But although thousands of stones have been washed and carefully examined for inscriptions, none have so far been discovered. As the inscription which stood originally above the gateway of Great Zimbabwe, as reported by the Arabs to the Portuguese pioneers early in the sixteenth century,[9] has since disappeared, there are no known written documents connecting these monuments with South Arabia or Phœnicia, except a few scratches on the rim of an earthenware vessel figured by Bent and by him supposed possibly to be of Himyaritic type.[10] As, on the other hand, South Arabia is covered with Himyaritic rock inscriptions, some of considerable length and hitherto reputed to be of great age, their absence from Rhodesia has naturally caused surprise. This negative argument has even by some of my critics been allowed to outweigh the overwhelming positive evidence derived from the monuments themselves, from the hundreds of old gold-workings already described or recorded, from the multitude of objects—phalli, birds, conic towers—which have been found in the ruins, and are, beyond all doubt, intimately associated with Semitic religious observances. But I think it may now be shown that this “negative argument” is no proof at all of non-Semitic origins, but, on the contrary, affords strong indirect evidence of the great antiquity of these Semitic remains in Rhodesia.
It is to be noticed, in the first place, that although the Phœnicians are believed to have migrated from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean about three millenniums before the New Era, no Phœnician inscriptions have yet been anywhere discovered in the Mediterranean lands older than about the seventh or the eighth century b.c. Before that time the Phœnicians, like the kindred Canaanites and Israelites, were rude, uncultured peoples, with no knowledge of letters, except, perhaps, of the hieroglyphs, cuneiforms, and other scripts of their Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, Hittite, and Cretan neighbours. Even the Moabite Stone, if it be genuine, is post-Solomonic, since its reputed “author” was the Moabite king, Mesha, contemporary of Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah. How, then, could the unlettered Jews and Phœnicians of the time of David, Solomon, and Hiram leave any written records of themselves in Rhodesia? After that epoch the intercourse with South Africa was interrupted, because “Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber” (1 Kings xxii. 48). And then the star of Jacob waned, and the scattering of the Ten Tribes of Israel was presently followed by the dire calamities that fell upon Judah, and put an end for ever to all further quest of treasure in the Austral seas.
“FUKO-YA-NEBANDGE,” THE MASHONALAND RELIC, DISCOVERED NEAR ZIMBABWE
(FIG. 5)
MODEL OF ELLIPTICAL TEMPLE, ZIMBABWE
(FIG. 6)
In the second place I find that Semitic students are gradually coming to the conclusion that the age of the South Arabian rock inscriptions has been greatly exaggerated, especially by Glaser, whose authority was at first naturally accepted almost without demur. The language is, no doubt, Himyaritic, that is to say, the oldest known form of Arabic. But that language survived for many centuries after the New Era in the Axumite empire, Abyssinia, where it is called Geez, and in Yemen till some time after the Mohammedan irruption, and is still current in the island of Sokotra, and in the Mahra district east of Hadramaut, where it is called Ehkili. Hence the language of the inscriptions is no test of their antiquity, though many afford intrinsic evidence that they date certainly from at least a few hundred years before the New Era. The subject is at present sub judice, and no more can be said until the full results are known of the extensive researches now in progress throughout Yemen. Here a large number of agents of the French Ministère de l’Instruction Publique have been at work since the year 1901, and thousands of impressions or rubbings have already (1903–4) been received in Paris. Some have even begun to appear in the Nouveaux Textes Yéménites, edited by M. Derenbourg, and several of the inscriptions are stated to be in a hitherto unknown alphabet quite different from that of the Himyaritic document which forms the frontispiece of the Gold of Ophir. Great revelations may therefore be pending; but, meanwhile, so much may, I think, be safely inferred, that the Himyarites who first arrived in Rhodesia, worked the mines, and built the monuments, some dating from apparently 2000 b.c., had little or no knowledge of letters, or at least had not yet begun to cover the rocks of their South Arabian homes with well-formed and carefully constructed inscriptions. Thus is also explained the absence of all such documents from their new homes in Rhodesia, where one may now almost venture to predict that none will ever be found. Nothing can be inferred from the vanished inscription over the Great Zimbabwe gateway, since the gold-workings appear to have been resumed for a time by the later (post-Mohammedan) Arabs, who were fond of decorating the façades of their mosques and other public buildings with the ornamental but relatively recent (eighth century) Cufic characters.
Mention should perhaps here be made of Professor Gustav Oppert’s Tharshish and Ophir (Berlin, 1903), in which the learned author claims to offer “a final solution” of the problem. But he leaves the question exactly as it stood over three decades ago, is still lost in the tangle of time-worn etymologies, and takes no notice at all of the revelations made by Messrs. Hall and Neal in the Ancient Ruins. The vast body of archæological evidence derived in recent years from the Rhodesian remains is thus completely ignored, and fresh light excluded from the only source whence it might have been drawn. On the other hand, Professor Oppert, rather than admit a Tharshish in the Indian Ocean, suggests that the Tharshish of Kings and Chronicles either means “the sea,” possibly the origin of the Greek word [Greek: thalatta] itself, or else was by the authors of those books foisted into the texts instead of Ophir. Hence where Tharshish occurs as the objective of Solomon’s gold expeditions we are to read Ophir, although the original Ophir is allowed to have been where I place it on the south coast of Arabia. Now the Greek word [Greek: thalatta] is Homeric, and when the Homeric poems were first sung there were no Greeks in the Indian Ocean. Hence, even if the wild etymology could be admitted, it would not serve, and this essay cannot be accepted as “a final solution of the old controversy.”[11] It is pleasant to be able to add that my solution has been accepted as final by some of Professor Oppert’s fellow-countrymen—the editor of the Coloniale Zeitung amongst others—who declares that “the problem seems now really solved.”[12]