text) first printed in 1625, ostensibly based on an earlier edition of 1552, provides some new names for Japheth's grandchildren.
- Gomer (sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah[2])
- Magog (sons were Elichanaf and Lubal[3])
- Madai (sons were Achon, Zeelo, Chazoni and Lot)
- Javan (sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim[4])
- Tubal (sons were Ariphi, Kesed and Taari[5])
- Meshech (sons were Dedon, Zaron and Shebashni[6])
- Tiras (sons were Benib, Gera, Lupirion and Gilak[7])
Anthropology[edit]
Main article: Caucasian race
The term Caucasian as a racial label for Europeans derives in part from the assumption that the tribe of Japheth developed its distinctive racial characteristics in the Caucasus area, having migrated there from Mount Ararat before populating Europe.[citation needed] In the same vein, Georgian nationalist histories associated Japheth's sons with certain ancient tribes of the Caucasus area, called Tubals (Tabals, Tibarenoi in Greek) and Meshechs (Meshekhs/Mosokhs, Moschoi in Greek), who they claimed represented ancient pre-Indo-European and non-Semitic, possibly "Proto-Iberian", tribes of Asia Minor of the 3rd-1st millennias BC. This theory influenced the use of the term Japhetic in the linguistic theories of Nikolai Marr (see below).
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Biblical statement attributed to Noah that "God shall enlarge Japheth" (Genesis 9:27) was used by some preachers[who?] as a justification for the "enlargement" of European territories through Imperialism, which they interpreted as part of God's plan for the world.[8] The subjugation of Africans was similarly justified by the curse of Ham.[8]
Linguistics[edit]
Main articles: Japhetic languages and Japhetic theory
The term Japhetic was also applied by William Jones, Rasmus C. Rask and others to what is now known as the Indo-European language group.