iia:m
B. Descendants of Ham, and their loralitij.— The loosi, distribution Avhich assigns ancient Asia to Sliom, and ancient Africa to Ham, requires much modification; for although the Shemites had but little connection with Africa, the descendants of Ham had, on the conlrarv, wide settlements in Asia, not only on the shores of Syr- ia, the Mediterranean, and in the Arabian jjeninsula. but (as we learn from linguistic discoveries, wliich mi-- nutely corroborate the letter of the Mosaic statements, and refute the assertions of modern IJationalisni) in the plains of Mesopotamia. One of the most prominent facts alleged in Gen. x is the foundation of the earliest monarchy by the grandson of Ham in Bahjlonia. " Cush [the eldest son of Ham] begat Niuirod . . . the begin- ning of whose kingdom was Babel [ liabylon], and Erech, and Accad, and Calileh, in the land of Shinar" (vers. 0, 8, 10). Here we have a primitive Babylonian emjiire distinctly declared to have been Hamitic through Cush. For the complete vindication of this statement of Gene- sis from the opposite statements of Bunsen, Niebuhr, Heeren, and others, wa must refer the reader to Raw- linson's Five great Monarchies, voL i, chaji. iii, compared with his Historical Evidences, etc. (Bamjjton Lectures), p. 18, 68, 355-357. The idea of an ''Asiatic Cush" was declared by Bunsen to be "an imagination of inteqiret- ers, the child of despair" {Phil, of Univ. I/istorg, i, 191). But in 1858, Sir H. Rawlinson, having olilained a num- ber of Babylonian documents more ancient than any lireviously discovered, was able to declare authoritative- ly that the early inhabitants of South Babylonia were of a cognate race with the ])rimitive colonists both of Arabia and of the African Ethiopia (Rawlinson's //wW- otus, i, 442). He found their vocabulary to be undoubt- edh' Cushite or Ethioi)ian, belonging to that stock of tongues which in the sequel were' everywhere more or less mixed up with tlic Shemitic languages, but of which we have the purest modern specimens in the Mahra of southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia {ibid., note 9). He found, also, that the traditions both of Babylon and Assyria pointed to a connecti(jn in very early times between Ethiopia, Southern .Arabia, and the cities on the lower Euphrates. We have here evidence both of the widely-spread settlements of the children of Ham in Asia as well as Africa, and (what is now especially valuable) of the truth of the 10th chapter of Genesis as an ethnographical document of the highest importance. Some writers push the settlements of Ham still more towards the east; Feldhoff {Die VOlkertafl der Genesis, p. 69), speaking generally of them, makes them spread, not simply to the south and south-west of the plains of Shinar, but east and south-east also; he accordingly l<i- cates some of the family of Cush in the neighborliood of the Paropamisus chain [the Hindu Kiish], which he goes so far as to call the centre wlience the Cushites emanated, and h? peoples the greater part of Hindustan, Birmah, and China with the posterity of the children of Cush (see under their names in this art.). Dr. Prichard (.4 nahjsis of the Egyptian Mythologg) compares, the phi- losophy and the superstitions of the ancient Egj-ptians with those of the Hindus, and linds '• so many phenom-
18, 19, and 1 Sam. xvi, 6-12),
" These are the sons of HAM,
after their families (CrnEd"?b, or clans), after their tongues (crr35),
in their comitries (nrii"iX2), [and] in their nations" (Ctl'^isS), Gen. x, 20.
II. MIZEAIM.
IV. CANAAN.
1. Seba ; 2. Havilah ; 3. Sabtah ; 1.
4. Raamah ; 5. Sabtechah ; 6. Ni.mbod.
Ludim; '2. Anamim : 3. Lehabim; 4. Naphtuhim; 5. Pathrusim; 6. Casluhim ; 7. Caphtorim.
1. Sidon ; 2. Ileth ; 3. Jebu-
site ; 4. Aniorite ; 5. Gir-
gasitp ; G. Ilivite ; T.
Arkite; 8. Sinite;
9. Arvadite ; 10.
Zcmarlte ; 11.
Haraathite.
Sheba; Dedan.
HAM
2f6
HAM
cna of striking congniity" between these nations that he is induced to conclude" that they were descended from a common orifrin. Nor ouijht we here to omit that the Arminian historian Abulfarafjius amoni,' the countries assifincd to the sons of Ilam expressly includes both S<-imliii and /mlid, by which he means such parts of Hindustan as lie west and east of the river Indus (Greg. Abul-l'haragii, ///V. %«('«'. [etL Pocock,Oxon. 1(J73], Dvn. i, p. 17).
"The sons of Ham are stated to liave been " Cash," and ISIizraim, and Phut, and Caanan" (Gen. x, G ; comp. 1 Chroii. i, H). It is remarkable that a dual form (Miz- r.iim) shoidd occur in the first generation, indicating a country, and not a person or a tribe, and we are there- fore inclined to sujiposc that the gentile noim in the plu- ral 0"'1S"3,ditTering alone in the pointing from D^^^ip, originally stood here, which would be quite consistent with the plural forms of the names of the Mizraite tribes which follow, and analogous to the singular forms of the names of tlio Canaanite tribes, except the Sidonians, w)io arc mentioned, not as a nation, but under the name of their forefather 8idon.
The name of Ham alone, of the three sons of Noah, if our identification be correct, is known to have been given to a country. Egypt is recognised as -the "land (.r Ham" in the Hible (Psa. Ixxviii, 51 ; cv, 23 ; cvi, 22), and this, though it does not prove the. identity of the Egyptian name with that of the patriarch, certainly fa- vors it, and establishes the historical fact that Egypt, settled by the descendants of Ham, was peculiarly his territory. The name iMizraim we believe to confirm this. The restriction of Ham to Egypt, unlike the case, if wc may reason inferentially, of his brethren, may be accounted for by the very early civilization of this part of the Hamitic territory, while much of the rest was comparatively barbarous. Egypt may also have been the lirst settlement of the Hamites whence colonies went forth, as we know was the case with the Philis- tines. ISee CAiMiTOR.