243 
much which corroborates the testimony of the Pentateuch to 
the prevalence of that disease among the Jews, after they had 
left Egypt and gone into the wilderness of Sinai. (See such 
passages as Ex. iv. 6; ix. 3, 9; Levit. xiv . ; Numb. xii. 10.) 
Manetho, it must be remembered, is an Egyptian witness, 
and may, therefore, be fairly included as part of our ethnic 
testimony under this division of the subject. 
25. There remains another field of inquiry upon which I 
have only time to speak slightly. I refer to the archaic stock 
of Chaldaeans, Canaanites, and Elamites, of whom I must now 
say a few brief words in order. 
(2.) Ghaldcea , before Abraham . 
26. Until lately the whole Chaldaean empire was considered 
so essentially Semitic, that it almost appeared impossible to 
reconcile it with the fact of its origination by the Hamitic 
family, as related in Gen. x. 8. Yet it is now shown, by the 
lately discovered cuneiform inscriptions, that the earliest 
inhabitants of Babylon spoke some sort of Hamitic tongue, 
which was not only allied to the ancient Egyptian, but even 
to the language still found in Africa among the Galla tribes. 
For example, in the excavations conducted by Mr. Loftus, at 
Mugheir, many bricks have been exhumed bearing the name 
of a king whose title is everywhere read, “ king of Ur, and 
king of Accad,” thus confirming Moses in two distinct points 
of topography (Gen. x. 10), Moreover, one of these bricks was 
discovered, having stamped upon it the words-—' rf The signet 
of Urukh king of Ur,” and that in language essentially 
Hamitic rather than Semitic. 
27. I respectfully submit that these observations offer an 
important ethnic testimony to the historical value of the 
writings of Moses. Much more might be added in the direc- 
tion of verified topography, as (e. g.) the appearance of the 
names “ Erech” and “ Calneh ” (Gen. x. 10), but space forbids. 
(3.) Canaan , before Abraham . 
28. There is exactly a similar difficulty in relation to this 
country ; for at the earliest dawn of history the Canaanites are 
essentially Semitic. Yet Moses, in Gen. x. 6, gives them an 
Hamitic origin; and, in the absence of all monuments and 
historical records, we seem to be without the slightest means 
of accounting for this apparent discrepancy. One thing, 
however, indirectly bears witness to the Mosaic account, viz 
the now generally conceded truth of Semitism having been a 
