Chapter XXVI -- The Origin of the Chaldio-Babylonian Cosmogonies

 (Page 337)
To the Greeks the name Cephenes was synonymous with Ethiopians. The opinion which has been preserved by Hellanicus counts them as one of the two elements of the race inhabiting the conutries watered by the lower course of the Euphrates and Tigris, the famous Ethiopians or Kushites of Babylon, whose existence is proved by so many passages of classical antiquity and the sacred writings.

But this discloses a question of great importance. We have proved the identity of the languages spoken by the Assyrians and the non-Turanian portion of the inhabitants of Babylon, but the Bible affirms that the inhabitants of the two countries were of a different race, by placing Assur among the descendants of Shem, while the people of Babylon are referred back to Ham for their origin. This would be no great stumbling block after the facts revealed to us by the civilization imparted to the Assyrian tribes by the Babylonian colony of Assur; it is quite natural that they should have adopted at the same time the language of their teachers [i.e. the Babylonians taught the Assyrians...my emphasis] which must have resembled somewhat the dialect they spoke before.

 The difficulty of our problem lies in the fact that the Assyrian, or more correctly the Babylonian tongue belonged to the family commonly called the Semitic, and neither the Scriptures nor any other tradition mention the establishment of a Semitic colony in Babylon or the neighbouring provinces. These were really the Ethiopians, Cephenes or children of Kush, which three names were given to them indifferently, who existed side by side with the Chaldeans proper; these Kushites founded the first great political power in Chaldea, the empire of Nimrod or the king Cepheus; and there is no question of a Semitic invasion having supplanted them, though we have certainly notices of a few Semitic tribes, wandering between the Kushite towns in the uncultivated tracts of land like the Terachites, who finally emigrated, doubtless before the great increase in the settled population and the Aramean tribes of later origin.

 But these may always be distinguished from the two really indigenous elements, and as regards dualism of languages which correspond to the dualism of race found in the ancient inhabitants of the country, we are obliged to come to the conclusion that the so-called Assyrian dialect was the one spoken by the Cephenian or Kushite portion of the population, although it belonged to the family of the Semitic languages. The Cephenian legends confirm this opinion by referring the origin of the Terachites themselves to the Ethiopian element of the nation: "Aethiopium proles quos rege Cepho metus atque odium mutare sedes perpulerit."

 This is no isolated case either. Scholars of note whose opinion is of great weight have already remarked that the term Semitic is not suitable of application here. A large part, if not the majority, of the nations mentioned in the Bible as the descendants of Ham, particularly those of the branch of Kush, spoke languages of this class [i.e. the Babylonian languages]

 Hebrew was originally none other than the dialect of the Canaanites; a nation itself profoundly Hamitic; and Isaiah even calls that tongue "the language of Canaan." The family of Abraham heard and adopted it during their long residence among the Canaanites, in place of the langage they spoke previously which probably resembled the Arabian as the tribes of Heber and Joctan were descended from the same stock.

 ...The Himyaritic or Sabaean language itself is the dialect of a country where the Kushite nations had established themselves before the tribes descended from Joctan, and where they always continued to form an important part of the population. Therefore if the Joctanides of Southern Arabia spoke at the time of their civilization a different language from the tribes of the same stock inhabiting other parts of the peninsula, are we not justified in attributing it to the influence of the primitive settlers in the country with whom they mingled? Thus we arrive at the same conclusion as we did in speaking of the Assyrian; and this is also the case with Hebrew. It is a so-called Semitic language which was originally spoken by a people classed by the book of Genesis among the descendants of Ham, and which that people afterwards introduced and established by means of their superior civilization amongst the purely Semitic tribes who were still leading a nomadic and pastoral life. [BTW this is all new info to me, I didn't read this part of the book when I first read it years ago]

 These facts form a powerful argument, from a linguistic, and to a certain extent, historical point of view, in favour of the theory of those writers who see in the Kushite and Canaanite nations "the most ancient branch of the Semitic family of the human race spreading over the entire interior of ancient Asia, from the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris into the heart of Arabia, from the shores of the Persian Gulf to those of the Mediterranean, and on both coasts of the Gulf of Arabia, in Africa and in Asia." Some scholars hold an opinion that this ancient branch of the Semitic family was the first to leave the common home, and having established itself in Chaldea, Ethiopia, Egypt and Palestine, became civilized, and was thus both an object of excretion and envy to its pastoral brethren. Hence they say arose the wide separation between the descendants of Shem and Ham, the latter in the south and west, the former in the east and north, although both belonged originally to the same family, speaking one language though cut up into many dialects, and professing the same religion under different symbols, wihch may be called as a whole the Syro-Arabic or Syro-Ethiopian family in opposition to the Indo-Persian or Indo-Germanic family, the other great section of the white races. [Lenormant included Syro-Arabic and Syro-Ethiopian into the white race when in fact they are Arabic (Syro-Arabic) and Black (Syro-Ethiopian)...my emphasis]

 ...On the other hand it would seem anthropologically evident from the figures on monuments and the skulls which have been examined so far, that there was a distinction between the descendants of Shem and Ham which is not found in the language, and which corresponded to that established by the biblical narrative; the people of Ham had to a certain degree peculiar characteristics, more materialistic and more industrial than those of the purely Semitic races, though they had likewise many common instincts; lastly, although a good many of the descendants of Ham spoke languages which are decidedly Semitic, others, like the Egyptians [i.e. the Egyptians are also being classed as descendants of Ham...my emphasis] possessed dialects which were doubtless closely connected with the Semitic family, but which possessed so far their own originality that they ought to be placed in a family apart.

 It is perhaps possible to explain and reconcile these contradictory data by modifying the formula thus obtained by a regard to the facts which have been ascertained by anthropology. In that case, we should have to suppose that the first branch detached from the patent stem was represented by the people of Ham, who coalesced with a Melanin race (black with smooth hair, like the Gonds of India) which they found settled previously in the country into which they first spread, whilst the Semitic races were more behindhand and preserved the blood of the white race in all its purity. Thus their intermixture with another people would have sufficed after a certain time to make the descendants of Ham quite a different race from those of Shem, without, however, effacing their original affinities, especially those of language. At the same time, the mixture of blood which would in this way become the distinctive characteristic of the descendants of Ham, would not be found everywhere in equal proportions; the Melanin blood would predominate more in one instance than in another. Thus the nations referred by the biblical narrative to the family of Ham, would really exhibit a gradation of admixture with others, more or less decided, from the people who so strongly resembled the Semitic races as to be difficultly distinguished from them, like the Kushites of Babylon or the Canaanites of Phoenicia; to the people of decidedly ethnical characteristics, like the Egyptians. And we shall discover if we study the history of the descendants of Ham, that there was a greater or less degree of affinity between the dialects spoken by the different nations, corresponding to the degree of resemblance of the people themselves to the anthropological type of the pure Semitic races; and this is itself a most important fact in determining the question how far a stranger element entered the pure blood of the white race.

 It is extremely probable that there was some mixture of a tolerably pure Melanin race with the population of Chaldea and Babylonia, and that this circumstance would have caused that portion of the people who spoke a Semitic dialect to be classed amongst the Kushites. In fact part of the region of the great marshes around the Persian guld appears always to have been inhabited by almost black tribes, who lived in a very savage state, and over whom the culture of the great cities in the neighbourhood never had much influence. These appear to have been the ancestors of the Lemluns of the present day.

etc.