Hamitic - Definition and Overview

The term Hamitic refers to peoples traditionally believed to have been descended from Ham, one of Noah's sons. (See: Sons of Noah) Over history there have been several separate but interrelated interpretations of the term. In the Bible the sons of Ham are peoples who were traditionally enemies of the Jews, notably the Egyptians. Not all such people lived to the south, but typically Ham's sons were said to have fathered the southern peoples of Africa. During the Middle Ages and up until the early 19th century the term 'Hamitic' was used indiscriminately to refer to Africans by Europeans. In the 19th century the definition was refined. A Hamitic language group was proposed, uniting various, mainly North-African, languages. A Hamitic race was also identified, referring to those Africans that Europeans considered "advanced", or most similar to themselves and to Semitic peoples.

These Hamitic ideas are often referred to as the Hamitic Myth today because they have been widely discredited. The Hamitic language group is no longer considered a useful concept, though the phrase Semito-Hamitic is a dated term for the Afro-Asiatic group. The notion of a Hamitic race is similarly problematic.

The Hamitic Myth was used as a justification for European colonial policy in Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries as well as the slave trade in earlier times. Today the term is considered insulting by many Africans.

Contents

1 Earlier uses of the Term

2 Post Egyptian Use

3 Hamitic Theory Today

4 See Also

Earlier uses of the Term

Early interpretations of the Bible led many Western scholars to believe that all of humanity was descended from Noah. (Again, see Sons of Noah) The bible verse (Genesis 9:18-27) concerning the sons of Noah makes no specific mention of the race of Noah's children, however the name of Cush, Ham's eldest son, means 'black' in Hebrew. Noah curses Ham and Canaan, Cush's brother, saying that he and his descendents would be a "servant of servants". Hebrew scholars used this passage to justify the Israelite subjugation of Canaan. These scholars, working around the 6th century AD, introduced the idea that the sons of Ham were marked by dark skin.

In the middle ages Christian scholars picked up on the idea. Again, the depiction of the "sons of Ham" as cursed, "blackened" by their sins suited the ideological interests of the European elite; especially as the principal enemy of Christendom was Islam, which dominated North Africa. Despite the fact that Islam originated with the Semitic Arabs, European imagery often stressed the blackness of the Islamic Moors and associated them with the 'cursed' sons of Ham. Later, with the emergence of the slave trade, it justified the exploitation of a ready supply of black African labour.

Post Egyptian Use

After Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, European interest in that country increased dramatically. With the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the rapid increase in knowledge of Ancient Egyptian civilization, European academics became increasingly interested in the origin of the Egyptians and their connection to other groups to the West, South, East and North. The traditional Biblical genealogy associated the Egyptians with other descendents of Ham, notably the black-skinned Cushites in Ethiopia.

Theologians reexamined the Book of Genesis and determined that all Ham's children had not in fact been cursed; only Canaan had been cursed. Therefore the other children of Ham, including Cush and Mizraim were not cursed and their descendents were capable of greatness. Such scholars identified Egyptians as descendents of Mizraim. Non-religious and Darwinian writers also theorised that the Biblical stories contained an element of truth about the ancestry of some black African populations, who may have migrated into Central Africa from the North. These peoples were assumed to be racially superior to other Africans.

As a result of this reevaluation Hamitic took on a new, more positive connotation for Europeans. During the 19th century Europeans explored more and more of Africa. In their travels they found many different physical types, and they valued those that appeared most like themselves or had a redeeming cultural characteristic. These types were declared "Hamitic". As well as the ancient Egyptians, the Tutsis of Central Africa were deemed Hamitic because they were more Caucasian in appearance, and ruled over other peoples in the area.

As racial theories became increasingly complex and convoluted the term Hamitic was used in different ways by different writers, and was applied to many different groups from Ethiopians to Berbers, Nubians, the Masai, Abyssinians, Somalis and many others. Racial theory was very hierarchical; Europeans saw these peoples as leaders within Africa, "teaching" lesser peoples the ways of civilization, just as they saw themselves teaching the Hamitic peoples. (See: White man's burden.) For example, in the mid-20th century some works on Africa would claim that the Bantu race was formed by a merger of Hamitic and Negro races, and the 'Hottentots' (Khoisan) were formed by the merger of Hamitic and Bushmen races, theories which are now completely outmoded.

Hamitic Theory Today

In this way Europeans again justified their own exploitation of the African continent. These ideas were still in wide circulation until the mid 20th century. The Hamitic hypothesis is widely rejected today on a multitude of grounds. Most "scientific" observations of the time were heavily culturally biased and generally returned results that suited European prejudices. Many observations of the time have been corrected since then to reveal a much more complex picture of ethnic groups than was initially thought. Nonetheless, the term Hamitic is still used in some anthropological nomenclature.