Sect. 2
You must know therefore, that Alexis Vanegas saith, that the first Colonies of the West-Indies were of the Carthaginians, who first of all inhabited New-Spaine, and as they encreased, spread to the Island Cuba; from thence to the continent of America; and after that towards Panama, New-Spaine, and the Isle of Peru. And he grounds himselfe on that reason, that as the Carthaginians (who of old did most use the Seas) so those of Peru, and the Inhabitants of New-Spaine, did make use of Pictures instead of Letters.
But this opinion doth not satisfie, because they anciently were white men, bearded, and civill in converse; but contrarily those of Panama, St. Martha, and the Isles in Cuba, and Barlovent, went naked. Further-more, who can thinke that the language which he saith, they first spoke, should be so soone changed, that it should be wholly another; and there is no agreement between the one and the other. The learned Arias Montanus thinkes, that the Indians of New-Spaine, and Peru, are the Off-spring of Ophir the sonne of Jokton, the nephew of Heber. And he backes his opinion, by the name Ophir, which by transposition of letters, is the same with Peru; and he adds, that the name Parvaim in the duall number, doth signifie the Istmus between New-Spaine and Peru, which first was called Ophir, then Peru; and that these Countries are that Peru, from whence King Solomon brought Gold, precious Stones, &c., as in 1 King. chap. 9. v. 10. & 2 Chron. 9.21. This opinion seems more probable than the other, and may be backed by another name of the River Piru, which according to Gomoras, lyes in the second degree from the Equinoctiall line, from Panama 222. miles; as also by the name of the Province Jucatan, which may be derived from Joktan the father of Ophir. But besides that this notation is somewhat farre fetcht, it crosses what Josephus Acosta affirmes in 1. Histor. of Jud. c. 13. who saith, that the name Peru was unknowne to the Indians themselves before those Spaniards gave that name. Add to this what Garcillasso de la Vega in the first part of his Commentary on Peru, c. 4. saith, that when a certaine Spanyard, Basco Nunnez de Balboa, lived in that Country, and asked a Fisher-man, what was the name of that Province, he answered Beru; (which was the Fisher-mans owne name, he thinking that was the question) and he farther said, that the name of the River where he fished, was called Pelu. Hence you may see, that Peru is made of both those words; which also many Spanyards besides him, we have mentioned, doe testifie. Besides, who can thinke that Solomon neglecting the East-Indies, a place so rich, and abounding with all things, should send a Fleet so farre off as to the West-Indies. Also we read in 1 King. 9. that Solomon made ships in Ezion-Geber on the shoare of the red Sea, which also Jehosaphat did, with Ahaziah, as Ezra saith, in 2 Chron. 20. and it is certaine that those of those Countries went that ordinary way to India. And it will not follow, that because the holy Scripture sometimes saith, that they went to Tarsis, and sometimes; that they went to Ophir, that therefore both those places are the same; since that Tarsis is not, as some thinke Carthage, or Tunes in Africa for that the Navie of Solomon did not set sayle from Joppa, a port of the Mediterranean, but from Ezion-Geber, a Port of the red Sea, from whence they could not sayle to Carthage, but to the East-Indies. The answer of Isaac Abarbanel to that argument, cannot be admitted, who saith, that an arme of Nilus did run into the red Sea, and another arme ran into the Mediterranean, by Alexandria in Ægypt; since it was never heard, that ships of great burden, did swim in those rivers; and would not he then have built his Navie in the Port of Alexandria? It is more true that Tarsis is the Ocean, or Indian Sea; and because they came into the Ocean, after that they had sayled over the red Sea, which is but narrow, therefore the Scripture saith, They Sayled to Tarsis. Rabbi Jonathan ben Uziel followes this opinion, who in his Paraphrase, for Tarsis, puts (the Sea.) The same saith Franciscus de Ribera, in his Comment. on Jonah, and also Rabbinus Josephus Coen, in his Chronology; who ascribe the word Tarsis, to the Indian Sea; because that Ophir is the same Country, which of old is called, The Golden Chersonesus; and by Josephus, The Golden Land; and at this day Malacca; from whence they brought Ivory, for the great number of Elephants which are there; none of which are in the West-Indies, and Solomons Navie stayed in those Ports of India three yeares, because they traded with the Inhabitants! I know that learned Grotius, and famous de Laet thinke differently; as also those quoted by them; but I shall not insist in confuting their opinions because I study brevity. I doe like of, in part, the opinion of the Spaniards who dwell in the Indies, who by common consent doe affirme that the Indians come of the ten Tribes. And truly they are not altogether mistaken, because in my opinion, they were the first planters of the Indies; as also other people of the East-Indies came by that Streight which is between India, and the Kingdome of Anian. But that people, according to our Montezinus, made warre upon those Inhabitants the Israelites, whom they forced up unto the mountaines, and the in-land Countries, as formerly the Brittaines were driven by the Saxons into Wales.