at the accompanying delineations, will serve to show that the form of
the nose in the Caucasian series was straight, or slightly aquiline,
as in the Hindoo; more prominent, as in the Pelasgic tribes; and long,
salient, and aquiline, as in the Arabian race, and more especially in
the Semitic nations of that stock.
It may be here observed, that the nasal bones have in many instances
been more or less broken in forcing a passage through the ethmoid
bone, for the purpose of removing the brain. This operation, which
appears to have been almost uniformly practised at Thebes, was
comparatively unusual at Memphis; for of the twenty-six heads from the
latter necropolis, five only are perforated; while of the fifty-five
Theban crania, all are perforated but two; and in a third the ethmoid
is so little broken that the brain could not have been removed through
the orifice. I moreover detect three instances of complete perforation
of the nose, in which the brain had been extracted through the foramen
magnum, by cutting the neck half across behind; the bandages being
folded over the incision. The absence of the ethmoidal perforation in
the oldest heads from Memphis, and in many others of a later date from
the same necropolis, leads me to suppose that the brain may have been
primitively removed through the foramen magnum; and that its
extraction through the nose, as already suggested, may have been a
subsequent refinement of the embalming art. Again, the different
provinces of Egypt may have had peculiar and conventional details in
this as in other usages; for all the heads from Ombos and Maabdeh have
the ethmoidal opening; all those from Abydos and Debod are without it;
while of the four from Philæ, one is perforated and three are not.
Denon long ago pointed out a peculiarity of the Egyptian profile, as
seen in the remarkable distance between the nostrils and the teeth.
This feature, with a small receding chin, is of frequent occurrence
both in the mummies and on the monuments.
_Position of the Ear._—Every one who has paid the least attention to
Egyptian art, has observed the elevated position which is given to the
ear; and I have examined my entire series of heads, in order to
ascertain whether this peculiarity has any existence in nature, but I
can find nothing in them to confirm it. The bony meatus presents no
deviation from the usual relative arrangement of parts; but the
cartilaginous structure being desiccated, and consequently contracted,
may not afford satisfactory evidence. Clot Bey and other authors have
remarked an elevation of the ear in some modern Copts; and the
traveller Raw, quoted by Virey, notices the same feature in the
Hindoos, and it is said also to exist in degree in the Jews. There
may, therefore, be _some_ foundation for this peculiarity of Egyptian
sculpture and painting; but I feel confident that in nature it is
nothing more than an upward elongation of the auricular cartilages,
without any modification of the bony meatus. It has also occurred to
me that the appearance in question may be sometimes owing to the
remarkable vertical length of the upper jaw in some heads (those
represented Plate IV., Fig. 2, and Plate V., Fig. 2, for example,) in
which it is manifest that the ear would possess a remarkable elevation
in respect to the maxillary bones, without being any nearer to the top
of the head than usual. These hints may possibly afford some clew to a
satisfactory explanation of an almost invariable rule of Egyptian art.
Dr. Prichard (Researches Vol. II., p. 251,) has given an abstract of
some observations made by M. De La Malle, on the mummies contained in
the Museum of Turin. “In the skulls of these [six] mummies, as well as
in many others brought from the same country, although the facial
angle was not different from that of European heads, the meatus
auditorius, instead of being situated in the same plane with the basis
of the nose, was found by M. De Malle to be exactly on a level with
the centre of the eye”! Unless M. De Malle is an anatomist, and
accustomed to comparisons of this kind, I can imagine that he might be
deceived by the mere position in which the head was placed for
inspection; for the more the face is drawn downward, the higher will
be the relative position of the ear, until it may be brought on a
level either with the nostrils or the eye, at option. I am the more
disposed to offer this suggestion because we are told that in the
mummies in question “the facial angle was not different from that of
European heads.” I need hardly remark, however, that the higher the
external meatus of the ear, the less will be the facial angle; so that
M. De Malle’s two observations manifestly contradict each other.
In the annexed plates the reader will find seventy-four accurate
delineations of mummied heads, among which he will search in vain for
the alleged peculiarity of the Egyptian ear. It is equally absent in
the Pelasgic, Egyptian, Semitic, and Negroid forms: and yet the
Egyptians, on their monuments, bestowed it alike on the people of all
nations, of all epochs, and of every condition in life. See Plate XIV.
_Complexion._—On this point our evidence is, perhaps, less conclusive
than on most others connected with Egyptian ethnography. Yet, meagre
as it may seem, we cannot pass it by without a few remarks.
Herodotus, in the passage already cited, (p. 115,) speaks of the
colour of the Egyptians as if it were black; yet this is evidently a
relative, and not an absolute term. This remark applies, also, to the
hackneyed fable of the two black doves, who are said, in mythological
language, to have flown from Egypt, and established (at least one of
them) the oracle of Delphi. Here, again, Herodotus supposes that
because the doves were black, they must have represented Egyptian
personages. But the Greeks, observes Maurice, called every thing black
that related to Egypt, not excepting the river, the soil, and even the
country itself; whence the name [Greek: Ermochymios]—the black country
of Hermes.
Again, in reference to the statement of Herodotus, on which I have
already, perhaps, too largely commented, it may be well to give the
evidence of another eye-witness, that of Ptolemy the geographer, who
is believed to have been born in Egypt. He wrote in the second century
of our era, and his observations must consequently have been made
something more than five hundred years later than those of Herodotus.
His words are as follow:—“In corresponding situations on our side of
the equator, that is to say, under the tropic of Cancer, men have not
the colour of Ethiopians, nor are there elephants and rhinoceroses.
But a little south of this, the northern tropic, the people are
_moderately dark_, ([Greek: êrema tynchanousi melanes],) as those, for
example, who inhabit the thirty Schæni, (as far as Wady Halfa, in
Nubia,) above Syene. But in the country around Meroë they are already
sufficiently black, and _there we first meet with pure Negroes_.”[19]
Here is ample evidence to prove that the natural geographical position
of the Negroes was the same seventeen centuries since as it is now;
and for ages antecedent to Herodotus, the monuments are perfectly
conclusive on the same subject. I could, therefore, much more readily
believe that the historian had never been in Egypt at all,[20] than
admit the literal and unqualified interpretation of his words which
has been insisted on by some, and which would class the Egyptians with
the Negro race.
On the monuments the Egyptians represent the men of their nation red,
the women yellow; which leads to the reasonable inference that the
common complexion was _dark_, in the same sense in which that term is
applicable to the Arabs and other southern Caucasian nations, and
varying, as among the modern Hindoos, from comparatively fair to a
dark and swarthy hue. “Two facts,” says Heeren, “are historically
demonstrated; one, that among the Egyptians themselves there was a
difference of colour; for individuals are expressly distinguished from
each other by being of a darker or lighter complexion: the other, that
the higher castes of warriors and priests, wherever they are
represented in colours, pertain to the fairer class.”
That the Ethiopians proper, or Meroïtes, were of a dark, and perhaps
very dark complexion, is more than probable; and among other facts in
support of this view, we find that the mother of Amunoph III., and
wife of Thotmes IV., who was a Meröite princess, is painted black on
the monuments. Thus the different complexion of the great divisions of
the Egyptian nation must sometimes have been blended, like their
physiognomical traits, even in the members of the royal family.
It is not, however, to be supposed that the Egyptians were really
_red_ men, as they are represented on the monuments. This colour, with
a symbolic signification, was conventionally adopted for the whole
nation, (with very rare exceptions,) from Meröe to Memphis. Thus,
also, the kings of the Greek and Roman dynasties are painted of the
same complexion.[21]
Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or
reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of
Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archæologist, I
conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians
as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a
partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already
adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
The well known observation of Ammianus Marcellinus, “Homines Ægyptii
_plerique subfusculi_ sunt, et atrati,” is sufficiently descriptive,
and corresponds with other positive evidence, in relation to the great
mass of the people; and when the author subsequently tells us that the
Egyptians “blush and grow red,” we find it difficult to associate
these ideas with a black, or any approximation to a black skin.[22]
The late Doctor Young, in his Hieroglyphical Literature, has given a
translation of a deed on papyrus of the reign of Ptolemy Alexander I.,
in which the parties to a sale of land at Thebes are described in the
following terms:—“Psammonthes, aged about 45, of middle size, dark
complexion and handsome figure, bald, round-faced and straight-nosed;
Snachomneus, aged about 20, of middle size, sallow complexion,
round-faced and straight-nosed; Semmuthis Persinei, aged about 22, of
middle size, sallow complexion, round-faced, flat-nosed, and of quiet
demeanour; and Tathlyt Persinei, aged about 30, of middle size, sallow
complexion, round face and straight nose, the four being children of
Petepsais of the leather-dressers of the Memnonia; and Necheutes the
less, the son of Azos, aged about 40, of middle size, sallow
complexion, cheerful countenance, long face and straight nose, with a
scar upon the middle of the forehead.” In another deed of the same
epoch, also translated by Dr. Young, an Egyptian named Anophris is
described as “tall, of a sallow complexion, hollow-eyed and bald.”
Independently of the value of the other physical characters preserved
in these documents, the remarks on complexion have a peculiar
interest; for they show that among six individuals of three different
families, one only had a dark complexion, and that all the rest were
sallow.
From the preceding facts, and many others which might be adduced, I
think we may safely conclude, that the complexion of the Egyptians did
not differ from that of the other Caucasian nations in the same
latitudes. That while the higher classes, who were screened from the
action of a burning sun, were fair in the comparative sense, the
middle and lower classes, like the modern Berbers, Arabs, and Moors,
presented various shades of complexion, even to a dark and swarthy
tint, which the Greeks regarded as black in comparison with their own.
To these diversities must also be added others incident to a vast
servile population, derived from all the adjacent nations, among which
the sable Negro stood forth in bold and contrasted characters.
Dr. Wiseman, after a critical examination of the evidence in reference
to this mooted question, has arrived at the following philosophical
conclusion;—“It is not easy to reconcile the conflicting results thus
obtained from writers and from monuments; and it is no wonder that
learned men should have differed widely in opinion on the subject. I
should think the best solution is, that Egypt was the country where
the Greeks most easily saw the inhabitants of interior Africa, (the
Negroes,) many of whom, doubtless, flocked thither and were settled
there, or served in the army as tributaries or provincials, as they
have done in later times; and _thus they came to be confounded by
writers with the country where alone they knew them, and were
considered part of the indigenous population_.”[23]
_External Configuration._—On this subject I have nothing to add but
the following external measurements,[24] (taken with my own hands,)
derived from each group, and embracing all the denuded adult crania
excepting two of the Semitic form.
_Table I. Pelasgic Group._
┌──────┬─────┬──────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────────┬─────┬─────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ No. │ │ │ │ │ │ │Occipito-Frontal│ │
│ │ in │Plate.│Longitud.│Parietal│Frontal│Vertical│Inter-mastoid│Arch.│Horizontal│
│ │Cat. │ │Diam.│Diam.│Diam.│Diam.│Diam. Line.│ │Periphery.│
├──────┴┬────┴┬─────┴─┬───┴─┬───┴─┬───┴─┬───┴─┬─────┬────┴┬────┴┬────
│Thebes,│856 │IX. │7.5 │5.6 │4.5 │5.2 │15.1 │4.2 │15.6 │21. │
│Thebes,│859 │ VI.,│7.1 │5.1 │4.3 │5.3 │14.1 │4.1 │14.5 │20. │
│ │ │ 5.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Thebes,│850 │ VI.,│7.4 │5.3 │4.3 │5.4 │15. │4.3 │15.3 │20.5 │
│ │ │ 4.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Thebes,│893 │ VI.,│7.2 │5.4 │4.4 │5.3 │14.6 │4.1 │14.7 │20.3 │
│ │ │ 3.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Abydos,│817 │V., 3.│7.1 │5.7 │4.5 │5.4 │15.6 │3.9 │15.3 │20.5 │
│Memphis,│803 │ III.,│7.5 │5.6 │4.3 │5. │14.8 │4. │14.9 │20.8 │
│ │ │ 8.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│808 │ II.,│7.4 │5.7 │4.8 │5.1 │15. │4. │14.9 │21. │
│ │ │ 1.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│816 │ III.,│7.4 │5.1 │4.3 │5.5 │15. │4. │15.1 │20.6 │
│ │ │ 5.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│802 │ III.,│6.8 │5.2 │4.3 │5.4 │13.9 │4.2 │14. │19. │
│ │ │ 7.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│812 │ II.,│6.8 │5.5 │4.5 │4.8 │13.6 │4. │14.1 │19.9 │
│ │ │ 3.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│815 │ II.,│7. │5.2 │4.1 │5.4 │14.6 │3.9 │15. │19.9 │
│ │ │ 2.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│799 │ III.,│7.2 │5.7 │4.2 │5. │14.9 │3.7 │14.8 │20.4 │
│ │ │ 4.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│814 │ II.,│7.3 │5.8 │4.6 │5.2 │15.4 │4.3 │15.5 │20.8 │
│ │ │ 5.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│805 │ II.,│7.4 │5. │3.9 │5.3 │14.4 │3.9 │15. │19.8 │
│ │ │ 7.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│838 │I., 1.│7.5 │5.5 │4.4 │5.5 │14.7 │4. │15. │20.7 │
│Memphis,│837 │I., 2.│7.8 │5.7 │4.6 │5.7 │15. │4.1 │15.6 │21.2 │
│Memphis,│798 │ III.,│6.9 │5.5 │4.4 │5.1 │14.2 │4.1 │14.5 │19.5 │
│ │ │ 6.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│825 │ III.,│7.5 │5.7 │4.3 │5.3 │15. │4.2 │15. │20.7 │
│ │ │ 9.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Memphis,│840 │ II.,│7.3 │5.4 │4.6 │5.2 │14.8 │4.1 │15. │20.6 │
│ │ │ 9.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Philæ,│821 │ XII.,│6.9 │5.2 │4.4 │4.9 │14. │4. │14. │19.5 │
│ │ │ 6.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├──────┴─────┴──────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┤
│ Highest in the │7.8 │5.8 │4.8 │5.7 │15.6 │4.3 │15.6 │21.2 │
│series, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Mean, │7.25 │5.44 │4.38 │5.25 │14.6 │4.05 │14.85│20.33│
│ Lowest in the │6.8 │5.1 │3.9 │4.8 │13.6 │3.7 │14. │19. │
│series, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└───────────────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┘
The _frontal diameter_ is taken between the anterior inferior angles
of the parietal bones.
The _vertical diameter_ is measured from the fossa between the
condyles of the occipital bone, to the top of the skull.
The _inter-mastoid arch_ is measured, with a graduated tape, from the
point of one mastoid process to the other, over the external table of
the skull.
The _inter-mastoid line_ is the distance, in a straight line, between
the points of the mastoid processes.
The _occipito-frontal arch_ is measured by a tape over the surface of
the cranium, from the posterior margin of the foramen magnum to the
suture which connects the os frontis with the bones of the nose.
The _horizontal periphery_ is measured by passing a tape around the
cranium so as to touch the os frontis immediately above the
superciliary ridges, and the most prominent part of the occipital
bone.
_Table II. Egyptian Group._
┌──────┬─────┬────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ No. │ │ │ │ │ │Inter-mastoid│Inter-mastoid│Occipito-Frontal│ │
│ │ in │ │Longitud.│Parietal│Frontal│Vertical│ │ │ │Horizontal│
│ │Cat. │ Plate. │Diam.│Diam.│Diam.│Diam.│Arch.│Line.│Arch.│Periphery.│
├──────┴┬────┴┬───────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬─────
│Thebes,│857 │VII., 3.│7. │5. │4. │5.3 │14.6 │3.8 │14.9 │19.6 │
│Thebes,│849 │ │7.1 │5.5 │4.4 │5.2 │14.8 │3.9 │14.6 │20.1 │
│Thebes,│860 │ VI., 1.│7. │5.4 │4.4 │5.3 │14.7 │4. │14.2 │20. │
│Thebes,│848 │VII., 4.│7.1 │5.2 │4.1 │5. │14.2 │3.7 │15. │20. │
│Thebes,│847 │VII., 5.│6.8 │4.8 │3.9 │5. │13.5 │4. │13.9 │18.8 │
│Thebes,│851 │VII., 1.│7. │5.3 │4.5 │5. │14. │4. │14. │19.7 │
│Thebes,│853 │ │7.5 │5.6 │4.3 │5. │15.5 │4.1 │15. │20.7 │
│Abydos,│820 │ V., 2.│7.5 │5.5 │4. │5.5 │15.2 │3.9 │15.7 │20.9 │
│Abydos,│819 │ V., 1.│7.3 │5.3 │4. │5. │14.6 │4. │14.6 │19.8 │
│Memphis,│806 │ II., 4.│6.6 │5.9 │4. │4.8 │14.6 │4.2 │13.6 │19.7 │
│Memphis,│811 │III., 1.│6.9 │5.5 │4. │4.8 │14.5 │3.7 │14.4 │19.5 │
│Memphis,│809 │III., 2.│7.3 │5.3 │4.2 │4.9 │14.3 │3.9 │14.5 │20.6 │
│Memphis,│795 │ │7. │5.3 │4.1 │5.1 │14.9 │3.9 │14.4 │19.5 │
│Memphis,│796 │ │6.7 │5.4 │4.3 │4.8 │14.3 │3.9 │13.9 │19.5 │
│Memphis,│797 │ │6.8 │5.2 │4.4 │5.1 │14.5 │4. │14.2 │19.4 │
│Debod,│827 │XII., 9.│7.3 │5.2 │4.5 │4.9 │13.7 │4.2 │14.9 │20.5 │
│Debod,│826 │XIII. │7. │5.1? │4. │5.4 │14. │4. │14.5 │19. │
│Debod,│829 │XII., 8.│7. │5.1 │4.3 │5. │13.7 │3.6 │13.7 │19.5 │
│Thebes,│867 │ VIII.,│7.8 │5.4 │4.3 │5.5 │15. │4.3 │15.5 │21.4 │
│ │ │ 8.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Thebes,│861 │VII., 2.│7.3 │5.3 │4.4 │5.5 │14.7 │4.2 │15.2 │20.3 │
│Memphis,│810 │ II., 6.│7.2 │5.5 │4.4 │5.2 │14.7 │3.8 │15.2 │20.7 │
│Thebes,│889 │ VI., 7.│7.5 │5.2 │4.4 │5.8 │14.4 │4.3 │15.2 │20.5 │
│Ombos,│832 │XII., 5.│7.4 │5.4 │4.5 │5. │15. │4.2 │14.9 │20.5 │
├──────┴─────┴────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┤
│Highest in the │7.8 │5.9 │4.5 │5.8 │15.5 │4.3 │15.7 │21.4 │
│series, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mean, │7.15 │5.32 │4.21 │5.14 │14.5 │4. │14.6 │20.1 │
│Lowest in the series,│6.6 │4.8 │3.9 │4.8 │13.5 │3.6 │13.6 │18.8 │
└─────────────────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┘
_Table III. Negroid Group._
┌──────┬────┬────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────────┬────────────
│ │No. │ │ │ │ │ │ │Occipito-Frontal│ │
│ │ in │Page or │Longitud.│Parietal│Frontal│Vertical│Inter-mastoid│Arch.│Horizontal│
│ │Cat.│Plate │Diam.│Diam.│Diam.│Diam.│Arch. Line│ │Periphery.│
├──────┴┬───┴┬───────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬────┴┬─────┬─────┬┴────┬┴────
│Thebes,│864 │Page 17,│7. │5.1 │4.2 │5.4 │14.4 │3.3 │14.6 │19.6 │
│Thebes,│885 │" " │7. │5.5 │4.5 │5.1 │14.4 │3.5 │14.8 │19.7 │
│Thebes,│858 │" " │7.4 │5.3 │4.5 │5. │14.6 │4.4 │14.6 │20.5 │
│Thebes,│852 │" " │7.2 │5.1 │4.4 │5.2 │14. │4.3 │14.3 │19.5 │
│Thebes,│869 │" " │7.4 │5.4 │4.1 │5.5 │13.9 │4.3 │15.5 │20. │
│Maabdeh,│834 │IV., 2 │6.4 │5.5 │4.2 │5.1 │13.8 │4. │13.8 │18.7 │
├────────┴────┴──────┬─┴───┬─┴───┬─┴───┬─┴───┬─┴───┬─┴───┬─┴───┬─┴───┐
│Mean, │7.05 │5.3 │4.3 │6.2 │14.2 │4. │14.6 │19.6 │
└────────────────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┘
These measurements, it must be confessed, possess merely an isolated
interest until they can be compared with those derived from the other
races of men.[25] Meanwhile I give them as I find them, and in the
hope of being able to institute the desired comparisons on some future
occasion.
_Stature._—Mr. Pettigrew’s measurements seem to prove, what the size
of the head also indicates, that the Egyptians were of the middle
stature. He met with no instance which, even enveloped in its
bandages, would measure more than five feet six inches. Perhaps,
however, sufficient allowance has not been made for the contraction of
the joints, and especially of the intervertebral substance, which in a
state of complete desiccation, would diminish the length of the body
at least two inches. In the year 1833, I purchased of the heirs of the
late Senior Lébolo, a dilapidated mummy from Thebes, of which I
prepared the skeleton, now preserved in the Anatomical Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania. It measures about five feet ten inches,
and is in every respect beautifully developed excepting the cranium,
which is small in proportion and of indifferent conformation.[26]
_Age._—It is a familiar fact that the mummies of children are rarely
found in the Egyptian catacombs, at least in comparison with those of
adults; a circumstance which has not been satisfactorily explained.
Champollion Figeac observes that the Egyptians were a long-lived
people, as proved by their funereal inscriptions which frequently
speak of the dead as having passed the age of fourscore years; a
remark which derives some confirmation from the following table,
wherein the crania in my possession are proximately classed according
to their respective ages:—
From one year old to 3
five,
From five to ten, 5
From ten to fifteen, 4
From fifteen to twenty, 9
From twenty to thirty, 27
From thirty to forty, 25
From forty to fifty, 18
From fifty to sixty, 2
From sixty to seventy, 2
From seventy to eighty, 3
From eighty to ninety, 2
——
100
Having thus identified, in the catacombs, the remains of the various
people who constituted the Nilotic family, we proceed in the next
place to trace them on the monuments of Egypt and Nubia; and as the
value of this comparison must depend on the fidelity of the artists
who have copied the paintings and bas-reliefs, we shall derive the
following illustrations, with one or two exceptions, from the
admirable works of Champollion, Rosellini, and Hoskins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE EGYPTIANS.
The monuments from Meroë to Memphis, present a pervading type of
physiognomy which is every where distinguished at a glance from the
varied forms which not unfrequently attend it, and which possesses so
much nationality both in outline and expression, as to give it the
highest importance in Nilotic ethnography. We may repeat that it
consists in an upward elongation of the head, with a receding
forehead, delicate features, but rather sharp and prominent face, in
which a long and straight or gently aquiline nose forms a principal
feature. The eye is sometimes oblique, the chin short and retracted,
the lips rather tumid, and the hair whenever it is represented, long
and flowing.
This style of features pertains to every class, kings, priests, and
people, and can be readily traced through every period of monumental
decoration, from the early Pharaohs down to the Greek and Roman
dynasties. Among the most ancient and at the same time most
characteristic examples, are the heads of Amunoph the Second, and his
mother, as represented in a tomb at Thebes,[27] which dates, in
Rosellini’s chronology, seventeen hundred and twenty-seven years
before our era. In these effigies all the features are strictly
Egyptian, and how strikingly do they correspond with those of many of
the embalmed heads from the Theban catacombs!
[Illustration:
Fig. 1. Fig. 2.
]
A similar physiognomy preponderates among the royal Egyptian
personages of every epoch, as will be manifest to any one who will
turn over the pages of Champollion and Rosellini. The head of Horus
(Plate XIV., Fig. 2,) is an admirable illustration, while in the
portraits of Rameses IV., and Rameses IX., (Plate XIV., Fig. 6 and 7,)
the same lines are apparent, though much less strongly marked. How
admirably also are they seen in the subjoined juvenile head, (Fig. 1,)
which is that of a royal prince, copied from the very ancient
paintings in the tomb of Pehrai, at Eletheias.[28] So also in the face
of Rameses VII., (Fig. 2,) who lived perhaps one thousand years later
in time.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1. Fig. 2.
]