foreign timber, known, however, to the Jews, for it had been previously imported
both by themselves and the Tyrians. The navy of Hiram is expressly stated to have
brought from Ophir along with gold, “ great plenty of almug-trees.” The uses to which
the almug timber was put, show that it was in greater esteem than the cedars and firs
of Lebanon. Solomon “ made of the almug-trees pillars for the House of the Lord, and
for the king’s house,—harps also and psalteries for singers. There came no such
almug-trees, nor were seen unto this day.” Some commentators have supposed the
almug to be sandal-wood, or the Santalum album of botanists; but this, from the
uses made of it, and the omission to notice its perfume, its most remarkable quality,
is highly improbable. The sandal-wood is a small tree, not much exceeding in size
a large myrtle, while it is much branched, and the wood crooked. The sandal, in
short, would not afford pillars for a temple which was thirty cubits high, nor is
the timber at all suited for the manufacture of any kind of musical instruments, an
use to which it is never put. In another place it is stated that Solomon made
terraces, that is floors, of the almug-trees. But setting aside the cost, it is certain
that planks for terraces could not have been sawn or hewn out of crooked wood,
not above two or three feet long, or exceeding three or four inches in diameter. We
may conclude, then, that the trees which would make pillars for a temple and palace,
and terraces for the first, must have been of very considerable size, and hence that
the vessels which imported them must have been of considerable burden, while the
voyage could not have been very distant that would admit of so bulky an article
being imported to profit. Solomon, indeed, might have imported them without
regard to cost for the Temple, but the Tyrians, who seem to Lave imported them as
a regular article of trade, would not have done so. If the almug-trees were really
sandal wood, this would suppose a trade,^from the nature of the commodity, even a
direct one,—with India, Malabar being the nearest country to the Red Sea that produces
sandal-wood. That the almug or algum was a hard wood admitting of a polish, is to
be infen-ed from some of its uses. I t was, probably, the high polish of which it was
susceptible, that recommended it in preference to fir and cedar as ornamental pillars
for the temple. The Jewish psalteries are described as a kind of staccatos with
wooden keys, apparently similar to the gambangs of the Javanese; and if so, the
keys of these would require a hard and sonorous wood, which no native tree of Syria
or Egypt might have afforded in the same perfection as the foreign wood called almug.
According to the Latin version of the Scriptures, and to our own and those of other
modem European nations, “ Peacocks ” are among the things brought from Ophir.
The Greek version, however, passes by the word which we so render altogether, the
translators having been evidently unable to make up their minds what it meant.
The original Hebrew word is “ tuchii'm,” which, as a name for the peacock, cannot
certainly be traced to any foreign tongue. The nearest country to Egypt and Syria
in which the peacock is indigenous is Hindustan, and hence it has been concluded
that Ophir was in some part or other of that continent. The Hebrew word, at least,
will give no countenance to this supposition, for it bears no resemblance to the name
of the bird in any language of that continent or its islands. Thus, in Sanscrit, the
name for the peacock is “ manyura,” changed in the ancient and recondite language
of Java into “ manura.” My friend, the learned and accomplished Professor Wilson,
has furnished me with the names of the peacock in eight of the principal languages
of Hindustan. In Hindi, Bangali, and Gujrati, they are merely corruptions of the
Sanscrit name. In the languages, however, of the' nations of the south, or that
portion of India which the Phoenicians and Jews are most likely to have frequented
for trade, the terms are different, and seemingly native. Thus in the Tamil and
Malayalam, the name is “ mayil,” and in the Telugu and Kanarese, “ nemali.” Not
one of these, however, bears the remotest resemblance to the “ tuchii'm,” of the
Hebrew. In Malay and modem Javanese, the name is “m&rak,” evidently a native
and local word, and neither Indian nor Semitic.
The Persians appear early to have received the peacock in the domestic state from
India, and from Persia it would appear at an early period to have been received in
Greece, a fact which seems to be corroborated from the Persian and Greek names,
“ taus ” or “ tawus ” being essentially the same. Even the Arabs seem, although
probably at a much later time, to have received the peacock through Persia, since the
Arabic name of the bird is identical with the Persian.
But there are other facts which make it highly improbable that the Hebrew word,
tuchii'm, should mean the peacock. Independent of its great size, this bird is of
delicate constitution, which would make it nearly impossible to convey it in small
vessels, and by a long sea-voyage, such as that from Gujrat or Malabar to the head of
the Red Sea. Another argument still more cogent may be urged, that the tuchi'm or
peacock is never mentioned, before or after, in any part of the Old Testament; nor,
indeed, is it at all likely that the early Jews should be acquainted with this bird,
seeing that they were even, ignorant of the hardy, useful^ and easily transported
Common Fowl, like the peacock a native of India. The pigeon, indeed, seems to
have been the only bird which the Jews had domesticated before their conquest
by the Greeks. , , ,, , . , ...
I t seems far more probable that parrots were meant by the word tuchum.
These hardy and long-lived birds are easily conveyed by long sea-voyages. Many of
them, and of several species, are brought yearly as objects of traffic in small vessels
all the way from New Guinea to the most westerly parts of the Malay Archipelago, a
vovage which the peacock would not survive. I t may even be added that the Persian
and Arabic name for parrot, tuti, bears a nearer resemblance to the Hebrew word,
than any Indian one of the peacock. _ ,
All the commodities forming the imports from Ophir, could not well have been
the native products of one and the same place, and hence it is to be inferred that
Ophir was an emporium at which the different articles enumerated were collected.
Africa would certainly furnish gold, ivory, and parrots, but it is not celebrated for its
precious stones; and with the addition of the double voyage, which would be implied
by conveying them through an emporium, is not likely to have furnished the timber-
trees, called almug. It could not have furnished the silver which formed part of the
homeward investment, since it is not known at any time to have possessed silver
mines; while, even possessing them, the rude natives cannot be supposed possessing
the art of smelting the ore. Another objection to placing Ophir in any part of the
eastern coast of Africa, is to be found in the incapacity of its savage inhabitants to
consume the valuable manufactures which, of necessity, the Tyrians and Jews must
have given in exchange for the rich cargos which they brought back. > Ophir certainly
cannot, with any show of probability, be placed in any part of India or its islands,
since none of the peculiar products of India, sandal wood and peacocks being
the only ones supposed, are shown to have been so. The great distance of that
country, a direct voyage to which from the Red Sea would be incompatible with such
skill as we are warranted in attributing to the early navigation of the Phoenicians,
makes it very improbable that Ophir was in that country.
All the enumerated commodities of the ophir commerce might easily have been collected
at an emporium convenient for all the parties engaged in the trade; and the
most probable station for it would be on the southern coast of Arabia, or even within
the Arabian Gulf itself, on its eastern shore. The enterprising character of the
Sabaeans, or early Arabians, would determine an emporium to such a locality. With
the help of the monsoons, these Arabians might have traded not only to Ethiopia,
but even to India. With the first of these countries they are^ expressly stated to
have traded, and they could easily have brought from it gold, ivory, and parrots to
their own country. The monsoons would, in such a voyage, afford a fair and steady
wind outward and homeward; and even if the voyage extended beyond the entrance
of the Red Sea and as far as the southern shore of Arabia, it would not equal in
length that which is yearly performed at present, and has been performed for ages,
by Malay praus between New Guinea and Sumatra under similar auspices.
The Arabs might even have extended their navigation eastward as far as India,
although from the nature of the commodities constituting the exports from Ophir, there
is no evidence that they did so, no mention being made of any of its peculiar products.
If the Tarshish of Scripture was, as I have supposed it, situated on the Gulf of Suez,
the commodities which that place furnished to Tyre were probably brought from
India to Ophir, and thence by the Phoenicians to Tarshish, to be conveyed by a short
land journey and a bifief .coasting voyage to Tyre. They consisted, according to Ezekiel,
of silver, iron, tin, and lead. India Proper could only furnish of these commodities
iron, while the tin must have been brought to , the emporia of Malabar from the
Malay Archipelago; and as to the silver and lead, China, and the countries immediately
west of it, could alone have furnished them,—if they really were Asiatic
products. The lead might have come from the same countries through the Malayan,
Malabar, and Sabaean ports; and the diffusive precious metal through many channels.
I t seems probable that the Phoenicians themselves never went beyond Ophir, or
some other Arabian emporium, trusting to the Arabians to bring thither the commodities
of India. This, at least, is consonant to what we know of the course of
trade among all rude nations. Thus, on the arrival of the Portuguese at the end of
the 15 th century, the Malayan nations carried on the internal commerce within their