rulers of Egypt is attested by history and the monuments. Manetho
states that the XVI. dynasty was composed “Of thirty-two Hellenic
shepherd kings, ([Greek: poimenes Ellênes basileis],[64]) who reigned
five hundred and eighteen years.” It is not to be supposed that the
number of either kings or years is accurately given: all that is
necessary to our purpose is the main fact of Hellenic dominion in
Egypt, which is moreover sustained by monumental evidence; for happily
the tombs and temples preserve the portraits of the Nilotic
sovereigns, executed with so much individuality of feature and
expression, as to leave little doubt of the general fidelity of the
likenesses. These effigies, which are now indelibly preserved in the
great works of Champollion and Rosellini, present the following
interesting results.[65]
[Illustration]
The oldest identified human effigy now extant is that on the _Tablet
of Wady Halfa_, preserved in the gallery of Florence.[66] This
venerable relic, which has been satisfactorily proved to date more
than two thousand two hundred years before the Christian era,[67]
represents Osortasen the First in the form of Ammon, and receiving
from the god Monthou (Mars) the people of Lybia bound with cords as
captive nations.
The features of the king are strictly Pelasgic; and the facial angle,
(allowing for the unnatural elevation of the ear,) measures upwards of
eighty degrees. It is also remarkable that this head is strikingly
like those of the Ptolemaic sovereigns of Egypt, and especially
corresponds in every feature with the portrait of Ptolemy Euergetes
II., although eighteen centuries elapsed between their respective
reigns. We therefore recur to our proposition, that whether this
effigy be a portrait or not, it at least proves that the artists of
those primeval times derived their ideas of the human countenance from
Caucasian models.
The next of these heads which can be identified with its epoch, is
that of Amunoph I. This again presents a fine cast of European
features; such, in fact, as would embellish a Grecian statue; and yet
this monarch reigned in the valley of the Nile, and held his court in
Memphis more than eighteen hundred years before the birth of Christ.
(Plate XIV., Fig. 1.) And if from this remote period we trace the
physiognomy of the kings and queens of the subsequent reigns, we
perceive among them many equally beautiful models, some of which are
not inferior to the _beau ideal_ of classic art. Take, for example,
the heads of Menepthah and Rameses III., in the character of
priest,—Rameses X., Rameses XI., and Amenmeses,—the queens Nofre-Ari,
and Nitocris, and the daughter of Phisham (or Pihmé,) the regent
priest, and let me ask among what people we shall find more graceful
facial lines, or more varied intellectual expression? (Plate XIV.)
It may be suggested that in some of these heads the Pelasgic character
is not wholly unmixed, and especially in reference to Amunoph the
First. In this instance there is something of the Egyptian, or, as
Professor Blumenbach would express it, the Hindoo physiognomy. I wish
it to be understood, however, that I do not assert all these
sovereigns to have been of the Pelasgic or Japetic stock; for some of
them, as Rameses the Third, and Menepthah the First, are on other
occasions represented with decidedly Egyptian features. These mixed
and varied Caucasian lineaments may perhaps have been derived from the
antecedent Hellenic kings, who in giving place again to the native
Egyptians, must doubtless have left their national characteristics
more or less blended with those of the indigenous families.
The following heads, which are all of strictly Caucasian proportions,
are _fac simile_ copies from Rosellini. They are derived from groups
of figures engaged in various mechanical and other operations, as
represented in the tombs and temples of Thebes, and various other
parts of Egypt.
[Illustration]
The annexed head, (1) that of a reaper, is one of a great number
executed in bas-relief in the celebrated tombs of Eilethyas, which
possess a greater interest and value in ethnography on account of
their venerable antiquity; for they date with and before the
eighteenth dynasty, and consequently are at least three thousand six
hundred years old.[68] The great French work, (Déscription de
l’Egypte,) contains an extended series of illustrations from the same
remarkable tombs in which a similar cast of features is almost every
where apparent.[69]
[Illustration]
The same style of face is not less decidedly expressed in another head
(2) from Rosellini,[70] of which the original painting is preserved in
the Royal Gallery at Florence. It represents an artisan. How admirably
do the features conform to the Grecian type!
[Illustration]
I repeat the remark, and yet more emphatically, in reference to the
admirable battle scene at Abousimbel, of the age of Rameses the Third,
wherein eighty soldiers are depicted in a single group, each one
bearing a shield and spear.[71] Are they mercenaries from one of the
Hellenic tribes? I select the two subjoined examples; (3) for a close
resemblance pervades them all. Here again every line is Grecian; and
yet when these paintings were executed, the wandering Pelasgi had
hardly begun to associate themselves in civilized communities, and the
arts of Greece were unknown.
[Illustration]
Paintings of a similar ethnographic character are seen in profusion at
Beni-Hassan, whence is derived the annexed outline, representing one
of the leather-dressers of that group. The straight line for the nose
and forehead is strictly Pelasgic, and conforms in most respects to
the other facial traits. (4)
The same general physiognomy is often much more rudely expressed, as
in the tomb of Imai, at Gizeh, which is of the age of Shufo, of the
fourth dynasty, and consequently the period of disputed chronology.
Rude as these figures are, and identified with an humble sphere of
life, they have the Caucasian form, and partake of the same
ethnographic lineaments with the more elaborately finished
outlines delineated above. It may be observed, with respect to
Egyptian art, that while the bas-reliefs are for the most part
executed with remarkable beauty and precision, the paintings, owing to
the use of a single colour, and the absence of perspective or shading,
are often coarse and defective; and the two annexed drawings will
serve to illustrate this negligent style of art.
[Illustration]
It is thus that we trace the Pelasgic type of feature and expression
through all the various castes of the Egyptian population, beginning
with kings and ending with peasants and plebeians. The illustrations
have been purposely selected from those remote times wherein
chronology becomes confusion, down to the later periods of recorded
history,—a vast period of thirteen centuries, of which the latest date
looks back nine hundred years before the birth of Christ!
People of Pelasgic features and complexion are often seen on the
monuments as prisoners taken in war. One of these is copied, Plate
XIV., Fig. 23. It is from Abousimbel, and dates with Rameses III. The
very fair skin, regular features and black hair seem to point to a
nation of southern Europe. The nose is nearly straight, and on the
same line with the forehead, although the latter recedes more than is
consistent with our ideas of the Grecian profile.[72]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE SEMITIC RACE.[73]
That people of this great family were numerous in Egypt is amply
attested both by sacred and profane history; and the proximity of
their respective countries necessarily brought the Semitic and
Egyptian communities into frequent contact for war or for peace. This
fact is abundantly proved by the monuments. The Jewish people,
however, appears, for the most part, to have been admitted into Egypt
upon sufferance; for the Exodus, and all subsequent annals, are
conclusive on this subject.
Those peculiar lineaments which, from very remote times, have
characterized some of the Semitic nations, have been already noticed.
How many of these nations possessed these physical characters, cannot
now be determined; but it is probable that all partook of them in
degree. It is in the temple of Beyt-el-Wàlee, in Nubia, in paintings
of the age of Rameses II., (B.C. 1579,) that we meet with one of the
earliest unquestionable delineations of these people. (Plate XIV.,
Fig. 24.)
An additional illustration is that given in the margin. It is also
preserved in the temple of Bey-el-Wàlee, and is of the same date as
the head above described. These people are generally represented as
enemies or bondsmen; nor have I any doubt that the figures in the
celebrated _Brickmaker’s scene_, in the tomb of Rekshari, at Thebes,
of the age of Thotmes IV., are those of a Semitic nation, and, in all
probability, Hebrews. Their features obviously correspond with those
of the latter people; and their scanty beards, which have been made an
objection to this view of their nationality, may be regarded as a
compulsory badge of captivity. Perhaps the most Hebrew _portrait_ on
the monuments is that of Aahmes-Nofre-Ari, Queen of Amunoph I., who is
said by the hieroglyphists to have been by birth a Meröite. (Plate
XIV., Fig. 13.) Semitic features, as we have already shown, are
occasionally found among the embalmed heads from the catacombs; in
proof of which I refer, with confidence, to Plate XI., Fig. 2; and
also, though less strongly marked, to Plate II., Fig. 8, Plate VI.,
Figs. 2 and 8, and to Plate XII., Figs. 1 and 2.
[Illustration]
My studies have not qualified me for philological comparisons and
inferences, but I cannot forbear introducing the following views of
the learned Dr. Lepsius, on account of their direct bearing upon this
interesting question. Speaking of the Egyptian and Coptic tongues, he
says:—“I have now discovered, in the essence of the language itself,
not only that there is no appearance whatever of any grammatical
change, and that it possesses, perhaps in a higher degree, that
principle of stability so peculiar to the Semitic dialects, but also
that it has preserved in its formation traces of a higher antiquity
than any Indo-Germanic or Semitic language wherewith I am acquainted,
which traces will therefore be most unexpectedly important even for
these two families. At the same time the Coptic cannot be termed
either Semitic or Indo-Germanic. It has its own peculiar formation,
though, at the same time, _its fundamental relationship with these two
families_ is not to be mistaken.”[74]
THE ARABS.—The southern or peninsular Arabs are a people of middle
stature, with a complexion varying from a sallow hue to a very dark
colour. They have sharp, bold features, a rather prominent face, and a
straight or gently aquiline nose. The head is, moreover, comparatively
small, and the forehead rather narrow and sensibly receding; to which
may often be added a meagre and angular figure,[75] long, slender
limbs, and large knees. Some tribes are also remarkable for the small
stature of the men, which, according to Burckhardt, does not exceed
five feet two or three inches; while, with a thick head of hair, they
possess a short, thin, and pointed beard.[76]
Such are some of the Bedouins; but the most formidable Arab tribes
have always been the Hemyarites of Yemen; a restless and enterprising
people, whose migrations have been chiefly directed to Africa, and
especially to the valley of the Nile; a region which they have invaded
and more or less occupied from the earliest times, through the reigns
of the Pharaohs, Ptolemies, and Cæsars, down to a recent period of our
own era. What language can be stronger than that of Juba, (about the
commencement of our own era,) that the inhabitants of the valley of
the Nile, from Philæ to Meroë, were not Ethiopians, but Arabs? So,
also, in the days of Strabo, half the population of _Coptos_ itself
was made up of the same people.
The cranial resemblances between the Arabs and ancient Egyptians
impressed me forcibly from the commencement of my inquiries; which
last I have been able to prosecute in a more satisfactory manner by
means of a series of Arab skulls, obtained in Egypt by Mr. Gliddon. I
subjoin outline drawings of five of them, in order that the reader may
judge for himself.
[Illustration]
These skulls are all adult, and though comparatively small, give a
mean internal capacity of eighty-four cubic inches, which is above the
Egyptian average. The analogy, however, is greater in form than in
size, as may be observed by comparing the above outlines with several
of the embalmed heads from the catacombs, and especially that figured
Plate VI., Fig. 7. In fact, the resemblance between the Egyptian and
Arab head is so striking, that nothing but a faithful study of the
monuments has satisfied me that the two nations were primitively
distinct from each other; and that what I at first believed to be the
_Austral-Egyptian_ conformation, is no other than the Egyptian itself.
Some very ancient paintings, copied by Rosellini from the temple
decorations at Beyt-el-Wàlee, in Nubia, appear, also, to pertain to
the Arab physiognomy. (Plate XIV., Figs. 19, 20.) In these the
yellowish-red complexion indicates, we might suppose, some affinity
with the Egyptian nation, while the small, pointed beard, and sharp,
prominent face, point to the Arabian stock of nations. Their name
reads _Tohen_ on the monuments; and they pertain to the age of Rameses
II., and illustrate the conquests of that monarch 1579 years before
Christ.
Without entering into a philological discussion, it is worthy of
remark, that the Gheez or Ethiopic language, the oldest of the known
tongues of Abyssinia, is directly allied to the Arabic and Hebrew. The
period of its introduction into Africa is unknown, though it probably
dates far beyond our era. Moreover, among the ruins recently
discovered at Hasan Ghorâb, (170 miles east of Aden,) at Sanaa, and at
other places in Yemen, inscriptions have been abundantly found in the
old Ethiopic tongue, which, in the opinion of the late Professor
Gesenius, is a modification of the parent Hemyarite language.
These few facts, with others which will be adduced hereafter, go to
prove that the Egyptian people must have been more or less blended
with the Arabian race; nor can there be a question that the Meröite or
Austral-Egyptian communities were composed, at least in part, of an
Indo-Arabian stock engrafted on the aboriginal Libyan population.
An able but anonymous author not only asserts the Arab origin of the
monumental Ethiopians, but endeavours to prove, by an ingenious series
of facts and reasonings, that they were the “Blemies of history, a
Bejáwy branch of the Arabian family;” that they were broken and
finally dispersed by the policy of the Roman government, which, in the
reign of Dioclesian, introduced Negro colonies from Kordofan; and,
finally, that the Nubians of our day are not, as a nation, descended
from the ancient stock. The last proposition, as a general rule, is
undeniable; but the preceding conclusions are not yet susceptible of
proof.[77]
Convinced as we are that the Egyptians were a distinct and aboriginal
people, the sentiment of M. Jomard may yet become, to a certain
extent, an axiom in ethnography:—“L’Arabie à été de tout temps, et
elle est encore de nos jours, l’aliment de la population
Egyptienne.”[78]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. THE HINDOOS.
I observe among the Egyptian crania, some which differ in nothing from
the Hindoo type either in respect to size or configuration. I have
already, in my remarks upon the ear, mentioned a downward elongation
of the upper jaw, which I have more frequently met with in Egyptian
and Hindoo heads than in any others, although I have seen it
occasionally in all the races. This feature is remarkable in two of
the following five crania, (A, B,) and may be compared with a similar
form from Abydos. (Plate V., Fig. 2.)
[Illustration]
The Hindoo head is also remarkable for its small size, its narrow
form, especially in front, and often, also, for the delicacy of the
osteological structure. The bones of the face, however, project more
than those of the European, and there is not unfrequently a manifest
eversion of the upper jaw. (B.) The nose is rather small, and the
bones are variously aquiline, straight, or moderately compressed. My
observations have been made on thirty-seven crania, for which I am
indebted to Drs. Burrough and Carson, of this city, and to Dr. Martin
and Mr. H. Piddington, of Calcutta. Of these, twenty-four are adult,
varying from eighteen to eighty years of age, and give an average
internal capacity of but eighty cubic inches; the largest head
measuring ninety cubic inches, the smallest only sixty-nine.[79] They
pertain, for the most part, to _low-caste_ Bengalees.
[Illustration]
It is in that mixed family of nations which I have called
Austral-Egyptian that we should expect to meet with the strongest
evidence of Hindoo lineage; and here, again, we can only institute
adequate comparisons by reference to the works of Champollion and
Rosellini. I observe the Hindoo style of features in several of the
royal effigies, and in none more decidedly than in the head of
Asharramon, as sculptured in the temple of Debod, in Nubia. The date
of this king has not yet been ascertained; but as he ruled over Meroë,
and not in Egypt, (probably in Ptolemaic times,) he may be regarded as
a good illustration of at least one modification of the
Austral-Egyptian type.
[Illustration]
Another set of features, but little different, however, from the
preceding, is seen among the middling class of Egyptians as pictured
on the monuments, and these I also refer to the Hindoo type. Take, for
example, the four annexed outlines, copied from a sculptured fragment
preserved in the museum of Turin. These effigies may be said to be
essentially Egyptian; but do they not forcibly remind us of the
Hindoo?[80] The mummied head figured Plate X., Fig. 6, has the same
general form and cast of features.
The Hindoos are also represented on the monuments as prisoners and
tribute-bearers to the kings. My drawing, Plate XIV., Fig. 21, is
copied from the “Grand Procession” of Thotmes IV. The man leads a
bear; an indication that he is of a foreign country, for there are no
bears indigenous to Africa. Moreover, the characters of the animal, as
delineated in Rosellini, are not unlike those of the celebrated
grotesque species of India called by naturalists _Ursus labiatus_,
which has been, in all ages, a favourite with Hindoo mountebanks. The
man himself has an aquiline and pointed nose, thin beard, receding
forehead, and comparatively fair complexion, which assimilate him to
some Indo-Semitic or Indo-Persian tribe.
[Illustration]
In the same celebrated scene I notice another head of the same general
cast, but of a darker complexion and more delicate features, who
answers yet more accurately to the type of the northern Hindoos. He
wears a light dress and grass hat, and moreover leads an elephant, all
of which point to a warm climate. Mr. Hoskins remarks that “the
elephant must be from Ethiopia: if, therefore, they [the attendants]
are Scythians, as some suppose, they must be employed as slaves
bringing the produce of Ethiopia.” And he concludes by suggesting that
they may be white slaves of the latter country, sent as a present to
the Egyptian king. This appears to me to be an involved and
unsatisfactory explanation. The elephant, like the bear, is obviously
an Asiatic animal, (for the Egyptians made no use of the living native
species,) and it is evident that this group is merely typical of some
conquered Hindoo nation, or proximate and cognate tribe.
Winkelman, Blumenbach, and other authors, have also been struck with
these cranial resemblances; and certain physical analogies were
familiar to the writers of antiquity. They are especially recorded by
Strabo and Arrian, who compare the southern Hindoos to the Ethiopians,
and the northern Hindoos to the Egyptians. Various shades of
complexion, as we have remarked, were common to both countries,
together with a small stature and slender limbs.
History, mythology and the arts discover various additional analogies
between these venerable nations. Apis, the Egyptian bull, was the
symbol of Osiris; and the white bull is the animal on which Siva is
represented on the Indian pagodas: worship was bestowed alike on the
Ganges and the Nile; both nations paid homage to the sun and the
serpent; and even at the present time, the objects held in greatest
veneration by the Hindoos of the Vishnu sect are the ape, the monkey,
the bird called garruda, and the serpent capella. Among the symbols of
superstition in each are the sphinx, the lotus, the lingam, and the
cross. “The dog, sacred to Bhairava, a form of Siva, and the jackall
of Durga, remind us of the barking Anubis, the companion of Osiris.
The dogs of Yama, one of which was termed Cerbura, or spotted, and was
feigned to have three heads, corresponds remarkably, as Mr. Wilford
has observed, with the three-headed Cerberus, the dog of Pluto.”[81]
This affinity is also recognised in their almost exclusive vegetable
diet, and by the singular institution of castes. Analogies are,
moreover, traced in the architecture of the two nations, whether in
their monolithic temples and subterranean sanctuaries, or in the
statuary and minor decorations of their stupendous temples.[82]
That there was extensive and long-continued intercourse between the
Hindoos and Egyptians is beyond a question; and history speaks, also,
of conquest and migration. Which was primitively the dominant power?
The Egyptians very naturally decided this point in their own favour;
for they assert that Osiris crossed Arabia to the utmost inhabited
parts of India, and built many cities there. “He left, likewise,” says
Diodorus, “many other marks of his being in these parts, which have
induced the inhabitants to believe and affirm, that this god (Osiris)
was born in India.”[83] Thus it appears that, in the age of Diodorus,
the Hindoos not only worshipped, but claimed as original to
themselves, the principal divinity of the Egyptians. There is,
moreover, a passage in Syncellus which directly asserts that the
Hindoos, who, as we have observed, are sometimes called Ethiopians in
ancient history, formed colonies in Egypt. “Æthiopes ab Indo fluvio
profecti, supra Ægyptum sedem sibi eligerunt.” Heeren, from whom I
derive this quotation, remarks, that as the Hindoos would necessarily
arrive by sea, they would establish themselves on the coast. We grant
it; but a commercial and migratory people would soon find their way to
the great mart of Meroë, and thence to every part of the Egyptian
provinces. It has been observed by Mr. Bonomi, that the affiliation of
the Hindoos with the people of the upper Nile is confirmed by the
affinity which exists between the Ethiopic and Sanscrit systems of
writing, as pointed out by Dr. Wall and Mr. Tudor.[84]
Dr. Prichard, whose profound investigations into this and all other
questions in ethnography, command our highest respect, while he admits
that great difficulties present themselves in the present inquiry,
remarks “that a common origin, if not of the races themselves, at
least of the mental culture characteristic of both of them, has been
proved; and that the people of India and of Egypt derived from one
source the first principles of all their peculiarities of thought and
action, of their religious and social observances, and civil and
political institutions; and that these principles had even been
developed to a considerable extent, before the nations themselves were
entirely cut off from communication with each other or with a common
centre.”[85]