in which we find stone weapons and implements, besides pottery, often elegant in contour, but for the most part coarse in texture and execution.  These remains, however, are not accompanied by any monument of definite characteristics, and they yield no information with regard to the origin or affinities of the tribes who fashioned them.* The study of the geographical nomenclature in use about the XVIth century B.C. reveals the existence, at all events at that period, of several peoples and several languages.  The mountains, rivers, towns, and fortresses in Palestine and Coele-Syria are designated by words of Semitic origin:  it is easy to detect, even in the hieroglyphic disguise which they bear on the Egyptian geographical lists, names familiar to us in Hebrew or Assyrian.

* Researches with regard to the primitive inhabitants of Syria and their remains have not as yet been prosecuted to any extent.  The caves noticed by Hedenborg at Ant-Elias, near Tripoli, and by Botta at Nahr el-Kelb, and at Adlun by the Duc de Luynes, have been successively explored by Lartet, Tristram, Lortet, and Dawson.  The grottoes of Palestine proper, at Bethzur, at Gilgal near Jericho, and at Tibneh, have been the subject of keen controversy ever since their discovery.  The Abbe Richard desired to identify the flints of Gilgal and Tibneh with the stone knives used by Joshua for the circumcision of the Israelites after the passage of the Jordan (Josh. v- 2-9), some of which might have been buried in that hero’s tomb.

But once across the Orontes, other forms present themselves which reveal no affinities to these languages, but are apparently connected with one or other of the dialects of Asia Minor.* The tenacity with which the place-names, once given, cling to the soil, leads us to believe that a certain number at least of those we know in Syria were in use there long before they were noted down by the Egyptians, and that they must have been heirlooms from very early peoples.  As they take a Semitic or non-Semitic form according to their geographical position, we may conclude that the centre and south were colonized by Semites, and the north by the immigrant tribes from beyond the Taurus.  Facts are not wanting to support this conclusion, and they prove that it is not so entirely arbitrary as we might be inclined to believe.  The Asiatic visitors who, under a king of the XIIth dynasty, came to offer gifts to Khnumhotpu, the Lord of Beni-Hasan, are completely Semitic in type, and closely resemble the Bedouins of the present day.  Their chief—­Abisha—­bears a Semitic name,** as too does the Sheikh Ammianshi, with whom Sinuhit took refuge.***

* The non-Semitic origin of the names of a number of towns in Northern Syria preserved in the Egyptian lists, is admitted by the majority of scholars who have studied the question.

     ** His name has been shown to be cognate with the Hebrew
     Abishai (1 Sam. xxvi. 6-9; 2 Sam. ii. 18, 24; xxi. 17) and
     with the Chaldaeo-Assyrian Abeshukh.