Chapter II: Part 2

_Remarks._—In addition to the preceding details, it remains to offer
some general observations on the size and configuration of the head,
together with a tabular view of the whole series of crania, arranged
in the first place, according to their sepulchral localities, and, in
the second, in reference to their national affinities.

_Ethnographic Table of one hundred ancient Egyptian Crania._[4]

┌────────────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┐
│Sepulchral │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Localities. │ No.│Egyptian.│Pelasgic.│Semitic.│Mixed.│Negroid.│Negro.│Idiot.│
├────────────┼────┼────┬────┼────┬────┼────┬───┴┬────┐
│Memphis, │ 26│ 7│ 16│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ │
│Maabdeh, │ 4│ 1│ 1│ │ │ 2│ │ │
│Abydos, │ 4│ 2│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ │
│Thebes, │ 55│ 30│ 10│ 4│ 4│ 5│ │ 2│
│Ombos, │ 3│ 3│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Philæ, │ 4│ 2│ 1│ │ │ │ 1│ │
│Debod, │ 4│ 4│ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│ │ 100│ 49│ 29│ 6│ 5│ 8│ 1│ 2│
└────────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┘

The preceding table speaks for itself. It shows that more than eight
tenths of the crania pertain to the unmixed Caucasian race; that the
Pelasgic form is as one to one and two-thirds, and the Semitic form
one to eight, compared with the Egyptian: that one twentieth of the
whole is composed of heads in which there exists a trace of Negro and
other exotic lineage:—that the Negroid conformation exists in eight
instances, thus constituting about one thirteenth part of the whole;
and, finally, that the series contains a single unmixed Negro.

To these facts I shall briefly add the results of the observations of
some authors who have preceded me in this inquiry. “I have examined in
Paris, and in the various collections of Europe,” says Cuvier, “more
than fifty heads of mummies, and not one amongst them presented the
characters of the Negro or Hottentot.”[5]

Two of the three mummy heads figured by Blumenbach, (Decad. Cran.,
Figs. 1 and 31,) are unequivocally Egyptian, but the second, as that
accurate observer remarks, has something of the Negro expression.[6]
The third cranium delineated in the same work, (Plate 52,) is also
Caucasian, but less evidently Egyptian, and partakes, in Professor
Blumenbach’s opinion, of the Hindoo form. Of the four mummies
described by Söemmering, “two differed in no respect from the European
formation; the third had the African character of a long space marked
out for the temporal muscle; the characters of the fourth are not
particularized. The skulls of four mummies in the possession of Dr.
Leach, of the British museum, and casts of three others, agree with
those just mentioned in exhibiting a formation not differing from the
European, without any trait of the Negro character.”[7]

The two heads figured in the great French work, are both decidedly
Egyptian, but the second and smaller one is the most strongly
marked.[8]

_Internal Capacity of the Cranium._[9]—As this measurement gives the
size of the brain, I have obtained it in all the crania above sixteen
years of age, unless prevented by fractures or the presence of bitumen
within the skull; and this investigation has confirmed the proverbial
fact of the general smallness of the Egyptian head, at least as
observed in the catacombs south of Memphis. Thus, the Pelasgic crania
from the latter city, give an average internal capacity of eighty-nine
cubic inches; those of the same group from Thebes give eighty-six.
This result is somewhat below the average of the existing Caucasian
nations of the Pelasgic, Germanic, and Celtic families, in which I
find the brain to be about ninety-three cubic inches in bulk. It is
also interesting to observe that the Pelasgic brain is much larger
than the Egyptian, which last gives an average of but eighty cubic
inches; thus, as we shall hereafter see, approximating to that of the
Indo-Arabian nations.

The largest head in the series measures ninety-seven cubic inches;
this occurs three times, and always in the Pelasgic group. The
smallest cranium gives but sixty-eight cubic inches, and this is three
times repeated in the Egyptian heads from Thebes. This last is the
smallest brain I have met with in any nation, with three exceptions,—a
Hindoo, a Peruvian, and a Negro.

The Negroid heads, it will be observed, measure, on an average, eighty
cubic inches, which is below the Negro mean; while the solitary Negro
head (that of a person advanced in years,) measures but seventy-three
cubic inches.[10]

As this, however, is a question of much interest and some novelty, it
may, perhaps, be better illustrated in a tabular form:—

┌────────────┬────────┬────┬───────┬────────┬─
│Ethnographic│ │ No.│Largest│Smallest│ │Mean│
│Division. │Locality.│ of│Brain.│Brain.│Mean│ C.│
│ │ │Crania.│ │ │ │ I.│
├──────────┼────────┼────┬──┴─┬──┴─┬──┴─┬──┴─┐
│ │Memphis.│ 14│ 97│ 79│ 89│ │
│Pelasgic │Abydos. │ 1│ 89│ 89│ 89│ │
│Form. │Thebes. │ 5│ 92│ 82│ 86│ 88│
│ │Philæ. │ 1│ 74│ 74│ 74│ │
├──────────┼────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│ │Memphis.│ 1│ 88│ 88│ 88│ │
│Semitic │ Abydos.│ 1│ 69│ 69│ 69│ 82│
│Form. │Thebes. │ 3│ 85│ 79│ 79│ │
├──────────┼────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│ │Memphis.│ 7│ 83│ 73│ 79│ │
│Egyptian │Abydos. │ 2│ 96│ 85│ 90│ │
│Form. │Thebes. │ 25│ 95│ 68│ 80│ 80│
│ │Ombos. │ 2│ 77│ 68│ 73│ │
│ │Debod. │ 3│ 82│ 70│ 75│ │
├──────────┼────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│Negroid │Maabdeh.│ 1│ 71│ 71│ 71│ │
│Form. │Thebes. │ 5│ 88│ 71│ 71│ 79│
├──────────┼────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│Negro. │Philæ. │ 1│ 73│ 73│ 73│ 73│
└──────────┴────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┘

_Facial Angle._—I have carefully measured the facial angle in all
those _adult_ skulls which are sufficiently denuded for that purpose,
and have obtained the following results:—

┌────────────────────────┬───┬────┬────┬────┐
│ Ethnographic Division. │No.│ │ │ │
│ │Measured.│Largest.│Smallest.│Mean.│
├────────────────────────┼───┬────┬┴───┬────┤
│Pelasgic form, │16 │83° │73° │80° │
│Egyptian form, │20 │83° │76° │78° │
│Semitic form, │ 2 │77° │74° │75° │
│Negroid form, │ 6 │77° │73° │75° │
└────────────────────────┴───┴────┴────┴────┘

It is stated by M. Virey, that the numerous mummies which have been
brought to Europe present the full facial angle of the Caucasian race.

_The Structure of the Cranial Bones_ is as thin and delicate as in the
European, and a ponderous skull is of unfrequent occurrence. I make
this remark with the more satisfaction because it enables me to
contest one of the observations of Herodotus; who tells us, that on
visiting the field of battle whereon the Egyptians had fought with the
Persians, he saw the bones of the latter lying on one side, and those
of their enemies on the other. He then adds, that “the skulls of the
former were so extremely soft as to yield to the slightest impression,
even of a pebble; those of the Egyptians, on the contrary, were so
firm that the blow of a large stone would hardly break them.” The
historian then explains the reason of this difference, by stating that
the Egyptians have thicker skulls, because their heads are frequently
shaved and more exposed to the weather: while the Persians have soft
skulls, owing to the habitual use of caps which protect their heads
from the sun.

These reveries are wholly untenable in a physiological point of view,
and derive not the smallest support from anatomy itself; nor can there
be a question that the confiding historian received his impressions
through the ignorance or imposition of others. I have in my possession
eight skulls of Fellahs, or modern Egyptian peasants, who habitually
shave the head, and wear a thin cap; and yet their skulls, which are
of various ages from early youth to senility, are without exception
thin and delicate.

Some modern authors have also attributed to the mummy skulls a
_density_ which is not characteristic, but which is adventitiously
acquired by the infiltration of bitumen into the diplöic structure
during the process of embalming.

_Hair._—The hair is fortunately preserved on thirty-six heads, in some
instances in profusion, in others scantily, but always in sufficient
quantity to enable us to judge of its texture. Thirty-one of these
examples pertain to the Caucasian series, and in these the hair is as
fine as that of the fairest European nations of the present day. The
embalming process has changed it, with a few exceptions, from a black
to a dark-brown colour. There are also several instances of gray hair,
and two in which it is of a true flaxen colour: it is more than
probable, however, that the latter hue has been produced
artificially,—a practice still in use among the Saumaulies south of
Adel.

The preceding remarks on the texture of the hair accord with those of
other observers, as well as with the monumental evidences of every
epoch. Belzoni obtained plaited hair from the Theban catacombs
eighteen inches in length; and M. Villoteau mentions another instance,
from the same tombs, in which the tresses must have reached to the
waist. Entire wigs of the same character are preserved, as every one
knows, in the British and Berlin museums; and I also possess, through
the kindness of Mr. Gliddon, a portion of a similar relic from Thebes,
which is elaborately wrought into a great number of long and most
delicate tresses.

These facts lead to a few observations on the celebrated passage of
Herodotus, who, when speaking of the Colchians, gives, among other
proofs of their Egyptian lineage, that they “were black, and had short
curling hair.” [Greek: Melanchroes kai oulotriches]. The above
translation, which is that of the learned Beloe, expresses, in respect
to the mode of _wearing_ the hair, precisely what is verified by my
observations; for in nearly all the Caucasian heads on which it has
been allowed to grow, it is remarkable for a profusion of short curls
of extreme fineness,—a character which is preserved in several of the
accompanying delineations.

Herodotus farther tells us that the Egyptians kept their heads shaved;
or perhaps he might have said with more precision, closely cut. But
while the priests conformed to this rule, we are certain, from the
foregoing facts, that there was a diversity of usage among the other
classes, which is also proved by another passage in the same
historian; for he assures us that “you see fewer bald in Egypt than in
any other country.” Now if the Egyptians of all classes kept their
heads shaved, it would be difficult to ascertain, and yet more
difficult to _see_ whether they were subject to natural baldness or
not. Again, if Herodotus had not been accustomed to observe the
Egyptians _wearing_ their hair, how could he have compared them in
this respect to the people of Colchis?

The same author informs us that the inhabitants of Egypt permitted
their hair to grow as a badge of mourning; an observation which is
every where corroborated in monumental funereal scenes. This
observation, however, was probably for a comparatively short period,
and will not account for the frequent occurrence of long hair among
the mummies of all classes. It is mentioned in history that among
other indignities which Cambyses offered to the embalmed body of King
Amasis, was that of tearing the hair from his head.

The monuments afford abundant proof that among the Egyptians, from the
highest to the lowest castes, it was not unusual to wear the hair
long. The marginal drawing represents a rustic, (one of six on the
monument,) who is engaged in a wrestling match. And it is hardly to be
supposed that the profusion of hair with which his head is covered,
can be any other than the natural growth.[11] A man thus occupied
would find a difficulty in keeping a wig on his head.

So also with another from a tomb at Thebes, wherein a carpenter of
pleasing but rather effeminate physiognomy, is engaged in the labours
of his art.[12]

Another example, that subjoined (No. 1,) is derived from a funereal
procession at Thebes,[13] but granting, what is quite possible, that
the woman in this instance, wears only a head-dress, the contrary can
be insisted on in reference to another painting, of a group of five
women engaged in athletic exercises, in the midst of which, one of
them holds and partially sustains the other by her long, straight
hair; showing that the latter could be no other than the natural
growth. (No. 2.) It is also interesting to remark, that this picture
dates back into “the night of time,”—that remote period antecedent to
the eighteenth dynasty, of which this is one of the many remains yet
preserved in the celebrated tomb of Novotpth, at Beni-Hassan.[14]

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
]

Again, among the funereal processions at Thebes are several boat
scenes, from one of which I derive the above drawing, representing an
Egyptian woman in the act of lamentation, while her hair falls in long
and graceful ringlets below her shoulders. (No. 3.)

Another effigy, (No. 4,) that of an Egyptian lady from a painting in
the Theban catacombs,[15] has the hair dressed in the same manner in
which it is worn by the modern Nubian girls, as represented in one of
the beautiful sketches by Mr. Wathen in his work on Egyptian
architecture.

These instances have been selected out of hundreds of a similar
character which every where meet the eye on the Nilotic monuments, and
which present a most satisfactory accordance with the evidence derived
from the catacombs.

Hamilton, in his Ægyptiaca, when describing the paintings at
Elytheias, says that “the labourers are dressed in a kind of
skull-cap, and have very little if any hair on their heads; while that
of the others who superintend them spreads out at the sides, as with
the Nubians and Berabera above the cataracts,”—and yet among these
very labourers the hair of some is represented so long, that it
projects beneath the cap and falls upon the shoulders.[16] If I may
judge from the heads that have come under my notice, I should infer
that the women, as a general rule at least, allowed their hair to
grow; but that the practice was much less frequent among the men.

In the heads of every Caucasian type in the series now before us, the
hair is perfectly distinct from the woolly texture of the Negro, the
frizzled curls of the Mulatto, or the lank, straight locks of the
Mongolian.

Of the eight Negroid heads, four are more or less furnished with hair,
one is closely shaved, and two are entirely denuded. In those which
retain the hair, it is comparatively coarse, and in one instance
somewhat wiry. The hair of the solitary Negro head possesses the
characteristic texture.

I find a short beard (perhaps half an inch in length,) on three Theban
heads of the Caucasian part of the series. (Plate IV., Fig. 1, Plate
VIII., Fig. 1, and Plate X., Fig. 5.) The Egyptians habitually shaved
the beard; but on their statues and paintings we frequently see a
_beard-case_ which, as Rosellini remarks, appears to be merely
emblematical of the male sex and of manhood.

_The Teeth._—Professor Blumenbach, in his Decades Craniorum, long ago
pointed out what he considered a peculiarity in the conformation of
the teeth in some Egyptian mummies; namely, that the crowns of the
incisors are very large, thick, and cylindrical, or obtusely conical,
in place of having the characteristic chisel-like form.[17] I have
given especial attention to this supposed peculiarity; but although
the incisors remain more or less perfect in forty-five crania,
embracing upwards of two hundred teeth of this class, I have not been
able to confirm the preceding observation. On the contrary, there does
not appear to be the smallest deviation from the ordinary form or
structure; and I feel confident, that the learned and accurate
Blumenbach was deceived by the worn condition of the crowns of the
teeth, obviously resulting from the habitual mastication of hard
substances. Mr. Lawrence expresses the same opinion, from personal
observation; Dr. Prichard inclines to a similar view of the case, and
remarks, that “the most satisfactory method of obtaining information
is by inspecting the mummies of children.” Here, again, I have been so
fortunate as to examine the crania of three children from one year old
to five years, and five others between the ages of five and ten years.
The result is entirely confirmatory of the opinion I have already
advanced, and also coincides with the observations of Mr. Estlin.[18]

What the masticated substances were, has not been ascertained; but the
teeth of some Hindoos, even in early life, are as much worn away as
those of the Egyptians. The latter, as a general rule, are remarkably
free from decay, and in a number of instances the whole set remains
unbroken. There are various examples in which the teeth appear to have
been extracted; thus reminding us of the statement of Herodotus, that
there was a class of physicians whose attention, like that of our
modern dentists, was bestowed exclusively upon these organs.

_The Nose._—A review of the preceding Anatomical details, and a glance
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!

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.

Fig. 1. Fig. 2.
]

I observe that the priests almost invariably present this physiognomy,
and in accordance with the usage of their caste, have the head closely
shaven. When coloured they are red, like the other Egyptians. The
subjoined drawing, (No. 1,) which is somewhat harsh in outline, is
from the portico of one of the pyramids of Meroë,[29] and is probably
one of the oldest human effigies in Nubia. They abound in all the
temples of that country, and especially at Semneh, Dakkeh, Soleb,
Gebel-Berkel, and Messoura.[30]

From the numberless examples of similar conformation, I select another
of a priest from the bas-relief at Thebes, which is remarkable for
delicacy of outline and pleasing serenity of expression.[31] (No. 2.)

So invariably are these characters allotted to the sacerdotal caste,
that we readily detect them in the two priests who, by some
unexplained contingency, become kings in the twentieth dynasty. Their
names read Amensi-Hrai-Pehor and Phisham on the monuments; and the
accompanying outline is a fac-simile of Rosellini’s portrait of the
latter personage, who lived about eleven hundred years before the
Christian era.[32] In this head the Egyptian and Pelasgic characters
appear to be blended, but the former preponderate. (No. 3.)

The last outline, (No. 4,) represents a modification of the same type,
that of the _Harper_ in Bruce’s tomb at Thebes. The beautiful form of
the head and the intellectual character of the face, may be compared
with similar efforts of Grecian art. It dates with Rameses the IV.[33]

1. 2.
3. 4.
]

As I believe this to be a most important ethnographic indication, and
one which points to the vast body of the Egyptian people, I subjoin
four additional heads of priests from a tomb at Thebes, of the
eighteenth dynasty. We are forcibly impressed with the delicate
features and oblique eye of the left hand personage, and with the
ruder but characteristic outline of the other figures, in which the
prominent face, though strongly drawn, is essentially Egyptian.[34]

The annexed outlines, which present more pleasing examples of the same
ethnographic character, are copied from the tomb of Titi, at Thebes,
and date with the remote era of Thotmes IV.[35] They represent five
_fowlers_ in the act of drawing their net over a flock of birds. The
long, flowing hair is in keeping with the facial traits, which latter
are also well characterized in the subjoined drawings, derived from
monuments of different epochs and localities.

1. 2.
3. 4.
]

Fig. 1, is the head of a _weaver_, from the paintings in the very
ancient tomb of Roti and Menoph at Beni-Hassan, wherein the same cast
of countenance is reiterated without number.[36]

Fig. 2, a _wine-presser_, is also from Beni-Hassan, and dates with
Osortasen, more than 2000 years before the Christian era.[37]

Fig. 3, is a _cook_, who in the tomb of Rameses the Fourth, at Thebes,
is represented with many others in the active duties of his
vocation.[38]

Fig. 4. I have selected this head as an exaggerated or caricatured
illustration of the same type of physiognomy. It is one of the
_goat-herds_ painted in the tomb of Roti, at Beni-Hassan.[39]

The most recent of these last four venerable monuments of art, dates
at least 1450 years before our era: the oldest belongs to unchronicled
times; and the same physical characters are common on the Nubian and
Egyptian monuments down to the Ptolemaic and Roman epochs.

The peculiar head-dress of the Egyptians often greatly modifies and in
some degree conceals their characteristic features; and may at first
sight lead to the impression that the priests possessed a physiognomy
of a distinct or peculiar kind. Such, however, was not the case, as a
little observation will prove. Take, for example, the three following
drawings from a Theban tomb, in which two mourners have head-dresses
and two priests are without them. Are not the national characteristics
unequivocally manifest in them all?[40]

In addition to the copious remarks already made in reference to the
hair, we cannot omit the annexed picture from a tomb in Thebes, which
represents an Egyptian woman in the act of lamentation before the
embalmed body of a relative, while the long, black hair reaches even
below the waist.[41]

It is thus that we trace this peculiar style of countenance in its
several modifications through epochs and in localities the most remote
from each other, and in every class of the Egyptian people. How
different from the Pelasgic type, yet how obviously Caucasian! How
varied in outline, yet how readily identified! And if we compare these
features with those of the Egyptian series of embalmed heads, are we
not forcibly impressed with a striking analogy not only in
osteological conformation, but also in the very expression of the
face? Compare, for example, the head on page 17 . Observe, also, the
six skulls figured, Plate VII., Plate XII., Fig. 4; Plate X., Fig. 4;
Plate VIII., Fig. 9, and the numerous accompanying illustrations, and
no one, I conceive, will question the analogy I have pointed out. This
type is certainly _national_, and presents to our view the _genuine
Egyptian physiognomy_, which, in the Ethnographic scale, is
intermediate between the Pelasgic and Semitic forms. We may add, that
this conformation is the same which Prof. Blumenbach refers to the
_Hindoo_ variety in his triple classification of the Egyptian
people.[42] And this leads us briefly to inquire, who were the
Egyptians?

It is in the sacred writings only that we find any authentic records
of the primeval migrations of our species. “In the general allotment
of territories to the offspring of Noah,” observes Mr. Gliddon,
“Egypt, by the concurrent testimony of all Biblical commentators, was
assigned to Mizraim, the son of Ham, as a domain and for an
inheritance;” whence Egypt has, from the remotest times, been called
by the names of Mizraim and Ham, or _Khemé_. Mr. Gliddon adds, that
“although the name of Mizraim has not yet been found in hieroglyphic
legends, there is abundant scriptural evidence to prove that the
country was called Mizraim and Mitzar by the Jews; while at the
present day throughout the east, Egypt and Cairo are universally known
by the cognate appellation of _Muss’r_.”[43]

Entering Africa by the Isthmus of Suez,[44] the children of Ham were
ushered into the fertile valley of the Nile, a region prepared by
nature for settled communities and a primeval civilization. In a
country bounded by the Red Sea on the one side, and by a wilderness on
the other, and presenting but a narrow strip of land for its
inhabitants, laws would at once become necessary for mutual
protection; and we may suppose that while one portion of the
Mizraimites embraced these social restrictions, another, impatient of
control, passed beyond the desert barrier on the west, and spreading
themselves over the north of Africa, became those nomadic tribes to
which the earliest annals give the name of LIBYANS.[45] It follows
from this view of the question, that we suppose the Egyptians and
Libyans to have been cognate people; that the former were the
aboriginal[46] inhabitants of the valley of the Nile; and that their
institutions, however modified by intrusive nations in after times,
were the offspring of their own minds.

It will, however, be very naturally objected that among the Egyptians
no gradations are apparent between barbarism and refinement, “It is a
remarkable fact,” says Sir G. Wilkinson, “that the first glimpse we
obtain of the history and manners of the Egyptians, shows a nation
already advanced in the arts of civilized life; and the same customs
and inventions that prevailed in the Augustan era of that people,
after the accession of the eighteenth dynasty, are found in the remote
age of Osortasen, the contemporary of Joseph.” How then could a branch
of the Libyan race, a people so comparatively obscure, have become the
mighty Egyptian nation? How could families of mankind so widely
different in their intellectual manifestations, have been derived from
a cognate stock? To which we reply, that the Egyptians and Libyans
were not in this respect more widely separated than were the Saracens
under the Caliphs, and the wandering Bedouins; yet, both these were
branches of the Arabian race. Egypt may perhaps be regarded as the
intellectual centre of the posterity of Ham.

The evidences of these opinions, it must be confessed, are as yet few
in number. That the Libyan or Berber speech was once the language of
all northern Africa has long been maintained by Ritter, Heeren and
Shaler, and by Mr. Hodgson in his very interesting Letters from
Algiers, during the period in which he held the United States
consulate in that regency.[47] Prof. Ritter (whose work I have not
seen) asserts that the Amazirgh, or Berber language, as detected by
certain prefixes and affixes peculiar to it and the Coptic tongue, is
to be found across the whole breadth of the continent, from the Red
Sea to the Canary Isles; and he supposes, too, that the Hazorta
tribes, like the old Bejas and modern Bishareens, were originally of
the same parent stock. To these evidences we may add those of Prof
Vater, who traced some affinity between the Berber and the Coptic and
Amharic, but not sufficient to lead to satisfactory results.

I have before me an obliging communication from Mr. Hodgson, in which
he informs me, that he also discovered what he believed to be
incontrovertible evidence of the Berber origin of the Bishareen
language, before he had read the work of Prof. Ritter; and in an essay
just published on the Foulahs of central Africa, he reiterates the
opinion early expressed by him, that the Berber or Libyan tongue was
spoken in the valley of the Nile, prior to the existence of the Coptic
or monumental language; a theory which, he further remarks, is in
accordance with the nature of things and the probable course of
events.

“Whilst the positive records of modern history,” observes Mr. Hodgson,
“show that the Coptic tongue has been obliterated from the map of
Egypt within the short period which has elapsed since the Saracenic
invasion, need we wonder that so few traces remain of the language of
that country in primeval and unrecorded times? These vestiges,
however, have been detected by me, and, I think, with a strong degree
of probability, in the mythologic and geographical names transmitted
to us from the earliest periods of Egyptian history. The meaning of
Ammon, Thebes, Themis, and Nile, and of Heliopolis (Tadij) and
Apollinopolis (Etfu) have been explained from the modern Berber
language; and the very name of _Hykshos_, who were called shepherds,
means also shepherds in Berber.[48]

“These etymologies serve, at least, as tokens of the existence of the
Libyans in the valley of the Nile, at a period anterior to that of the
monumental Egyptians. I have, also, found grammatical affinities
between the Coptic and the Berber, which suggest that the monosyllabic
elements of the former have been imposed upon the Berber syntax, and,
therefore, that the Coptic is posterior in nationality to the Berber.”

Leaving this important and difficult philological inquiry to the abler
hands of Mr. Hodgson, (for it involves some points on which I am not
qualified to judge, and therefore offer no opinion,) we may merely
remark, that the Berber theory is farther countenanced by various
mythological considerations, among the most remarkable of which is the
supposed Libyan origin of several Egyptian divinities.

Particular communities of the Libyans are familiar in history by the
names of Mauritanians, Numidians and Getuli. Respecting the physical
characteristics of these people, history is nearly silent; yet there
is sufficient evidence to prove, that they possessed those features
which are now called Caucasian, independently of any modifications
that may have resulted from their long intercourse with Phenician
colonies, and the Romans, Arabs and Vandals in later periods of time.
The Libyans were a nomadic and warlike people; they were habitually
employed in the Carthagenian armies, and in the earlier ages contended
with the Egyptians themselves; for we learn from a passage in Manetho,
(CORY, Frag. p. 100,) that in the remote age of Necherophes, of the
third dynasty, the Libyans revolted from the Egyptians, but were soon
again subdued. The monuments record similar triumphs in the reigns of
Osortasen 1st., Thotmes 1st., Rameses the 3d, and indeed in almost
every dynasty down to the Ptolemaic epoch, when Libya continued to be
an Egyptian province. In fact, the Libyans hung upon the skirts of
Egypt as the Goths did upon Rome; and until the researches of the
hierologists identified the Hykshos or shepherd kings with an Asiatic
people, there was strong presumptive evidence that these ruthless
invaders were, at least in part, no other than the Libyans
themselves.[49]