Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/661

 The affinities of the moas are undoubtedly with the Australian Ratitae, and, in spite of the differences mentioned above, with the kiwis. In this respect Max Fürbringer and T. J. Parker are in perfect agreement. The relationship with Aepyornis of Madagascar is still problematic. Whilst the moas seem to have been entirely herbivorous, feeding not unlikely upon the shoots of ferns, the kiwis have become highly specialized worm-eaters. In this respect cassowaries and emeus hold an intermediate position, their occasional zoophagous (especially piscivorous) inclination being well known. Unmolested by enemies (Harpagornis, a tremendous bird of prey, died out with the Pleistocene), living in an equable insular climate, with abundant vegetation, the moas flourished and seem to have reached their greatest development in specialization, numbers, and a bewildering variety of large and small kinds, within quite recent times. Unfortunately no fossil moas, older than the Pleiocene, are known. Parker recognizes five genera, with about twenty species, which he combines into three sub-families: Dinornithinae with Dinornis, Anomalopteryginae with Pachyornis, Mesopteryx and Anomalopteryx, comprising the comparatively least specialized forms; and Emeinae with the genus Emeus, not to be confounded with the vernacular emeu. The moas ranged in size from that of a turkey to truly colossal dimensions, the giant being Dinornis maximus, which, with a tibial length of 39 in., stood with its small head about 12 ft. above the ground.

MOAB, the name of an ancient people of Palestine who inhabited a district E. of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, lying N. of Edom and S. of (q.v.) and the Israelite Transjordanic districts. There is little material for its earlier history outside the Old Testament, and the various references in the latter are often of disputed reference and date. The national traditions of Israel recognize a close relationship between Moab and Ammon, “sons” of Lot, and the “brothers” Esau (Edom) and Jacob (Israel), and Moab is represented as already a powerful people when Israel fled from Egypt (Exod. xv. 15). The detailed narratives, however, give conflicting views of the exodus and the conquest of Palestine. It was supposed that Moab, having expelled the aboriginal giants, was in turn displaced by the Amorite king Sihon, who forced Moab south of the Arnon (Wadi Mōjib, a natural boundary) and drove Ammon beyond the Jabbok. The Israelites at Kadesh, almost at the gate of the promised land, incurred the wrath of Yahweh, and, deterred by a defeat at Hormah from pursuing their journey northwards, were obliged to choose another route (Num. xiv. 40-45; contrast xxi. 1-3). (See .) Messengers to Edom were repulsed (Num. xx. 14-18), or Israel was met by Edom with force (v. 19 seq.); consequently a great détour was made from Kadesh round by the south of Edom (Num. xiv. 25, xxi. 4; Judges xi. 18). At length the people safely reached Pisgah in Moab (Num. xxi. 16-20; cf. Deut. iii. 27, xxxiv. 1), or, according to another view, passed outside Moab until they reached the border of Sihon’s kingdom (Num. xxi. 13, 26; Judges xi. 17 seq.). There are other details in Deut. ii., and the late list in Num. xxxiii. even seems to assume that the journey was made from Kadesh across the northern end of Edom. Apparently no fixed or distinct tradition existed regarding the journeys, and it extremely probable that some of the most characteristic features belong to much later periods than the latter half of the second millennium , the age to which they are ascribed (e.g. the poem on the fall of Heshbon, Num. xxi. 27-30).

Although Moab and Ammon were “brothers,” their history was usually associated with that of Judah and Israel respectively, and naturally depended to a considerable extent upon these two and their mutual relations. (q.v.), one of the Israelite “judges,” delivered Gilead from Ammon, who resumed the attack under its king Nahash, only to be repulsed by (q.v.). (q.v.) of Benjamin or Ephraim freed Israel from the Moabite oppression. To the first great kings, Saul and David, are ascribed conquests over Moab, Ammon and Edom. The Judaean David, for his part, sought to cultivate friendly relations with Ammon, and tradition connects him closely with Moab. His son Solomon contracted marriages with women of both states (1 Kings xi. 5, 7), thus introducing into Jerusalem cults which were not put down until almost at the close of the monarchy (2 Kings xxiii. 13). In the 9th century the two states appear in more historical surroundings, and the discovery of a lengthy Moabite inscription has thrown valuable light upon contemporary conditions.

This inscription, now in the Louvre, was found at Dhībān, the biblical Dībōn, in 1868 by the Rev. F. Klein, a representative of the Church Missionary Society stationed at Jerusalem. It contains a record of the successes gained by the Moabite king Mesha against Israel. (q.v.) had previously seized a number of Moabite cities north of the Arnon, and for forty years the Moabite national god Chemosh was angry with his land. At length he roused Mesha; and Moab, which had evidently retreated southwards towards Edom, now began to take reprisals. “The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of ʽAtaroth from of old; and the king of Israel built ʽAtaroth for himself.” Mesha took the city, slew its people in honour of Chemosh, and dragged before the god the altar-hearth (or the priests?) of D-v-d-h (apparently a divine name, but curiously similar to David). Next Chemosh roused Mesha against the city of Nebo. It fell with its thousands, for the king had “devoted” it to the deity ʽAshtar-Chemosh. Yahweh had been worshipped there, and his (? vessels, or perhaps the same doubtful word as above) were dragged before the victorious Chemosh. With the help of these and other victories (at Jahaz, Aroer, &c.), Moab recovered its territory, fortified its cities, supplied them with cisterns, and Mesha built a great sanctuary to his god. The inscription enumerates many places known elsewhere (Isa. xv.; Jer. xlviii.), but although it mentions the “men of Gad,” makes no allusion to the Israelite tribe Reuben, whose seat lay in the district (Num. xxxii.; Josh. xiii. 15-23; see ). The revolt will have followed Ahab’s death (see 2 Kings i. 1) and apparently led to the unsuccessful attempt by Jehoram to recover the lost ground (ibid. iii.).

Moab thus retained its independence, even harrying Israel with marauding bands (2 Kings xiii. 20), while Ammon was