the Egyptian monuments of every epoch. Complexion, features, and
expression, these and every other attribute of the race, are depicted
precisely as we are accustomed to see them in our daily walks: indeed,
were we to judge by the drawings alone, we might suppose them to have
been executed but yesterday; and yet some of these vivid delineations
are nearly three thousand five hundred years old! and, moreover, as if
to enforce the distinction of race by direct contrast, they are placed
side by side with people of the purest Caucasian features.
The delineations of the Negro which are supposed to be of the most
ancient date have not yet been identified with the epoch to which they
belong. Such are those in a tomb at Thebes of the age of Amontuonch,
an “unplaced king,” who is supposed to date prior to the sixteenth
dynasty, and consequently more than two thousand years before
Christ.[113] There is, however, a difference of opinion on this point;
but we can refer with confidence and certainty to the celebrated
“Procession” of the age of Thotmes the Fourth, at Thebes, in which
Negroes are represented as tribute-bearers to that monarch at a period
which dates about seventeen hundred years before our era.[114]
Sir G. Wilkinson describes a painting in a catacomb at Thebes of the
age of Amunoph the Third, in which that personage, seated on his
throne, receives the homage and tribute of various nations. Among
these are represented several “black chiefs of Cush, or Ethiopia,”
whose presents consist of rings of gold, bags of precious stones, “a
camelopard, panthers, skins, and long-horned cattle, whose heads are
strangely ornamented with the hands and heads of Negroes.”[115] The
author justly adds, that the latter effigies were probably artificial;
for the people of Cush would scarcely have decapitated their own
people to adorn their offerings to a foreign prince: yet at the same
time these melancholy symbols were obviously designed to express the
most abject self-abasement and vassalage.
Other Negro delineations which can be identified with the age to which
they belong, are found on the monuments of Horus, Rameses the Second,
Rameses the Third, &c. in various places in Egypt and Nubia; and the
first of these kings, (who dates with the nineteenth dynasty,) is
represented standing on a platform which is supported by prostrate
Negroes.[116]
For the purpose of illustration, we select a single picture from the
temple (hemispeos) of Beyt-el-Wàlee, in Nubia, in which Rameses the
Second is represented in the act of making war upon the Negroes; who,
overcome with defeat, are flying in consternation before him. From the
multitude of fugitives in this scene, (which has been vividly copied
by Champollion[117] and Rosellini, and which I have compared in both,)
I annex a fac-simile group of nine heads, which, while they preserve
the national features in a remarkable degree, present also
considerable diversity of expression.
[Illustration]
The hair on some other figures of this group is dressed in short and
separate tufts, or inverted cones, precisely like those now worn by
the Negroes of Madagascar, as figured in Botteller’s voyage.
In the midst of the vanquished Africans, seated in his car and urging
on the conflict, is Rameses himself; whose manly and beautiful
countenance will not suffer by comparison with the finest Caucasian
models. The annexed outline, (for all the figures are represented in
outline only,) will enable the reader to form his own conclusions
respecting this extraordinary group, which is believed to date about
fifteen hundred and seventy years before the Christian era.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. THE MONGOLIANS.
It has been contended by Depauw, and others that the ancient Egyptians
were of the Mongolian race. I find nothing like Mongolian features in
any embalmed head in my collection, unless some general resemblance
can be traced in a solitary instance from Thebes, (Plate XII., Figs.
1, 2,) which, however, partakes more obviously of the Semitic form.
This observation sustains the opinion of Professor Blumenbach, who in
comparing the Egyptians with the several races of men, asserts, that
“they differ from none more than from the Mongolian, to which the
Chinese belong.”[118]
[Illustration]
That the Chinese had commercial intercourse with the Egyptians in very
early times, is beyond question; for vessels of Chinese porcelain,
with inscriptions in that language, have been repeatedly found in the
Theban catacombs.[119] Yet in every instance wherein we detect
Mongolians on the monuments, they are represented as foreigners and
enemies. The annexed wood-cut, with the small and somewhat depressed
nose, shaven head, and crown-lock, scanty beard, moustache, and sallow
complexion, seems clearly to indicate a man of that race. It is copied
from a drawing in Rosellini, in which Rameses the Third is represented
fighting against the _Sheto_ or Scythians, among whom the Mongols
appear to be allies or mercenaries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMARKS.
Since the physical characteristics of the ancient Nilotic population,
as derived from history and the monuments, coincide in a remarkable
manner with the facts derived from anatomical comparison, it becomes
in the next place necessary to offer some explanation of these
results; or, to show at what periods and under what circumstances
several different branches of the Caucasian race were blended into a
single nation possessing more or less the characteristics of each, and
this again modified in degree by another race wholly different from
either. It is in the first place necessary to recur to the fact of the
very long occupation of Egypt by successive dynasties of Hykshos or
shepherd kings, and that these were not of one but of several
nations—Phenicians, Pelasgi, and Scythians; while to these followed,
at a long interval, an Ethiopian or Austral-Egyptian dynasty. Each of
these great revolutions must have tended in turn to the amalgamation
of the Egyptians with other nations; and this result may be referred
to three principal epochs, independently of several subordinate ones.
THE FIRST EPOCH embraces the dynasty of the Hykshos or shepherd kings,
commencing before Christ two thousand and eighty, and having a
duration of two hundred and sixty years.
It is important, however, to observe, that Josephus quoting Manetho,
makes the Hykshos dynasty last five hundred and eleven years; and the
learned Baron Bunsen, whose work has not yet appeared, extends it to
1000, beginning B.C. 2514.[120] The shorter period is that of
Rosellini; but the longer one is perhaps most consistent with facts,
and at least makes room for those various dominations which, in the
lists of Manetho, precede the eighteenth dynasty; which last, headed
by Amunoph the First, drove out the intrusive kings. During this long
period the legitimate sovereigns were exiled into Ethiopia; and it is
evident, that had Meroë been any other than a province or dependency
of Egypt, it is hardly probable that the Egyptians,—kings, priests,
and people,—could have found a safe asylum in that country during the
long period of their exile. It is expressly stated by Josephus that
the shepherd kings lived at Memphis, “and made both the upper and
lower country pay tribute.” It would appear, however, that during the
greater part of the Hykshos dynasty, the Egyptians retained possession
of the Thebaid: nevertheless the occupation of Lower Egypt by their
enemies, must have effectually precluded all communication with other
countries excepting Ethiopia, southern Arabia and India; which fact
will account for a vast influx of population from those countries,
(and consequently from the slave-regions of Africa) into the Upper
Nilotic provinces.
It is moreover reasonable to suppose that even after the expulsion of
the Hykshos, multitudes of Egyptians would remain in Ethiopia,—that
country wherein whole generations of their ancestors had lived and
died; at the same time that great numbers of Meröites, influenced by a
variety of motives and especially by social alliances, would descend
the Nile into Egypt.
It is moreover evident that while the Egyptians became thus
fraternized with the nations of southern Asia, and the motley races of
the Upper Nile, the provinces of Lower Egypt would be overrun with the
Caucasian tribes of Europe and western Asia; for these, either as
cognate with the Hykshos or as allies in their service, must have been
in immense number to have conquered so populous a country, and
especially to have kept possession during so long a period. It is to
these events, then, that we attribute that blending of nations which
appears to have been coeval with the early ages of the Nilotic Family,
and which amply accounts for the ethnographic diversities every where
manifest on the monuments.
THE SECOND EPOCH is comprised in the Ethiopian Dynasty of three kings,
which lasted forty-four years, beginning B.C. 719.
These Meröite or Austral-Egyptian kings, during their intrusive
occupation of Egypt, would naturally, and indeed necessarily engage
the neighbouring tribes, and especially such as were hostile to Egypt,
as mercenary soldiers; and there are more than conjectural grounds for
believing that the Negroes themselves were thus employed. We are told
in the Sacred Writings (2 Chron. Chap. xii.) that when Shishak king of
Egypt, who is identical with Sheshonk of the monuments,—went up
against Jerusalem, he took with him “1200 chariots, and three-score
thousand horsemen: and the people were without number that came with
him out of Egypt; the Lubims, the Sukkiims and the Ethiopians.” Of
this multitude we may presume that the horsemen, and people in
chariots were part of the Egyptian army; the Lubims and Sukkiims are
by most commentators regarded as Libyans and Meröites, while, as the
Ethiopians are placed last on the list, and are designated in the
Hebrew original by the name of _Cush_, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that they were Negroes. This view is sustained by a passage in
Herodotus,[121] who states that in the army of Xerxes which invaded
Greece was a legion of _Western Ethiopians_, “who had hair more crisp
and curling than any other men.”[122] Now if the army of Xerxes
embraced a legion of African Negroes, it would not be remarkable if
the Egyptian troops should have been composed in part of the same
people; which, indeed, with respect to the Ethiopian dynasty, may be
assumed as a thing of course: for the Meröites would naturally avail
themselves of every expedient to establish their power by augmenting
the number of their exotic confederates, and by extending to them
those privileges which had once been sacred to particular castes. For
these and other oppressive acts, the Meröite kings were hated by the
Egyptians; and no sooner were they expelled than their names were
erased from the monuments.[123]
THE THIRD EPOCH dates from the conquest by Cambyses, B.C. 525, and
continues through the whole of the Persian dynasty, or, in other
words, until the Ptolemaic era, B. C. 332,—a period of nearly two
hundred years.
Every one knows that the Persian dominion in Egypt was marked by an
utter disregard of all the established institutions. No occasion was
omitted which could humble the pride or debase the character of the
people. The varied inhabitants of Europe, Asia and Nigritia poured
into the valley of the Nile, abolishing in degree the exclusiveness of
caste, and involving an endless confusion of races.
The prelude to these changes and misfortunes can be traced to the
reign of Psammeticus the First, who permitted to foreigners, and
especially to the Greeks, a freedom of ingress which the laws and
usages of the country had previously denied them. The same policy
appears to have been fostered by the subsequent kings of the same
dynasty, until its consummation by Amasis; (B.C. 569) when, in the
language of Champollion-Figéac, Egypt became at once Egyptian, Greek,
and Asiatic; her national character was lost for ever; her armies were
filled with foreign mercenaries; the throne was guarded by European
soldiers, and continual wars completed the destruction of a tottering
kingdom.[124]
------------------
CONCLUSIONS.
1. The valley of the Nile, both in Egypt and in Nubia, was originally
peopled by a branch of the Caucasian race.
2. These primeval people, since called Egyptians, were the Mizraimites
of Scripture, the posterity of Ham, and directly affiliated with the
Libyan family of nations.
3. In their physical character the Egyptians were intermediate between
the Indo-European and Semitic races.
4. The Austral-Egyptian or Meröite communities were an Indo-Arabian
stock engrafted on the primitive Libyan inhabitants.
5. Besides these exotic sources of population, the Egyptian race was
at different periods modified by the influx of the Caucasian nations
of Asia and Europe,—Pelasgi, or Hellenes, Scythians and Phenicians.
6. Kings of Egypt appear to have been incidentally derived from each
of the above nations.
7. The Copts, in part at least, are a mixture of the Caucasian and the
Negro in extremely variable proportions.
8. Negroes were numerous in Egypt, but their social position in
ancient times was the same that it now is, that of servants and
slaves.
9. The national characteristics of all these families of Man are
distinctly figured on the monuments; and all of them, excepting the
Scythians and Phenicians, have been identified in the catacombs.
10. The present Fellahs are the lineal and least-mixed descendants of
the ancient Egyptians; and the latter are collaterally represented by
the Tuaricks, Kabyles, Siwahs, and other remains of the Libyan family
of nations.
11. The modern Nubians, with a few exceptions, are not the descendants
of the monumental Ethiopians, but a variously mixed race of Arabs and
Negroes.
12. Whatever may have been the size of the _cartilaginous_ portion of
the ear, the osseous structure conforms in every instance to the usual
relative position.
13. The Teeth, differ in nothing from those of other Caucasian
nations.
14. The Hair of the Egyptians resembled, in texture, that of the
fairest Europeans of the present day.
15. The physical or organic characters which distinguish the several
races of men, are as old as the oldest records of our species.
* * * * *
NOTE.—I have taken frequent occasion to quote the opinions of the late
Professor Blumenbach, of Göttingen, whose name is inseparably
connected with the science of Ethnography; but I have to regret that
up to the present time I have not been able to procure either in this
country or from Europe, the last two memoirs which embrace his views
on Egyptian subjects, and especially the work entitled, “Specimen
historiæ naturalis antique artis operibus illustratæ.” His views,
however, as previously given to the world, have been repeatedly
adverted to in these pages; and his matured and latest observations,
as quoted by Dr. Wiseman, appear to have confirmed his original
sentiments. “In 1808,” says Dr. Wiseman, “he more clearly expressed
his opinion that the monuments prove the existence of _three distinct
forms_ or physiognomies among the ancient inhabitants of Egypt. Three
years later he entered more fully into this inquiry, and gave the
monuments, which he thought bore him out in this hypothesis. The first
of these _forms_ he considers to approach to the Negro model, the
second to the Hindoo, the third to the Berber, or ordinary Egyptian
head. (_Beträge zur Naturgeschichte_, 2 _ter Th._ 1811.) But I think
an unprejudiced observer will not easily follow him so far. The first
head has nothing in common with the _Black race_, but is only a
coarser representation of the Egyptian type; the second is only its
mythological or ideal purification.” _Lectures on the Connexion
between Science and Revealed Religion, 2d edit. p. 100._
I thus place side by side the opinions of these learned men. With
respect to Professor Blumenbach, I may add that when he wrote on
Egyptian ethnography there were no _fac simile_ copies of the
monuments, such as have since been given to the world by the French
and Tuscan Commissions; and again, that learned author had not access
lo a sufficient number of embalmed heads to enable him to compare
these with the monumental effigies. With these lights he would at once
have detected _an all-pervading physiognomy which is peculiarly and
essentially_ EGYPTIAN; and in respect to which all the other
forms,—Pelasgic, Semitic, Hindu and Negro are incidental and
subordinate; sometimes, it is true, represented with the attributes of
royalty, but for the most part depicted as foreigners, enemies and
bondsmen.
With Egyptian _statuary_ I am little acquainted. The only four years
of my life which were spent in Europe were devoted almost exclusively
to professional pursuits; and the many remains of Egyptian art which
are preserved in the British and continental museums, have left but a
vague impression on my memory. How invaluable to Ethnography are the
two statues of the First Osortasen, now in the royal cabinet of
Berlin! These I have not seen, nor the memoir in which Dr. Lepsius has
described them.
I have, for the most part, omitted any remarks on the intellectual and
moral character of the Egyptians, because they would have extended my
work beyond the limits prescribed by the present mode of publication.
I have also avoided, as much as possible, those philological
disquisitions which have of late years combined so much interest and
discrepancy, but which are all-important to Egyptian ethnography, and
are daily becoming better understood, and therefore of more practical
value. For an instructive view of this question, and many collateral
facts and opinions, the reader is referred to the third volume of Dr.
Prichard’s _Researches into the Physical History of Mankind_; a work
which commands our unqualified admiration both in respect to the
multitude and the accuracy of the facts it contains, and the genius
and learning with which they are woven together.
I look with great interest to the researches of Dr. Lepsius at Meroë;
as well as to those of my friend Dr. Charles Pickering, who is now in
Egypt for the sole purpose of studying the monuments in connexion with
the people of that country. And finally, it gives me great pleasure to
state that the profound erudition of the Baron Alexander de Humboldt
is at this moment engaged in a work which will embrace his views on
Egyptian ethnography, and give to the world the matured opinions of a
mind which has already illuminated every department of natural
science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERRATA.
Page 36,—fifth line from the bottom, for “page 109,” read _page_ 17.
" 36,—fourth line from the bottom, for “six figured skulls,”
read _six skulls figured_.
" 41,—fifth line from the bottom, for “Armada,” read _Armada?_
" 43,—fourth line from the top, for “Semitic” read _Hebrew_.
" 45,—eighth line from the bottom, for “are” read _is_, and
“conform” read _conforms_.
[Transcriber’s Note: These changes have been made in the electronic
versions of this book. June, 2019]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. I.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE PYRAMID OF FIVE STEPS
AT SACCARA.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. II.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. III.
_J. T. French del._
FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. IV.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE GROTTOES NEAR MAABDEH.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. V.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM A TOMB AT ABYDOS.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. VI.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. VII.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. VIII.
_J. T. French del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. IX.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. X.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XI.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XII.
_M. S. Weaver del._
_Figs. 1. 2._ Catacombs of Thebes.
_Figs. 3. 4. 5._ Tombs of Koum Ombos.
_Figs. 6. 7._ From a Tumulus at Philæ.
_Figs. 8. 9._ From Deboud.in Nubia.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XIII.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM A TOMB AT DEBOD IN NUBIA.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XIV.
_Drawn from Rossellini by R. H. Kern._ _On stone by M. S. Weaver_
_Figs. 1. to 18._ (inclusive) _Portraits of the Kings and Queens of
Egypt._
_Figs. 19. to 24._ (inclusive) _People of various Nations._
_Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
-----
Footnote 1:
I do not use this term with ethnographic precision; but merely to
indicate the most perfect type of cranio-facial outline.
Footnote 2:
Explorations at the Pyramids, Vol. III., p. 44.
Footnote 3:
The letters I. C., denote the internal capacity of the cranium.—F.
A., the Facial Angle. The skulls of persons under sixteen or
eighteen years of age are seldom measured, and never admitted into
the computations of this memoir.
Footnote 4:
It will be observed, on comparing this table with the original one
published in the _Proceedings_ of the Society for December, 1842,
(and since republished in Mr. Gliddon’s _Ancient Egypt_,) that there
is a great difference in the relative number of Pelasgic and
Egyptian heads; which fact has been already adverted to, and
explained, (page 4.) I have been governed in the present
classification, by the manifest presence of the Egyptian
physiognomy, even in those instances in which it appears to be
blended with an equal and even preponderating Pelasgic character. It
will be observed, however, that _the whole number of Caucasian
heads_ is nearly the same in both tables; and that the relative
proportion of Semitic, Negro and Negroid crania is unaltered.
Footnote 5:
Lawrence’s Lectures on Zoology, &c., p. 347.
Footnote 6:
Decas Quarta, p. 6.
Footnote 7:
Lawrence, ut supra, eighth edition, p. 325.
Footnote 8:
Description de L’Egypte, Antiq. II., pl. 49, 50.
Footnote 9: