Noah's Three Sons: Chapter 3
THAT THE PRESENT POPULATION originated from the sons of Noah, spreading throughout the world after the Flood, is obvious. What is not so obvious is that Civilization and Culture have been the result of the combination of the particular traits peculiar to the descendants of each son. Although the interaction of these contributions has at times obliterated their specific nature, a careful analysis of history can still separate them, allowing each to be traced back to its original source in one of the three brothers. It is these particular characteristics that we now wish to delineate.
Shem: The Worshipper
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 "philosophy" 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 - 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 room 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 is essentially this: 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 meta-nature for meta-physics, we may say that the subject matter of philosophy is meta-nature (whereas the subject matter of science is Nature), but the subject matter of religion is super-nature. 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 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 preeminently 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 Semitic), subsequently 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 - in the absence of the moral component - 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.
Japheth: the Philosopher
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 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 metaphysics: 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: (17)
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 made 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 observations made previously that they have not produced philosophers. The Chinese are Mongols and therefore derive from Ham. Thus, a good place to begin is with Confucius whom almost everyone thinks of as a philosopher. Epiphanius Wilson, an authority in this field put the matter this way: (18)
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 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 - the slight emphasis he places on the virtue of truth (of which indeed he does not seem himself to have been 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 to daily life.
In view of the concept that Buddhism in China created a genuine system of philosophy the following observations made by Alan Watts are important: (21)
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 - 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 - 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 adopt to some extent Western modes of thought and forms of speech are 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, (22) it is not the Jewish people who remain true to their religion who make this contribution. The great Semitic philosophers were unorthodox Jews who, culturally speaking, had turned their backs upon their unique Semitic heritage.
Another Hamitic people who are commonly supposed to have been great philosophers were the Egyptians. This, too, is a false impression. Martin Engberg says, (23) "Nowhere is there any indication that Egyptians were interested in theoretical problems." Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian language, puts it even more strongly: (24) "No people has ever shown itself more averse from philosophical speculation, or more whole-heartedly devoted to material interests."
William Hayes, another authority, remarked in the same connection: (25)
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 of medicine, James Newman, (26) speaking of one of their best known medical texts, remarked:
The Egyptians were practical men, not much given to speculative or abstract enquiries. Dreamers were rare among them.
The Rhind Papyrus, though it demonstrated 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 (28) observed that "Hindu civilization is not only other worldly, but mystical, rationalizing and extravagant in its ethos." An earlier edition of Everyman's Encyclopedia, under "Philosophy," had this to say: (29)
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 Menu (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?).
Japheth's "Enlargement"
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 will undoubtedly be challenged at once, that Indo-Europeans have scarcely a basic invention to their credit. W. J. Perry (32) says "The Celts like The Teutons, never invented anything." Lord Raglan said, (33) "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." Joseph Needham, speaking of another branch of Japheth, said, (34) "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." Carleton Coon (35) reminds us that "the linguists tell us that the Indo-European speakers did not initially domesticate one useful animal or one cultivated plant." Grahame Clark, speaking of New World origins and referring to the inventiveness of the American Indian in developing his natural resources, says, (36) "during the four centuries since the Discovery (of the New World) the white man has failed to make a single contribution of importance."
The Sumerians (Hamitic by our definition) were highly inventive, but when the Babylonians (Semitic) succeeded them, V. Gordon Childe says, (37) "in the next 2000 years one can scarcely point to a first class invention or discovery." Similarly, speaking of the Semites, St. Chad Boscawen says, (38) "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."
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)
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. (40) He adds, "This is not to deny or minimize the crucial importance of their role or ignore the fact that they made some valuable contributions of their own." Finally, to quote Professor R. F. Grau, (41) speaking of the pure Arabs:
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, men have been on the verge of great practical discoveries but have failed to clinch them because they failed to recognize them - because they were not interested. The contribution of Japheth has been in the application of philosophy to technology, leading to 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 Semitic 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.
Ham: The Inventor
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 - aircraft, paper, weaving, metallurgy, propulsion of various kinds, painting, explosives, medical techniques, mechanical principles, food, the use of electricity, virtually anything technological in nature - 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 - and has been documented - from close to a thousand 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 toward 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 the 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 is, however, provided in Volume III.
Accomplishments of the Hamitic Peoples
Block and Tackle
Gimbal suspension
Domes and arches
Whiffletrees
Suspension bridges
Lock gates and lifts
Windlass
Cantilever principle
Fire pistons
Gears Chain drives
Lathes
Pulleys Catapults
Clockwork
Steam engine principle mechanism
Copper
Bellows systems of all types
Bronze
Glass (including possibly a malleable glass)
Iron
Pottery, china and porcelain
Cast Iron
Lenses of several types
Steel
Charcoal and carbon black
Cement
Glues and preservatives
Dyes and inks
Shellacs, varnishes and enamels
Rubber
Casting methods of all kinds including
Case hardening hollow casting
Gold and silver working including beading, repoussé, sheet, wire and the plating of metals.
Nails
Window materials, including glass
Saws
Door hinges and locks
Hammers
Protective coatings
Brace and Bit
Street drainage systems
Sandpaper
Sewage disposal on a wide scale
Rope saws
Running water in piped systems
Carborundum
Piped gas for heating
Stoves
Central heating systems
Plans and Maps
Surveying instruments
Drills (including diamond drills)
Buildings of all types, including genuine skyscrapers and earthquake proof construction
Linen
Voile
Ikat or tie-dyeing
Cotton
Tapestry
Feather and fur garments
Silk
Batique
Tailored clothing
Wool
Needles
Double-faced cloth
Felt
Thimbles
Knitted and crocheted materials
Lace
Parchment
All types of thread
Netting
Guaze
Dyes of all kinds
Mechanical looms
Silk screen methods of decoration
Invisible mending
Ropes up to 12 inches in diameter
Flying shuttles
Netting shuttles
Inks
Textbooks
Chalks
Encyclopedias
Pencils and crayons
Libraries and cataloguing systems
Block printing
Literary forms (fables, etc.)
Movable type
Envelopes and postal systems
All kinds of paper
Paper of all kinds, including coated stock.
Scripts (Sumerian, Cuneiform and its successors, Egyptian, Hittite, Minoan, Chinese, Easter Island, Indus Valley, and Mayan)
Aloes
Chickle gum
Tomato
Pears
Cascara
Sweet Potato
Kidney beans
Pineapple
Prickly pear
Cereals
Chili pepper
Squash
Cocoa
Cashew and peanut
Corn
Coffee
Manioc
Beans
Tea
Artichoke
Strawberries
Tobacco
Potato
Arrowroot
Pigs
Dogs
Llama
Horses
Cats
Alpaca
Fowl
Camels
Cows, sheep, etc.
The use of countless fish poisons and animal intoxicants
The use of other tamed animals to catch 'game':
dogs and cormorants for fishing, cats for hunting,
various birds of prey such as eagles, falcons, etc.Elephants for labour and land clearance
Traps and nets of all kinds
Compass
Canals and locks
Road Rollers
Skis
Sternpost rudder
Wheelbarrows
Toboggans
All types of water craft
Stirrups
Snowshoes
Cement paving
Wheeled vehicles
Travois
Surfaced Roads
Wheels: solid, spoked, rimmed and tired
Watertight-compartment construction for boats
Harness for domestic animals
Use of birds for navigation
Bridges of all types: suspension, cantilever, arch, etc.
Balloons
Gliders
Helicopters
Kites
Parachutes
Jet Propulsion
Weather-signalling and forecasting
Mirrors
Nail polishes
Toothbrushes
Wigs
Scissors
Shaving equipment
Combs
Powders and ointments
Jewelry of all kinds
Geometry
A kind of logarithms
Trigonometry
Concept of zero
Algebra
Use of place system
Paper money and coinage
Systems of inspection
Banking houses
Trade regulations and price-fixing
Postal systems
Wage regulation and compensation systems
Loans with interest
Accounting systems and formal contracts
Weights and measures
Gargles
Anaesthetics
Lotions
Snuffs
Soaps
Ointments
Inhalators
Splints
Plasters
Enemas
Quinine
Adhesive tapes
Fumigators
Poultices
Tourniquet
Suppositories
Decoctions
Surgical stitching
Insecticides
Infusions
Bandages
Truth serums
Pills
Curare
Cocaine
Troches
Trephination
Caesarian operations
Vaccine for smallpox
Cascara and other emetics
Tranquillizing drugs
Animal-stupefying drugs
Surgical instruments of all kinds; knives, forceps, tweezers, etc.
Identification and treatment of, hundreds of common diseases and injuries including brain and eye operations and surgery in general.
Hammocks
Gas cookers
Fans
Rocking stools
Rotary querns
Clocks
Folding beds
Lamps
Running water
Oil stoves
Space heaters
A form of "telephone"
Whistling pots and kettles
Go-carts and other toys for children
Wrestling
Revolving stages for theaters
Rubber ball games
Lacrosse
Numerous board games (chess, checkers, etc.)
Weapons of all types
Bows and crossbows
Bolas
Rifled weapons
Guided missiles
Body armour
Aerial bombardment
Poison gases and toxic agents
Flame throwers
Gun powder
Bows and crossbows
A repeating bow, a form of machine gun
Heavy artillery (catapults of several kinds)
Wind instruments (organ, pipes, horns, flutes, etc.)
Stringed instruments (various modifications of the harp)
Percussion instruments (tubes, bars, stones, bells, and diaphragms)
Tuning forks of various kinds
Umbrellas
Safety pins
Straws for drinking
Spectacles
Calendars
Telescopes (?)
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 in Volume III.
Conclusion
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 an 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 each of the three branches of the race was 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.
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 efective in that order.
References:
16. Hislop, Alexander, The Two Babylons, New York, NY, Loiseaux, 1953.
17. Maritain, Jacques, An Introduction to Philosophy, New York, NY, Sheed and Ward, 1955, 26.
18. Wilson, Epiphanius, The Literature of China in The World's Great Classics, New York, NY, Colonial Press, 1900, Vol. IV, 3.
19. Kroeber, A. L., Configurations of Culture Growth, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1944, 184.
20. Wu-Chi, Liu, A Short History of Confucian Philosophy, Hammondsworth, UK, Pel-ican Books, 1955, 9.
21. Watts, Alan, "How Buddhism Came to Life," Asia, 39(10), Oct., 1939, 581.
22. Bernard, Jessie, "Can Science Transcend Culture?" Scientific Monthly, 71, Oct., 1950, 268.
23. Engberg, Martin, The Dawn of Civilization, Chicago, IL, University of Knowledge Series, 1938, 153.
24. Gardiner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press, 1950, 4, section 3.
25. Hayes, William, "Daily Life in Ancient Egypt," National Geographic Magazine, Oct., 1941, 425, 428.
26. Newman, James R., "The Rhind Papyrus," in The World of Mathematics, New York, NY, Simon and Schuster, 1956, 170, 171. Reference should have been made to a notable collection of papers in a volume edited by H. and H. A. Frankfort, 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 latter 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, Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, New York, NY, Farrar and Rinehart,1940, 340.
28. Kroeber, A.L., Anthropology, New York, NY, Harcourt Brace, 1948, 294.
29. Everyman's Encyclopedia, London, UK, Dent, 1913.
30. Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man, New York, NY, Appleton Century, Student's edition, 1936, 343.
31. Marston, Sir Charles, New Bible Evidence, New York, NY, Revell, 1935, 87; and in the Clouds at line 998.
32. Perry, W. J., The Growth of Civilization, Harmondsworth, UK, Pelican, 1937, 157.
33. Raglan, Lord, How Came Civilization, London, UK, Methuen, 1939, 179.
34. Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, 1954, 240.
35. Coon, Carleton, S., The Races of Europe, New York, NY, Macmillan, 1939, 178.
36. Clark, Grahame, "New World Origins," Antiquity,14(54), June, 1940, 118.
37. Childe, V. Gordon, New Light on the Most Ancient East, London, UK, Kegan Paul, 1935, 203.
38. Boscawen, St. Chad, The Bible and the Monuments, London, UK, Eyre and Spottis-woode, 1896, 18.
39. Raglan, Lord, How Came Civilization, London, UK, Methuen, 1939, 179.
40. Albrecht-Carrie, Rene, "Of Science, Its History and the Teaching Thereof," Scientific Monthly,73, July, 1951, 19.
41. Grau, R. F., The Goal of the Human Race, London, UK, Simpkin and Marshall, 1892, 88.
Corrections, May 9, 1997.
Proceed to Chapter Four
Return to the Index Page
Return to Arthur Custance
Home Page