Ludi-im, People of the Sea
Analyzing a mysterious Hebrew suffix
Now, there is one extremely tenuous theory that may explain the oddities of Mizraim’s ‘mostly unknown’ children. Unlike pretty much all the other children on the table of - excluding a few lost identifications - Mizraim is the only one whose entire spawn has no classical identification, but also contains a “-im” suffix. What could help explain this would be if these children are meant as metaphors for groups that had come to Egypt eventually assimilating and fusing with the populations making them indistinguishable from ‘Mizraim’ and bonafide ‘subtribes’ rather than nations unto themselves. I find the sub-tribe theory slightly tenuous, as tribes in this era meant family, and ethnicity, so for me this doesn’t rule anything out.
In Genesis Rabba 37:5 we get some rabbinic discussion of the Ludim and helpfully the “-im” suffix: “In Genesis Rabbah (37:5) “Said Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: The entire coinage of Mizraim is only in the sea. Said Rabbi Joshua ben Korhah: ‘Ludim’ is written ‘Ludiim’ in chronicles, with two ‘yuds,’ to tell you that ‘Ludiim’ means לוּדֵי יָם, Ludim of the sea; Anamim, Anamim of the sea; Lehabim, Lehabim of the sea; Naphtuhim, Naphtuhim of the sea.”
If the Rabbis are to be believed - based on the readings of these terms in chronicles - then the “-im” suffix is meant to designate “of the sea” and is actually the Hebrew term “Yam”. This term is coincidentally found with the term “Yam Suf” referring to the Sea of Reeds where Egyptians drowned during the Exodus.1 The Hebrew word for water is “Mayim” which contains the same root “Yud” and “Mem” in the term Yam, showing how the Yud Mem root combo is used to imply waters, seas, and oceans.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that Mizraim and all seven of his sons contain the word “Yam” when the supposed event at the Yam Suf was in fact a drowning of these Egyptian peoples by water. Both the literal, and metaphoric implications are that all of the sons of Mizraim were drowned in the sea with him and mostly lost to the annals of history. Their lives and cultures were “drowned out” by God, beyond a simple victory this was God’s complete drowning of Egyptian culture. As far as I can tell there is no rabbinic scholarship that has yet to connect these points, and might explain the scribal ‘change’ in Chronicles when mentioning the Ludim with two Yuds. It’s very likely the Chronicles writer was trying to tell us that all of these “-im” were lost in the sea. When the Torah repeats something there is often a reason, and a change can just as well imply intention rather than a mistake as academics like to point out.
While it's possible the Torah was additionally implying plurality with these groups, I personally find it strange there are few other examples of Table of Nations “people groups” being referred to with the ‘-im’ suffix. “Few” being the key asterisk with that statement, as there are actually only two groups.
Most readers will notice we already had two nations subsumed into Javan with the ‘-im’ suffix.: Dodanim and Kittim. This may be the smoking gun owing to the fact these specific nations were identified by us as the two primary “migratory groups” within classical Greece, meaning they were all from the sea rather than a specified land location. Javan were identified as the Ionians, Elishah were the Aeolians, while Tarshish were “Western” Greeks who mostly stayed in the west. What that leaves are the Dodanim and Kittim, who we identified with the Dorians and Mycenaeans/Achaens. While many presume all Greeks colonized the mediterranean - a true statement between the 6th and 3rd centuries BCE - the reality is that Greek colonization was a later post 7th century effect, after the Table of Nations would have been not just written, but widely circulated among the Israelites. This means that in this period Ionians, Aeolians, and “West Isle” Greeks had yet to begin their colonial expansion. The only groups prior to this that had made major migrations were none other than the Dorians and Achaens featured prominently in the Trojan Cycle.
We know from our discussion of Greek migrations that the Achaens were the ‘original’ Greeks, likely identified in scholarship with the Mycenaeans, who were essentially forced out of Greece proper during the migrations of Ionians/Aeolians/Dorians. In the case of the Dorians, our discussion of Dodanim was alongside the Greek mythological figure “Danaus”. Danaus was the founder of the Danaans, who along with the Argives were the most frequently mentioned “collective” term for the Greeks after Achaean. Danaus was also the King of Libya, which heavily implies a location for some section of ancient Greeks relative to the location of Egypt.
I personally think “Of the Sea” is a very strong connection and explanation for this suffix rather than the typical understanding that these are implying a “plurality” of peoples. In Hebrew the suffix “Yam” means sea, or generally bodies of water, but it’s critical to discuss exactly what the ancients viewed as “the ocean”. In ancient Egypt, they viewed the entire Mediterranean as an extension of the Nile. In some sense, it was the “bigger Nile”, and they viewed it flowing through the pillar of Hercules and emptying into the Atlantic Ocean beyond the Atlas mountains. What this could mean is that “Mizraim” would be a soft reference to any of the populations natively from “the sea”, or “of the Yam”. Were there Egyptian records of people “of the sea” who migrated to Egypt with unique ethnic identities, that assimilated and fused into the native Mizraim population? Yes. Yes there was, and importantly they are the recently famous “Sea Peoples Confederation” that invaded Egypt during the New Kingdom, at the onset of the Bronze Age Collapse.
The question becomes “Who were the Sea Peoples in the Table of Nations?” Further questions such as “Where did the Sea People come from?” and “Where did they go?” are also applicable, and something we will unravel in the coming discussions of Mizraim’s sons. Not all of the Sea Peoples are sons of Mizraim, and not all the sons of Mizraim arrived during the Sea Peoples migrations, but this major historical climax certainly helps piece the puzzle together.
Owing to the fact major long distance ship building capable of transporting entire populations is a later development, it’s unlikely these people “came from the sea”. As implied by Chronicles, this is a “later” effect, and the original Ludim were not sea peoples. They were along the Nile, which again in this period snaked around Africa, but they likely came through the greener Saharan between 11,000-4000 BCE.This essentially correlates to a broader “Prehistoric” or “Predynastic” period of Egyptian history. Tentative identifications for these people could variously be the Amratian, Badarian, “Faiyum A” or Merimde cultures.
The Badari culture specifically shows genetic and dental affiliation to the populations of ancient Egypt, C-Group, Pharaonic era skeletons of Lower Nubia, the Kellis population of the Dakhla oasis, A-group, Kerma, Kush, Meroitic, X-Group, as well as Shawia and Kabyle Amazigh/Berbers in the Aures Mountains part of the wider Atlas mountain range. All of these groups are distinct from Sub-Saharan populations, and the odd similarity between the Kabyle and Badari assigns some familiarity between these people and their potential progenitors the “Ludim”. Additionally, other than the Amazigh/Berber groups, all of them are found along the Nile. This strange correlation between ‘native’ Atlas populations and Nile populations in my eyes helps assign the Ludim to this location.
For now I would tentatively accept Ludim’s location being roughly North Africa, or the Atlas Range’s supposed “headwater of the Nile” that in ancient times was believed to be the origin for the Nile. This is an exemplary place to start listing “sons of Mizraim”.
A full discussion of Sea of Reeds vs Red Sea should be left for Moses and the Exodus, but essentially there is no difference between these terms and the Sea of Reeds was a smaller sub sea within the Red Sea.