The Characteristics of Shem, Ham, and Japheth
IT IS FORTUNATE for us that Shem comes first in the list. Certainly as far as Western Civilization is concerned the three most important religions are Judaism, Islam (Mohammedanism), and Christianity. The picture is more confused toward the Far East because in those countries it is difficult to know where ”philosophly” ends and religious belief begins. Many authorities, for example, point out that Confucianism is not in any sense a religion and only in a limited sense a philosophy. Its founder did not concern himself with God at all nor was he vitally interested in pure philosophy ï¿½ only in a kind of practical wisdom. It seems desirable to make some effort at this point to distinguish between philosophy and religion. There is plenty of roorn for disagreement here, but I think that certain points of vital distinction can be noted to which there will be general assent.
In the first place revelation is essential for religion, but for philosophy it must be rejected, human reason being the only justifiable tool. Religion is concerned with morals, philosophy with ethics: the difference between the two being essentially this, that morals have to do with man’s relationship to God and ethics with man’s relationship to man. Morals are absolute, ethics are relative. If we may substitute metanature for metaphysics, we may say that the subject matter of philosophy is metanature (the subject matter of science is Nature), but the subject matter of religion is supernature. In religion, miracle is in a sense an essential adjunct, but in philosophy miracle is simply of no concern. The end object of all religion is to find God, but the end object of philosophy is to find the truth. This does not mean that religion does not have the discovery of truth as an object, but only that it is a secondary one.
With this very brief explanation of how we are using the terms, we can go one step further and observe that while Semitic people have tended to lay the emphasis on the search for righteousness, the Japhetic or Indo-European peoples have laid the emphasis on the search for understanding, and the Hamitic people have searched for power. All men are religious to some extent and the nature of their gods tends to reflect something of their own personal goals. The gods of the Semites, and pre-eminently the God of Israel, rewarded conduct that was righteous. This is true of Judaism, Islam, and, of course, Christianity. But to a large extent it is also true of that form of paganism which, deriving its source of inspiration from the Babylonians and Assyrians (both of whom were Semites), subsequlently spread in modified forms far beyond the confines of its original home in Mesopotamia. The extent to which this pagan religion underlies the religious beliefs of many non-Christian people is remarkably revealed by A. Hislop in his well-known book The Two Babylons. (16) The gods of the early Indo-Europeans were gods of light, but this light was not moral light but rather the illumination of the mind or understanding. The gods of the Hamites were gods of power, in fact ï¿½ in the absence of the moral component ï¿½ were gods of ruthlessness, demanding appropriate sacrifices.
To sum up thus far, it seems clear that from the Semites have come all the religions, rightly so-called, both false and the true. The contribution of Shem has been fundamentally to the spiritual life of man.
To preserve the characteristic order of these three names, it would be proper to deal next with Ham. But there are reasons for considering Japheth first. One feels somewhat at a disadvantage here because to avoid misunderstanding the ideal approach would be to state the whole case at once. Of course this is impossible, so we have to take it a step at a time and trust that the reader will be patient until he has heard the end of the matter.
First, we should state the proposition. If philosophy is defined as strictly rational speculation, concerned with the ultimate nature and meaning of reality, apart from revelation, to satisfy a purely intellectual need — then the family of Japheth has been responsible for the world’s philosophies. Older peoples have produced works dealing with ”successful behaviour”. Such men as Solomon, Ptah-Hotep, Pachacutec, Confucius, etc., have written
16. Hislop, Alexander, The Two Babylons, Loiseaux, New York, 1953.
their books of Wisdom. These are not philosophy as philosophers understand the term, because they had a purely practical purpose.
Only Indo-Europeans have continually returned to the fundamental problems of rnetaphysics: the Aryans in India (giving rise to Hindu Philosophy), the Greeks in Greece, and much later European and New World Philosophers. This does not mean that non-Indo-Europeans have never produced philosophers, though this observation is so nearly true that it could be argued very forcibly. Popular opinion is contrary to this view, but informed and authoritative opinion supports it almost unanimously. A few notable exceptions such as Paul Radin, for example, can be quoted as holding the opposite view. But for every authority who would support the latter, one can find dozens who will agree that philosophy has been the unique contribution of Indo-Europeans. Jacques Maritain made this observation: (l7)
All the great Indo-European civilizations on the other hand, manifest an impulse which no doubt took widely different forms, towards rational and in the strict sense philosophical speculation.
In this quotation the words, “on the other hand,” are used by the author because he has just rnade a broad sweep of all other civilizations of non-Indo-European origin, ancient and modern, and shown that they were not characterized by any particular interest in this kind of speculative thought. As we shall see, it was not until the philosophizing aptitude of Japheth was brought to bear upon the pabulum of technology provided by the Hamitic peoples that science became possible.
Before we turn to the positive contribution which the Hamites have made to world civilization, we should perhaps give a few authoritative statements to bear out the observation made previously that they have not produced philosophers. The Chinese are Mongols and therefore derived from Ham, so Confucius seems a good man to begin with, because almost everyone thinks of hirn as a philosopher. Epiphanius Wilson, an authority in this field, put the matter this way: (18)
17. Maritain, Jacques, An Introduction to Philosophy, Sheed and Ward, New York, 1955, p.26.
18. Wilson, Epiphanius, The Literature of China , vol.39 in The World’s Great Classics, Colonial Press, New York, 1900, p.3.
The strangest figure we meet in the annals of Oriental thought, is that of Confucius. To the popular mind he is the founder of a religion, and yet he has nothing in common with the great religious teachers of the East. The present life they despised, the future was to them everything in its promised satisfaction. The teachings of Confucius were of a very different sort. Throughout his whole writings he has not even mentioned the name of God. He declined to discuss the question of immortality. When asked about spiritual beings he remarked, “If we cannot even know men, how can we know spirits?”
The influence of Confucius springs, first of all, from the narrowness and definiteness of his doctrine. He was no transcendentalist. His teaching was of the earth, earthy. . . . He died almost without warning in dreary hopelessness. For Confucius in his teaching treated only of man’s life on earth, and seems to have had no ideas with regard to the human lot after death.
Even as a moralist he seems to have sacrificed the ideal to the practical ï¿½ the slight emphasis he places on the virtue of truth (of which indeed he does not seem hirnself to have heen particularly studious in his historic writings) places him low down in the ranks of moralists.
In view of the fact that philosophy must be added to technology if science is to emerge, it is striking to find A. L. Kroeber, no mean authority on patterns of cultural interactions, making the following remarks: (19)
It is significant that the Chinese have made many important inventions, but not one major scientific discovery. They have sought a way of life but neither an understanding nor a control of nature beyond what was immediately useful.
They are of course not abnormal in their attitude: most cultures have done the same. It is, with minor exceptions, only the few civilizational growths that have at one time or another been under the influence of Greek example which really tried to develop Science.
It may be argued that these are prejudiced views. We may, however, quote a Chinese scholar, Liu Wu-Chi, writing specifically on this question. (20)
The distinguishing features of Confucianism are many. First of all it is a moral system which is both practical and practicable. Without any trace of the metaphysical (philosophy) and the supernatural (religion), its contents are readily understood by the man in the street; and its ethical teachings, replete with wisdom and common sense, can be applied in daily life.
19. Kroeber, A. L., Configurations of Culture Growth, University of California, 1941, p.184.
20. Wu-Chi, Liu, A Short History of Confucian Philosophy, Pelican Books, 1955, p.9.
Although Buddhism was originally an Indian religion, emerging from the traditions of Hindu philosophy, it did not attain its full vitality until the T’ang Dynasty in China ï¿½ about the eighth century A.D. Philosophy, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and religious rites are far less significant in China. Chinese Buddhism ceased to be a matter of other worldly mysticism. . . .
When Buddhism first came to China the method used for attaining spiritual illumination followed the lines of Indian Yoga: it was concerned with the practice of Dhyana ï¿½ a profound state of consciousness obtained by sitting for hours, days, months, or even years in solitary meditation. But this did not really appeal to the practical spirit of the Chinese, who wanted a Dhyana that could be applied to every day life.
We may thus speak of the wisdom of China but scarcely of their philosophy, though this is in no way intended to challenge their intellectual capacity. The Chinese who adopts to some extent Western modes of thought and forms of speech is every bit as capable as we of philosophical abstraction of the purest kind. It should be noted that the same is true of Semitic people. But as Jessie Bernard has pointed out, it is not Jewish people who remain true to their religion who make this contribution. The great Semitic philosophers were unorthodox Jews, and culturally speaking had turned their backs upon their unique Semitic heritage. (22)
Another Hamitic people who are commonly supposed to have been great philosophers were the Egyptians. This, too, is a false impression. Martin Engberg says, “Nowhere is there any indication that Egyptians were interested in theoretical problems.” (23) Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on the Egyptian language, puts it even more strongly: “No people has ever shown itself more averse from philosophical speculation, or more whole-heartedly devoted to material interests.” (24)
William Hayes, another authority, remarked in the same connection: (25)
21. Watts, Alan, “How Buddhism Came to Life,” Asia, Oct., 1939, p.581.
22. Bernard, Jessie, “Can Science Transcend Culture?” Scientific Monthly, Oct., 1950, pp.268ff.
23. Engberg, Martin, The Dawn of Civilization, University of Knowledge Series, Chicago, 1938, p. 153.
24. Gardiner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Oxford, 1950, section 3, p.4.
25. Hayes, William, “Daily Life in Ancient Egypt,” National Geogographic Magazine, Oct., 1941, pp.425, 428
Though intensely devout, the ancient Egyptian had neither the mental nor the spiritual equipment necessary to the creation or even the adaptation of a great religion . . . .
Though intelligent and quick to learn, he had a mind of the practical unimaginative type. He was a materialist and not given to deep speculative thought and seems to have been unable either to evolve or to express a purely abstract idea.
In spite of the great contribution they rendered in the field ot medicine, James Newman, speaking of one of their best known medical texts, remarked: (26)
The Egyptians were practical men, not much given to speculative or abstract enquiries. Dreamers were rare among them. . . .
The Rhind Papyrus, though it demonstrates the inability of the Egyptian to generalize and their penchant for clinging to cumbersome calculating processes, proves that they were remarkably pertinacious in solving everyday problems. . . .
Frequent reference is made by various authorities to the fact that the science of mathematics was not developed by these highly practical people. Their methods of calculation were clumsy in the extreme, their tables were empirically derived, and though they achieved considerable practical skill in the manipulation of figures yet there is no evidence of the discovery or even the search for connective theories.
But the moment we come to a consideration of Hindu philosophy originated by that branch of the Indo-European (Japhetic) family which penetrated into India in the second millennium B.C., we are in a new atmosphere altogether. Robert Lowie points out that “the Hindus made their contribution in the field of pure mathematics, to which they added the concept of negative numbers.” (27) Kroeber observed that “Hindu
20. Newman, James R., “The Rhind Papyrus,” in The World of Mathematics, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1956, pp.170, 171. Reference should have been made to a notable collection of papers in a volume edited by H. and H. A. Frankfort, and published by the University of Chicago, in 1946 and 1948. The original title was The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, with the subtitle “An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East.” It is significant perhaps that this volume appeared subsequently as a reprint in the Pelican Series, under the new title Before Philosophy. This later title is an exact description of the subject matter of the papers. The conclusion reached by all the contributors to this volume is that philosophy did not exist prior to the time of the Hindu philosophers in India, or the Greek philosophers who were very nearly their contemporaries.
27. Lowie, Robert, lntroduction to Cultural Anthropology, Farrar and Rinehart, New York, 1940, p. 340.
It was not until man sought wisdom for its own sake [their emphasis] and with no religious or other motives, that he philosophized in the true sense, and the previous theogonies, cosmogonies, etc., cannot strictly claim the title of philosophy. . . .
The beginnings of Philosophy are as a rule attributed to the Greeks, but the Indian ideas of the sixth century B.C. and later, form an interesting parallel philosophic development.
On the other hand these same Japhetic people, until comparatively recently, have shown a remarkable indifference to technology. As Ralph Linton pointed out: (30)
The Hindus have always been highly receptive to new cults and new philosophic ideas as long as these did not come into too direct conflict with their existing patterns, but have shown an almost complete indifference to improved technique of manufacture. The material world was felt to be of so little importance that minor advances in its control were not considered worth the trouble of changing established habit.
Those who are acquainted with the views of the Greek philosophers in this matter will recognize the close kinship of sentiment, for to the Greeks it was almost a sin even to be tempted to seek any practical application of their ideas. In passing, it may be noted that both the Greeks and Aryans claimed Japheth as their ancestor. Sir Charles Marston (31) points out that in the “Clouds,” Aristophanes claims Japetos as the ancestor of the Greeks and in the “Institutes of Manu” dated about 1280 B.C., one of the ancient Aryan histories, it is said that a certain individual named Satyaurata had three sons, the eldest of whom was named Jyapeti. The others were named Sharma (Shem?) and C’harma (Ham?).
To conclude this brief discussion of the descendants of Japheth, we may say that their scientific enthusiasm has strangely proved most fruitful where the objective has been pure understanding without regard to subsequent practical usefulness. This is Japheth at home. It may also be said, though the statement
28. Kroeber, A. L., Anthropology, Harcourt Brace New York, 1948, p.294.
29. Everyman’s Encyclopedia, Dent, London, 1913.
30. Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man, Student’s Edition, Appleton Century, New York, 1936, p.343.
31. Marston, Sir Charles, New Bible Evidence, Revell, 1935, p.87; and in the “Clouds,” at line 998.
will undoubtedly be challenged at once, that Indo-Europeans have scarcely a basic invention to their credit. W. J. Perry says, “The Celts, like the Teutons, never invented anything.” (32) Lord Raglan said, “The old Roman religious ritual gave little encouragement to inventiveness, and the later cults were imported ready-made from the East. As a result the Romans invented almost nothing.” (33) Joseph Needham, speaking of another branch of Japheth, said, “The only Persian invention of first rank was the windmill. . . . Unless the rotary quern be attributed to them, the ancient Europeans of the Mediterranean Basin launched only one valuable mechanical technique, namely, the pot chain pump.” (34) Carleton Coon reminds us that “the linguists tel1 us that the Indo-European speakers did not initially domesticate one useful animal or one cultivated plant.” (35) Grahame Clark, speaking of New World Origins and referring to the inventiveness of the American Indian in developing his natural resources, says that “during the four centuries since the Discovery [of the New World] the white man has failed to make a single contribution of importance.” (36)
The Sumerians (Hamitic by our definition) were highly inventive, but when the Babylonians (Semitic) succeeded them, V. Gordon Childe says that “in the next 2000 years one can scarcely point to a first class invention or discovery. . . .” (37) Similarly speaking of the Semites, St. Chad Boscawen says: “There is a powerful element in the Semitic character which has been, and still is, a most important factor in their national life: it is that of adaptability. Inventors they have never shown themselves to be.” (38)
At the risk of boring the reader, one more statement regarding another segment of the family of Shem may be in order. Lord Raglan says: (39)
32. Perry, W. J., The Growth of Civilization, Pelican, 1937, p.157.
33. Raglan, Lord, How Came Civilization, Methuen, 1939, p.179.
34. Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilization in China, vol.1, Cambridge University Press, 1954, p.240.
35. Coon, Carleton S., The Races of Europe, Macmillan, 1939, p.178.
36. Clark, Grahame, “New World Origins”, Antiquity, June, 1940, p.118.
37. Childe, V. Gordon, New Light on the Most Ancient East, Kegan Paul, London, 1935, p.203.
38. Boscawen, St. Chad., The Bible and the Monuments, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1896, p.18.
39. Raglan, Lord, How Came Civilization, Methuen, 1939, p.179.
Much the same can be said for the Moslems. There was a period of mild inventiveness while their religion was settling down into its various sects but since that process was completed about 900 years ago, no Moslem has invented anything.
This is concurred in by Rene Albrecht-Carrie who points out that the Arabs were not so much innovators as collectors and carriers of the contributions of other times and other peoples. He adds, “This is not to deny or minirnize the crucial importance of their role or ignore the fact that they rnade some valuable contributions of their own.” (40) Finally, to quote Prof. R. F. Grau, speaking of the pure Arabs, (41)
No science was developed; no new industry or even trades sprang up; the political unity, which religious enthusiasm and the Prophet had created crumbled away. . . .
The Arabian Empires became the medium for the communication to the West of the knowledge of ancient philosophy and natural science, without making any independent progress in them.
Again and again in the history of Indo-European civilization rnen have been on the verge of great practical discoveries but have failed to clinch them because they failed to recognize them ï¿½ because they were not interested. The contribution of Japheth has been in the application of philosophy to technology and the consequent development of the Scientific Method.
As the application of Japheth’s philosophy to the technology of Ham produced science, so the application of his philosophy to the religious insights of Shem produced theology. The Hamitic people never developed science and the Sernitic people did not develop theology, until the influence of Japhetic philosophy was brought to bear. In keeping with this thought, and the remark made previously by Jessie Bernard, it is striking to realize that the theology of Paul was addressed to the Gentiles by a man who had deliberately turned his back upon contemporary orthodox Judaism.
Most of us have been brought up to believe that we, Indo-Europeans, are the most inventive people in the world. It is exceedingly difficult to escape from this culturally conditioned prejudice and take a fresh objective look at the origins of our technological achievements. One may take almost any essential element of our highly complex civilization ï¿½ aircraft, paper, weaving, metallurgy, propulsion of various kinds, painting,
40. Albrecht-Carrie, Rene, “Of Science, Its History and the Teaching Thereof”, Scientific Monthly, July, 1951, p.19.
41. Grau, R. F., The Goal of the Human Race, Simpkin and Marshall, London, 1892, p.88.
explosives, medical techniques, mechanical principles, food, the use of electricity, virtually anything technological in nature ï¿½ and an examination of the history of its development leads us surely and certainly back to a Hamitic people and exceedingly rarely to Japheth or Shem. The basic inventions which have been contributed by Shem or Japheth can, it seems, be numbered on the fingers of one hand. This seems so contrary to popular opinion, yet it is a thesis which can be supported ï¿½ and has been documented ï¿½ from close to 1000 authoritative sources. Almost every new book dealing with the history of science (frequently confused with technology) adds its own confirmatory evidence in support of this thesis.
It is quite impossible within the compass of this Paper to attempt to do justice to the contribution made by the children of Ham towards the development of civilization in its more material aspects. It may serve as some indication of this contribution to simply list under rather obvious but convenient headings things the invention of which or the first application of which, or the development of which, must be credited to Ham.
A mere list without comment can be most uninteresting. But in this case it seems the only way to put the idea across. In this list, for the sake of brevity, we have not discriminated between principles of operation (Gimbal suspension, for example) and actual products or techniques (like rubber or the electroplating of metals, for example) . Documentation for each entry is available but obviously could not possibly be given here. It will be, however, provided in Part IV. (42)
|Block and tackle||Gimbal suspension||Domes and arches|
|Whiffletrees||Suspension bridges||Lock gates and lifts|
|Windlass||Cantilever principle||Fire pistons|
|Pulleys||Steam engine principle||Clockwork mechanism|
|Copper||Bellows systems of all types||Case hardening|
|Bronze||Charcoal and carbon black||Cement|
|Iron||Pottery, china and porcelain||Glues and preservatives|
|Cast Iron||Lenses of several types||Dyes and inks|
|Steel||Glass (including possibly malleable glass)|
|Shellacs, varnishes and enamels||Rubber Casting methods of all kinds including hollow casting|
|Gold and silver working including beading, repoussee, sheet, wire and the plating of metals|
42. Custance, Arthur, “The Technology of Hamitic People”, Part IV in Noah’s Three Sons, vol.1 in The Doorway Papers Series. LINK
|Nails|| Window materials, including
|Door hinges and locks|
|Brace and bit||Rope saws Central heating systems||Sandpaper|
|Carborundum||Stoves||Plans and maps|
|Sewage disposal on a wide scale||Street drainage systems||Piped gas for heating|
|Drills (including diamond drills)||Running water in piped systems||Surveying instruments|
|Buildings of all types||genuine skyscrapers||earthquakeproof construction|
Fabrics and Weaving, etc.
|Linen||Voile||Ikat or tie-dyeing|
|Cotton||Tapestry||Feather and fur garments|
|Felt||Thimbles||Knitted and crocheted materials|
|Lace||Parchment||All types of thread|
|Netting||Gauze||Dyes of all kinds|
|Mechanical looms||Silk screen methods of decoration||Invisible mending|
|Flying shuttles, Netting shuttles||Paper, including coated stock||Ropes up to 12 inches in diameter|
Writing, Printing, etc
|Chalks||Libraries and cataloguing systems||Literary forms (fables, etc.)|
|Pencils and crayons||Envelopes and postal systems||All kinds of paper|
|Block printing||Movable type|
|Scripts: ( Sumerian, Cuneiform and its successors Egyptian, Hittite, Minoan, Chinese,
Easter Island, Indus Valley, and Maya scripts )
|Kidney beans||Pineapple||Prickly pear|
|Cocoa||Cashew and peanut||Corn|
|Pigs||Dogs||Llama and Alpaca|
|In agriculture, use of: multiculture and fertilizers mechanical seeders, and such|
|Fish poisons and animal intoxicants||Elephants for labor and land clearance||Traps and nets of all kinds|
|The use of tamed animals to catch “game”: cats for hunting, birds of prey such as eagles, falcons, etc.,
dogs and cormorants for fishing,
Travel Conveyances, etc.
|Compass||Canals and locks||Road rollers|
|Skis, Showshoes, Toboggans||Sternpost rudder||Wheelbarrows|
|Cement paving, Surfaced roads||All types of water craft||Stirrups, harness for domestic animals|
|Wheels: solid, spoked, rimmed and tired||Wheeled vehicles, travois||Boats with water-tight compartments|
|Bridges: suspension, cantilever, arch, etc.||Use of birds for navigation|
|Balloons||Gliders and helicopters||Kites and Parachutes|
|Jet Propulsion||Weather-signalling and forecasting|
|Combs||Powders and ointments||Jewelry of all kinds|
|Geometry||A kind of logarithms||Trigonometry|
|Concept of zero||Algebra||Use of place system|
Trade and Commerce
|Paper money and coinage||Systems of inspection||Banking houses, Accounting systems|
|Trade regulations and price-fixing||Wage regulation and compensation||Loans with interest systems|
|Weights and measures||Postal systems||Formal contracts|
|Anaesthetics, Cocaine||Adhesive tapes, Bandages||Poultices, Troches Decoctions Infusions|
|Pills, Suppositories Snuffs||Splints Plasters Tourniquet||Enemas|
|Gargles Lotions Soaps Ointments||Inhalators||Vaccine for smallpox|
|Cascara and other emetics||Tranquillizing drugs||Caesarian operations|
|Surgical stitching||Truth serums||Curare|
|Animal-stupefying drugs||Surgical instruments: knives, forceps, tweezers , etc.|
|Identification of, and treatment of, hundreds of common diseases and injuries
including brain and eye operations and surgery in general
|Folding beds||Oil stoves, Space heaters||A form of “telephone”|
|Rocking stools||Whistling pots and kettles|| Go-carts for children, and
|Lamps, Clocks||Rotary querns||Running water|
|Revolving stages for theaters||Rubber ball games|| Board games (chess,
|Bows and crossbows||Bolas|| All types of piercing and striking
|Repeating bow, a form of machine
|Rifled weapons||Guided milliles|
|Body armour||Aerial bombardment||Flame throwers|
|Poison gases and toxic agents||Gun powder|| Heavy artillery (catapults
of several kinds)
|Umbrellas||Safety pins||Straws for drinking|
|Snow goggles||Cigar holders||Finger printing for identification|
For many readers this list will be entirely unsatisfactory. However, a word of further explanation about it may help to clarify things. Many of the items, in fact the majority of them, could be called Hamitic “firsts”. Some of them bear no relationship historically to their western counterparts as far as we can ascertain from a study of the transmission of culture traits. Still, they had the idea before we did. The ingenuity of many of these devices and techniques is truly extraordinary, particularly in view of the paucity of natural resources. It is no exaggeration to state that primitive people have done marvels with their natural resources as they found them. The difficulty for us is that we are deceived by their very simplicity. Whether highly civilized or of primitive culture, the Hamitic people have shown an amazing ability to exploit the immediate resources of their environment to the limit.
It is only recently that we in our culture have become aware of our indebtedness to non-Indo-European people for practically all the basic elements, simple and complex, of our own technological civilization. The only purpose of this list here is to draw attention to the fact that in each of these elements of culture Hamitic peoples got there first and independently, and in most cases were our instructors. As we have already said this aspect of the subject is elaborated with documentation in Part IV of this volume.
We may sum up what has been said thus far by setting forth the following propositions. First, the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 is a historic document indicating how the present population of the world has been derived from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Secondly, this threefold division is more than merely a genetic variation of certain “racial” types: there is evidence that it is intended to indicate that the three branches of the race were divinely apportioned a characteristic capacity which has been reflected in the unique contribution each branch has rendered in the service of mankind as a whole. And thirdly, the contribution of Shem has been a spiritual one, of Ham a technological one, and of Japheth an intellectual one: in the process of history, these contributions were made effective in this order.