The Lost Tribes as a Modern Geographic Mystery
From the seventeenth century, it became clear that a major trouble with the ten
tribes was the sheer abundance of views and opinions on the subject of their
whereabouts. The very multiplicity of opinions on the matter and the debates
as to whether the tribes were in America, Africa, northern Asia, or India—all of
this added another dimension to the simple question, “Where are the ten
tribes?” The question now meant, rather: “Where are the ten lost tribesreally,
as opposed to other putative locations?” And the question, “Who are the ten
tribes?” now actually meant something more like, “Are the Native Americans
the ten tribes or not, or is it the Tartars who are the descendants of the ten
tribes as opposed to, say, the Chinese?”
As early as the first two decades of the seventeenth century, the educated
person could read about the ten tribes in, among other places, Samuel Pur-
chas’s (c. 1575 – 1626 ) huge and popularPilgrimages and Relations of the World
series, a collection of world geography, voyages, and navigations. The kingdom
of the ten tribes first appeared as part of biblical history, on its maps of the Holy
Land (prepared by Hondius) with Samaria, the capital, in a large font.^14 Similar
maps, portraying the territories of the tribes before their exile, had been
popular since the mid-sixteenth century. (For instance, Walter Raleigh’s
[ 1552 – 1618 ] influential “history of the world,” published for the first time in
1614 , provided detailed information about the territories of each tribe during
the period of the settlement of the Holy Land after the Exodus.)^15
About the ancient geography of the ten tribes in Palestine, there was little
dispute. Purchas, however, placed great importance on the religions attached to
each region of the world. The ten tribes after exile, a group whose location and
religious status were highly unclear, were a matter of particular concern.
Purchas was an attentive collector of materials on the subject. In 1613 , Purchas
discussed—and did not rule out—the possibility that the ten tribes were in
Tartary, relying, apparently, on Ortelius.^16 In 1625 , a year before his death, he
declared, “The Tartars are not Israelite,” and spent time on Esdras’s allegations
that this was the case, reviewing in the course of doing so all other possible
locations in Asia, America, Arabia, and Ethiopia. Even after years of study, he
could not be sure.^17
Despite his skepticism, Purchas liked to tell tales about the “closed Jews.”
In a section dedicated to the Persian Gulf, Purchas “intreate[d]” his readers’
“patience,” digressing to discuss at length “the Jewish fables” about the “Sab-
batical streams”—the River Sambatyon. This comes just after mention
of European travelers who had lost their lives or fortunes looking for the