An inquiry into the history of the Hamitic nations presents considerable difficidties, since it cannot be de- termined in the cases of the most important of those commonly held to be Hamite that they were purely of that stock. It is certain that the three most illustrious Hamitic nations — the Cushites, the Phoenicians, and the Egyptians — were greatly mixed with foreign peoples, lu Babylonia the Hamitic element seems to have been absorbed by the Shemitic, but not in the earliest times. There are some common characteristics, however, which appear to connect the different branches of the Hamitic family, and to distinguish them from the children of Japheth and Shem. Their architecture has a solid grandeur that we look for in vain elsewhere. Egypt, Babj'lonia, and Southern Arabia alike afford proofs of this, and the few remaining monuments of the Phoeni- cians are of the same class. What is very important as indicating the pitrely Hamitic character of the monu- ments to which we refer is that the earliest in Egypt are the most characteristic, while the earlier in Babylo- nia do not yield m this respect to the later. The na- tional mind seems in all these cases to have marked these material forms. The early history of each of the chief , Hamitic nations shows great power of organizing an ex- tensive kingdom, of accpiiring material greatness, and checking the inroads of neighboring nomadic peoples. The Philistines afford a remarkable instance of tliese qualities. In every case, however, the more energetic sons of Shem or Japheth have at last fallen upon the rich Hamitic territories and despoUed them. Egypt, fa- vored by a position fenced round with ncarlj' impassable barriers — on the north an almost havenless coast, on the east and west sterile deserts— held its freedom far longer than the rest; j^et even in the days of Solomon the throne was filled by foreigners, who, if Hamites, -were Shemitic enough in their belief to revolutionize the re- ligion of the countrj^ In Babylonia the IMedes had already captured Nimrod's city more than 2000 years before the Christian rera. Tlie Hamites of Southern Arabia were so early overthrown by the Joktanites that the scanty remains of their history are alone known to us through tradition. Yet the story of the magnificence of the ancient kings of Yemen is so perfectly in accord- ance ^N'ith all we know of the Hamites that*^it is almost enough of itself to prove what other evidence has so well established. The liistory of the Canaanites is sim- ilar ; and if that of the Phoenicians be an exception, it must be recollected that they became a merchant class, as Ezekiel's famous -description of Tyre shows (chap, xxvii). In spealdng of Hamitic characteristics we do not intend it to be inferred that they were necessarily altogether of Hamitic origin, and not at least partly bor- rowed.
Among other points of general interest, the reader will not fail to observe the relations in which the differ- ent sections of the Hamitic race stand to each other; e. g. it is important to bear in mind that the Philistines irere not Canaanites, as is often assumed through an oversight of the fact that the former were descended from the second and the latter from the foiu-th son of Ham. The Tul, .h>ih J:, „; Xo<ih of Genesis is a precious document in many ivspocts, as has often been acknowl- edged (see Ka\vlinson, Jiampton Lectures, p. 68) ; but in no respect does it bear a higher value than as an intro- duction, provided by the sacred writer himself, to the
HAM
43
HA]MAKER
subsequent historv of the Hebrew nation in its relations to the rest of mankiuit. The intelligent reader of Scrip- ture will experience much help in his studj' of that his- tory, ami indeed of jirophecy also, by a constant recur- rence to the particidars of tliis authoritative ethnolog- ical record.
We conclude with an extract from Mr. Rawlinson's Ftre Great Monarchies, which describes, in a favorable though hardly exaggerated light, some of the obliga- tions under which the primitive race of Ham has laid the world ; '•' J^ot possessed of manj' natural advantages, the Chaldfean people yet exhibited a fertility of inven- tion, a genius, and an energy which place them high in the scale of nations, and more especially in the list of those descended from the Hamitic stock. For the last 3000 >'ears the world has been mainly indebted for its advancement to the Shemitic and Indo-European races ; hut it was otheririse in the first ages. Egypt and IJaby- lon, Mizraim and Nimrod— both descendants of Ham — led the way and acted as ])ioncers of mankind in the various untrodden fields of art, literature, and science. Alphabetic writing, astronomy, history, chronology, ar- chitecture, jilastic art, sculpture, navigation, agriculture, textile industry — seem, all of them, to have had their origin in one or other of these two countries. The be- ginnings may often have been humble enough. We may laugh at the rude picture-writing, the uncouth brick pjTamid, the coarse fabric, the homely and ill- shapen instruments, as they present themselves to our notice in the remains of these ancient nations, but they are really worthier of our admiration than of our ridi- cule. The first inventors of any art are among the greatest benefactors of their race . . . and mankind at the present day lies under infinite obligations to the ge- nius and industry of these early ages" (p. 75, 76). — Kit- to, s. v. ; Smith, s. v.