Chapter IV: Part 4

We have the most unequivocal evidence, historical and monumental, that
slavery was among the earliest of the social institutions of Egypt,
and that it was imposed on all conquered nations, white as well as
black.[108] So numerous was this unfortunate class of persons, that it
was the boast of the Egyptian kings, recorded by Diodorus, that the
vast structures of Luxor and Karnak were erected by the labour of
foreigners alone. Of Negro slavery, in particular, the paintings and
sculptures give abundant illustration. “Black people,” says Sir G.
Wilkinson, “designated as natives of the _foreign land_ of Cush, are
generally represented on the Egyptian monuments as captives or bearers
of tribute to the Pharaohs;” and the attendant circumstances of this
inhuman traffic appear to have been much the same in ancient as in
modern times. It is curious, also, in a numerical point of view, to
observe that Arrian, who wrote in the second century, gives three
thousand as the number of Negroes annually brought down the Nile in
his time; while Madden, writing in our own day, and consequently
sixteen hundred years later than Arrian, estimates the present number
in nearly the same words. If it be allowable to make these data the
basis of calculation for the past thirty-five centuries, it will
follow that upwards of ten millions of Negroes have been brought as
bondsmen into Egypt during that period. This I regard a reasonable
calculation; for in the present wasted and depopulated condition of
the country, the demand for servants and slaves must be far below what
it was in the flourishing epoch of the Pharaohs.[109]

This vast influx of Negroes into the valley of the Nile must
necessarily have left its impression on the physical traits of the
Egyptians themselves; in modern times, as seen in the Copts, and in
more distant periods, as proved by the Negroid heads, in which both
the configuration and expression are too obvious to be mistaken. But
it may be inquired, how does it happen that Negroes or their
descendants should be found in the catacombs, if they constituted a
menial or slave-caste in Egypt? In reply, it may be observed that
persons of this race have been capable, in all ages, of elevating
themselves to posts of distinction in the east, and especially and
proverbially those who have belonged to the class of eunuchs.[110] It
is also important to observe, that so tenacious were the Egyptians of
the rights of their offspring, that they admitted them to equal
privileges with themselves, _even when the mother was a slave_; and
these usages extended to inheritance.[111]

The preceding facts, without multiplying more on the same subject,
amply account for that interminable amalgamation of the Caucasian and
Negro races which has been going on in Egypt from the remotest times;
while they also explain that incidental social elevation of the Negro
caste, to which the monuments and catacombs alike bear witness.

This blending of races is farther illustrated in the present
population of Nubia. The traveller Burckhardt remarks, that the slaves
sent down the Nile, and those transported to Arabia, bear but a small
proportion to the number kept by the Mahommedans of the more southern
countries of Africa. At Shendy, for example, from one to six are seen
in every family; and the custom prevails as far as Senaar, and
westward to Kordofan, Darfour and Bornou. All the Bedouin tribes who
inhabit or surround these countries are well stocked with slaves, nor
does the number diminish in the very remote provinces of Houssa and
Begarmeh; and we are told by the same intelligent observer, that the
result of this promiscuous intercourse is a mixed progeny, which
blends the characteristics of the Arab with those of the Negro.[112]

Negroes are abundantly represented on the pictorial delineations of
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.

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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]

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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. I.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE PYRAMID OF FIVE STEPS
AT SACCARA.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. II.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. III.

_J. T. French del._

FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. IV.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE GROTTOES NEAR MAABDEH.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. V.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM A TOMB AT ABYDOS.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. VI.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. VII.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. VIII.
_J. T. French del._

FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. IX.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. X.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. XI.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl. XIII.
_M. S. Weaver del._

FROM A TOMB AT DEBOD IN NUBIA.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

In my Crania Americana, p. 283, I have described an ingenious method
of measuring the internal capacity of the cranium, devised by my
friend Mr. John S. Phillips. The material used for filling the
skull, as there directed, was white pepper seed, which was chosen on
account of its spheroidal form, and general uniformity of size.
Finding, however, that considerable variation occurred in successive
measurements of the skull, I substituted leaden shot one tenth of an
inch in diameter, in place of the seeds. The skull must be
_completely filled_ by shaking it while the shot is poured in at the
foramen magnum, into which the finger must be frequently pressed for
the same purpose, until the various sinuosities will receive no
more. When this is accomplished, the shot on being transferred to
the tube, will give the _absolute_ capacity of the cranium, or _size
of the brain_, in cubic inches.

Footnote 10:

I have in my possession seventy-nine crania of Negroes born in
Africa, for which I am indebted to Doctors Goheen and M’Dowell,
lately attached to the medical department of the Colony at Liberia,
in western Africa; and especially to Don Jose Rodriguez Cisneros, M.
D., of Havana, in the island of Cuba. Of the whole number,
fifty-eight are adult, or sixteen years of age, and upwards, and
give eighty-five cubic inches for the average size of the brain. The
largest head measures ninety-nine cubic inches; the smallest but
sixty-five. The latter, which is that of a middle-aged woman, is the
smallest adult head that has hitherto come under my notice.

Footnote 11:

Rosellini, M. R. Plate 102, Fig. 47.

Footnote 12:

Idem, M. C. Plate 43, Fig. 45.

Footnote 13:

Rosellini, M. C., Plate 128, Fig. 2.

Footnote 14:

Idem, Plate 101, Fig. 2.

Footnote 15:

Rosellini, M. C. Plate 127.

Footnote 16:

Description de L’Egypte, Antiq. T. I. pl. 68, fig. 114.—HAMILTON,
Ægyptiaca, p. 55.

Footnote 17:

“Dentes vegrandes, et incisorum quoque coronæ crassé cylindricæ
magis aut obtusé conicæ, quam scalpriformes.” _Decas prima_, p. 12.
See also Trans. Royal Soc. of London, 1794.

Footnote 18:

_Prichard_, Researches, Vol. II., p. 250.

Footnote 19:

Ptolemæi Geog. Lib. I., cap. ix., as quoted in Edinburgh Review,
Vol. LX. p. 312.

Footnote 20:

Did any one ever read the EUTERPE for the first time without some
misgivings of this kind? I ask this question with a profound respect
for the venerable historian and traveller.

Footnote 21:

It is a curious fact observed by Rosellini and others, that the
Greeks painted some of their divinities red, as Jupiter and Pan; and
even Venus herself appears to have been sometimes represented of the
same colour. _Monumenti Civili_, II., p. 169.

Footnote 22:

“By saying that the Egyptians, _for the most part_, are of a
brownish or somewhat brown colour, and of a tanned and blackened
hue, the writer shows that this was not the case equally, at least,
with all of them; and the expression _subfusculi_ and _atrati_ are
very different from _nigri_ or _atri_.”—PRICHARD, Researches, II.,
p. 232.

“Tra le specie d’uomini non affatto neri di pelle, e di fattezze
diversi da quelli che noi siam soliti chiamare Africani, furono gli
antichi Egizi: e quando Erodoto afferma che i Colchi erano una
colonia d’Egitto, perché dessi pure avevano nero colore, non vuolsi
già intende rigorosamente di quel colore, che proprio è dei Neri; ma
tale ci lo chiama per rispetto al colore dei Bianchi e dei Greci
stessi; e perché veramente l’incarnato degli Egiziani al nero in
qualche modo si avvicinava. Noi lo diremmo con più giustezza color
fosco; e questo epiteto diedero anche i Latini agli abitanti
dell’Egitto, come si legge in Properzio: “An tibi non satis est
_fuscis_ Egyptus alumnis?””—ROSELLINI, Mon. Civ., II., p. 167.

Footnote 23:

Lectures on the connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, p.
102, 2d edit.

These remarks will also serve to explain why Aristotle has placed
the Egyptians and Negroes in the same national category; which is
not more surprising than his referring the Thracians to the
Mongolian race, and attributing to them a _red_ complexion.

Footnote 24:

The _longitudinal diameter_ is measured from the most prominent part
of the os frontis, between the superciliary ridges, to the extreme
end of the occiput.

The _parietal diameter_ is measured between the most distant points
of the parietal bones, which are, for the most part, the
protuberances of these bones.

Footnote 25:

I have been engaged for several years past in obtaining and
arranging a series of measurements of the nature here indicated,
under the title of Craniometrical Tables; but it will be readily
conceived that the difficulty of procuring the requisite materials,
renders the progress of such an undertaking extremely slow and
uncertain.

Footnote 26:

I have reason to believe that this cranium, which I obtained
separate from the rest of the mummy, belonged to another Egyptian
skeleton subsequently procured from the same source.

Footnote 27:

Champollion, Monumens de l’Egypte, Tom. II., plate 160, fig. 3.

Footnote 28:

Rosellini, M. C., plate CXXXIII., fig. 3.

Footnote 29:

Hoskins’ Travels in Ethiopia, plate XI.

Footnote 30:

Cailliaud, plate XVI. to XX. For the use of the only copy of this
work now in the United States, I am indebted to the politeness of
Colonel Pleasanton, of this city.

Footnote 31:

Rosellini, Monumenti, M. C., plate CXXXIII.

Footnote 32:

Champollion-Figeac, Egypte Ancienne, p. 356.

Footnote 33:

Rosellini, M. C., plate XCVII., and Wilkinson’s Topography of
Thebes, p. 109.

Footnote 34:

Rosellini, M. C. Plate 126.

Footnote 35:

Idem. Vol. 1, Plate 4.

Footnote 36:

Idem. M. C. Plate 41.

Footnote 37:

Idem. M. C. Plate 37.

Footnote 38:

Idem. M. C. Plate 86.

Footnote 39:

Idem. M. C. Plate 29.

Footnote 40:

Rosellini, M. C. Plate 132, Fig. 1.

Footnote 41:

Idem. Plate 127, Fig. 1.

Footnote 42:

Trans. Royal Society of London, 1794, passim, and Plate 16, Fig. 2,
of that work.

Footnote 43:

Ancient Egypt, p, 46, 47.

Footnote 44:

The learned Dr. Beke reverses the route, and supposes that the
“Cushite descendants of Ham” first settled on the western side of
the Arabian Peninsula, crossed thence into Ethiopia, and descending
the Nile, became the Egyptians of after times.—Origines Biblicæ, 1,
p. 162.

Footnote 45:

I use the terms Libyan and Ethiopian as they are handed down to us
from antiquity. “Speaking with all the precision I am able,” says
Herodotus, “the country I have been describing is inhabited by four
nations only; of these _two are natives_ and two are strangers. The
natives are the _Libyans_ ([Greek: Dibyes]) and the Ethiopians,
([Greek: Aithiopes]); one of which possesses the northern, the other
the southern parts of Africa. The strangers are the Phoenicians and
the Greeks.”—Melpomene, 197. In the days of Herodotus nomad Libyans
still inhabited the vicinity of Avaris.

Footnote 46:

I use the word _aboriginal_ in this place with some reservation. It
has been supposed by learned authorities that Africa was peopled by
Negroes before the Hamitic tribes entered that country. I do not
suppose Ham to have been the progenitor of the Negro race; and, with
Dr. Wiseman, Mr. Lawrence and many others, I regard as a
“conjecture” in Science, that doctrine which would attribute the
physical gradations between the white man and the Negro to any other
natural process than that of direct amalgamation.—Lawrence, Lectures
on Zoology, 8th edit. p. 264. Wiseman, Lectures, 2d edit. p. 158.
Beke, Origines Biblicæ, Tom. I., p. 162.

Footnote 47:

These Letters, which are addressed to Peter S. Duponceau, Esq., are
contained in the fourth volume of the Transactions of this Society;
and to this source the reader is referred for a mass of interesting
details which is necessarily excluded in this place. The valuable
communications of Mr. Shaler, also addressed to Mr. Duponceau, are
published in the second volume of the same work.

Footnote 48:

“The phrase _a shepherd fed his flock_, is thus rendered in that
language:—_amiksa iksa thikhsi_. These words, moreover, constitute a
beautiful illustration of the genius of the language. In _amiksa_ we
have the formative particle _am_; and in _thikhsi_ there is the
feminine prefix _th_, a peculiarity alike of the Berber and the
Coptic. The prefixes and suffixes _t_, _th_, are Berber indications
throughout the whole extent of north Africa.” Vide also Hornemann,
Voyage, Vocab. p. 431.

Footnote 49:

In Jeremiah Cush and _Phut_ are names of African nations; while in
hieroglyphics Libya is called _Nephaiat_, the “country of the nine
bows.” The root of Nephaiat being _Phut_ (in Coptic a bow) connects
the Libyans with _Phut_, the son of Ham, (Gen. x. 6,) and confirms
the affiliation of the Libyans and Egyptians. See Gliddon, Anc.
Egypt, p. 25, 27, 41.

Footnote 50:

Sketches of Algiers, p. 91. Capt. Lyon’s observations are to the
same purpose. _Trav._ p. 109.—Denham and Clapperton, p. 73.

Footnote 51:

Denham and Clapperton, Introd. p. 67. To give some idea of the
number of the Tuaricks, these gentlemen mention that no less than
two thousand were executed at Sackatoo, in Houssa, on a single
occasion, for a predatory irruption into the territories of the
Negro sultan of that country.—_Journey from Kano to Sackatoo_, p.
107.

Footnote 52:

Ibid. p. 941, 213, 237, 263, 315.

Footnote 53:

Denham and Clapperton, p. 50. See also Hornemann, Voy. en Afrique,
p. 147.—All the Tibboo tribes appear to be Negroes modified by
intermixture with the Arabs and Berbers who surround them.

Footnote 54:

For the funereal rites of the Guanches as compared with those of the
Egyptians, see Bertholet, “Mémoires sur les Guanches,” in Mémoires
de la Société Ethnologique de Paris, Tome I.—See also Blumenbach,
Decad. Cran. Tab. XLII.

Footnote 55:

I use the word _Meroë_ in a comprehensive sense for all the ancient
civilized region south of Egypt.

Footnote 56:

Travels in Ethiopia, p. 329. Wilkinson, M. and C. Vol. I., Plate
LXII.

Footnote 57:

Idem. Plate X.

Footnote 58:

Travels in Ethiopia, Plate XIV. See also Cailliaud, Voy. à Meroë,
and Hoskins, Plate XXIX.

Footnote 59:

See Gliddon, Ancient Egypt, _passim_.

Footnote 60:

Modern Egyptians, Vol. II., p. 32.

Footnote 61:

Jomard, apud Mengin, Hist, de l’Egypte, p. 408. To this valuable
memoir the reader is referred for various additional analogies which
are unavoidably omitted on the present occasion.

Footnote 62:

“Le front haut et large, découvert et un pen fuyant.”—Jomard.

Footnote 63:

In addition to the few remarks already made in reference to my use
of this term, I may observe that the Pelasgi were generally regarded
as the aboriginal inhabitants of Thessaly; but their warlike and
roving propensities led them to extend their migrations in various
directions, until we find it difficult, if not impossible, to
distinguish between them and the affiliated tribes of Dacians,
Macedonians and Thracians. At one period they ranged nearly the
whole country from Illyria to the Black Sea, and gave the name of
Pelasgia to all Greece; and, as every one knows, the Greeks or
Hellenes were their lineal descendants. See Prichard, Researches,
Vol. III., and Mrs. Gray’s History of Etruria, Vol. I., p. 86.

Footnote 64:

Cory, Frag. p. 114.

Footnote 65:

For the proofs that these effigies are really portraits of the
persons represented, the reader is referred to Rosellini’s chapter
entitled, “Iconografia dei Faraouni e dei re Greci de ’Egitto,” in
his _Monumenti_, M. S., Vol. II., p. 461. Portraits of the same king
sometimes differ very considerably from each other, I grant, but the
instances are few in comparison, and may have been intended to
designate different periods of life; nor are these differences
greater than we are accustomed to see in the physiognomy of modern
kings, as represented on their respective coins and medals. But even
if it could be demonstrated that the Nilotic paintings are not
portraits, it would not diminish their ethnographic value, for they
at least delineate the characteristic physiognomy of the Egyptians.
See also, Champollion, “Lettres écrites de l’Egypte et de la Nubie.”

Footnote 66:

Champollion, Monuments, Tom. I., Plate I. The annexed figure is
greatly enlarged from Champollion’s drawing. See also Rosellini, M.
R., Plate XXV., in which the _eye_ is wanting.

Footnote 67:

Champollion-Figéac, Egypte, p. 293.

Footnote 68:

Rosellini, M. C., Plate 33.

Footnote 69:

Antiquités, Tom. I., Plate 68.

Footnote 70:

Rosellini, M. C., Plate 13.

Footnote 71:

Idem. M. R., Plate 96.

Footnote 72:

Rosellini, M. R., Plate 158.

Footnote 73:

The Semitic race extended from the Mediterranean sea on the west to
the confines of Persia on the East, and doubtless possessed great
variety of feature and complexion. They derive their collective name
from Shem, “from whom, in the table of nations in the book of
Genesis, entitled Toldoth Beni Noah, many of them are declared to
have descended.” Prichard, Researches, II., p. 208, 2d ed. The
principal of these nations, adds Dr. Prichard, were those of Elam,
to the north-west of the Persian Gulf; the Assyrians; the Chasdim,
or Chaldeans, who are the ancestors of the Hebrews and Arabs; the
Lydians; and the Syrians, or people of Aram. They are also called,
collectively, Syro-Arabian nations.

The Jews were immensely numerous in Egypt during the Ptolemaic and
Roman epochs. _Vide_ Josephus, Book XII., chap. ii—Sharpe, Egypt
under the Romans, p. 13.

Footnote 74:

Letter to the Chev. Bunsen. See Wiseman’s Lectures on Science and
Revealed Religion, 2d edit., p. 62; and a note at the end of that
most learned and instructive work, “on the conformity between the
Semitic and the Indo-European grammatical forms.”

Footnote 75:

“Toutes leurs formes sout anguleuses,” says Denon; “leur barbe
courte et à mèches pointues.” Voyage en Egypte, I., p. 92.

Footnote 76:

Bedouins and Wahabys, p. 28.—Clot Bey, Aperçu generale de l’Egypte,
I., p. 161.

Footnote 77:

Edinburgh Review, Vol. LX., p. 297.

Footnote 78:

_Apud_ Mengin, Hist. de l’Egypte, III., p. 406.

Footnote 79:

I have stated, in my “Crania Americana,” that the Hindoos appear to
have the smallest heads of any existing people; and that in the Inca
Peruvians the brain was but a fraction larger. Later observations,
however, have led me to believe that the _Nigritos_, or aboriginal
Negro race of the Indian archipelago, present a nearly parallel
example.

Footnote 80:

Rosellini, M. S. H. II, p. 174, 238.

Footnote 81:

Prichard, Egyptian Mythology, p. 35.

Footnote 82:

Crania Americana, p. 37.

Footnote 83:

Bibliotheca, B. I., C. 2. “Khem, of whom Osiris is a form, is the
great deity corresponding to the Indian Siva; Phthah, of whom Horus
is another form, is the Indian Brahma; and Kneph is the counterpart
of Vishnu.” Cory, in Harapollo, Pref., p. x.

Footnote 84:

Trans. Roy. Soc. of Literature, I., p. 173. (London.)

Footnote 85:

Prichard, Researches, Vol. II., p. 218.

Footnote 86:

Ancient African Nations.—That the Indo-European race (of which the
Hindoos are a branch,) has been among the most enterprising and
widely distributed nations of the earth, is incontestably proved by
the prevalence of the Sanscrit tongue as an element of many
languages from Hindostan westward to the shores of Iceland, and
eastward to the Polynesian Isles.—Malte Brun, Geography, Vol. I., p.
660.

Footnote 87:

It is curious to observe that although the Hindoos in our day have
little intercourse with Nubia and the adjacent provinces, the
circumstance is owing to a want of those incentives to commerce
which existed in antiquity; but Burckhardt describes the remains of
Indian traffic as now seen in Mecca and Djidda, in Arabia, where the
Hindoos yet sell the manufactures and other productions of their own
country.—Travels in Arabia, p. 14, 119.

Footnote 88:

The opinions of Sir G. Wilkinson are eminently entitled to respect
on all Egyptian questions; and I need not apologize for quoting his
opinions (however they may differ from those just given,) as briefly
expressed in the following passage. “In manners, language, and many
other respects, Egypt was certainly more Asiatic than African; and
though there is no appearance of the Hindoo and Egyptian religions
having been borrowed from one another, which many might be induced
to conclude from their great analogy in some points, yet it is not
improbable that these two nations may have proceeded from the same
stock, and have migrated southward from their parent country in
central Asia.”—Ancient Egypt, Vol. I., p. 3.

Footnote 89:

St. Augustine states that the Punic or Phenician tongue was in _his_
day (the fifth century) a living language, and very like the Hebrew;
and that the _Canaanitish_ language was _mediate_ between the
Egyptian and the Hebrew. Mrs. H. Gray. Hist, of Etruria, p. 124.

Footnote 90:

Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol. I., p. 140.

Footnote 91:

Appeal to the Antiquarians of Europe on the destruction of the
monuments of Egypt. By George R. Gliddon. p. 27. The portrait of
Atenre-Backhan, another of these Hykshos kings, will be found in
Wilkinson, second series, Plate XXX.

Footnote 92:

Prichard, Researches, Vol. III., p. 441.

Footnote 93:

Champollion, Monumens, Tom. I., Plate XXXVI.

Footnote 94:

Mrs. H. Gray, History of Etruria, Vol. I., p. 31, 39.

Footnote 95:

Voyage en Egypte, I., p. 206.

Footnote 96:

Trav. in Egypt, II., p. 168. See also Volney, Voyage, I., p. 70.

Footnote 97:

Trav. in Africa, p. 77.

Footnote 98:

Modern Egyptians, II., p. 310.

Footnote 99:

Monumenti, M. C. II., p. 77.

Footnote 100:

Prichard, Researches, II., p. 238.

Footnote 101:

Trav. in Nubia, p. 217.

Footnote 102:

For ample details of this interesting question, see D’Avezac,
Esquisse générale de l’Afrique, p. 55; and Hodgson on the Foulahs of
Central Africa, p. 5, _et passim_.

Footnote 103:

Trav. in Nubia, p. 353.

Footnote 104:

Prichard, Researches &c. vol. II. p. 174.

Footnote 105:

Voyage à Meroë, II., p. 276.

Footnote 106:

Edinburgh Review, Vol. LX., p. 311.

Footnote 107:

Idem., p. 307. The antiquity of the name Nubia, is of some
importance in this discussion. Heeren and others state that it first
occurs in history during the epoch of the Ptolemies; but Rosellini
has now discovered that it is at least as old as the age of
Menepthah I., (B.C. 1600,) on whose monuments it is found.

Since the above note was written, Mr. Gliddon has obligingly
furnished me with the following interesting memorandum: “The name
Nubia, with its derivatives of Nouba and Noubatæ, may be readily
traced to _Noubnoub_, a Nubian divinity in the hieroglyphical
legends of Menepthah I. and Rameses II. and III., and may possibly
be derived from the root _noub_, gold, from the proximity of Nubia
to the Ethiopian gold countries. The word _Berber_, as applied to
the people of Nubia, (now called Berabera in the plural, from
Berberri, the singular,) is without question derived from the
hieroglyphical name _Barobaro_, by which at least one tribe
inhabiting Nubia was known to the Egyptians of the 18th dynasty.”

Footnote 108:

Clot Bey states the present black population of Egypt to be twenty
thousand; and he adds that Negresses form the greater number of
women in almost every harem. Aperçu Générale de l’Egypte, I., p.
329.

Footnote 109:

Sir G. Wilkinson observes that “no difficulty occurred to the
Ishmaelites in the purchase of Joseph from his brethren, nor on his
subsequent sale to Potiphar on arriving in Egypt.” Ancient
Egyptians, I., p. 404.

Footnote 110:

A passage in Manetho establishes at the same time the antiquity and
the power of eunuchs in Egypt; for he relates that king Ammenemes,
of the twelfth dynasty, was slain by them. This event will date, by
the received chronology, upwards of twenty-two hundred years B.C.
Cory, Frag., p. 110. Eunuchs appear, also, to be figured on the
monuments. Vide Rosellini, M. C. III., p. 133.

Footnote 111:

Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, II., p. 64.

Footnote 112:

Notwithstanding this mixture of nations, Mr. Hoskins observes, that
the higher classes of modern Ethiopians (Nubians,) pay great respect
to the distinctions of race; that they esteem nothing more than a
light complexion, which the petty kings or chiefs make a
prerequisite to the selection of wives; and that, with this class,
“all mixture with the Negro blood is carefully shunned.”—Travels in
Ethiopia, p. 357.

Footnote 113:

Rosellini, Appendix, No. 13.—Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, Vol. III.

Footnote 114:

Hoskins, Travels in Ethiopia. Procession, Part First.

Footnote 115:

Topography of Thebes, p. 136.

Footnote 116:

Champollion, Monumens de l’Egypte, Plate CX.

Footnote 117:

Vide Champollion, Monumens de l’Egypte, Tom. I., Plate LXXI.,
LXXII.; and Rosellini, Monumenti, M. R., Tav. LXXV. A glance at
these illustrations will convince any one that the slave-hunts or
_ghrazzies_, as now practised by the Arabs, Tuaricks and Turks, and
which are so feelingly described by Cailliaud, and by Denham and
Clapperton, were in active operation, with all their atrocities, in
the most flourishing periods of Pharaonic Egypt.

Footnote 118:

Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1794, p. 193.

Footnote 119:

Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, Vol. III. p. 108.

Footnote 120:

See Mrs. Hamilton Gray’s History of Etruria, Vol. I., p. 29.

Footnote 121:

In my _Crania Americana_, Note p. 29, I have employed this passage
to show, that those _Colchians_ whom Herodotus mentions as forming
“part of the troops of Sesostris,” might have been Negroes acting as
mercenary or auxiliary soldiers. I am now satisfied that such
explanation is at least unnecessary, and I, therefore, take this
occasion to withdraw it.

Footnote 122:

Polhym. Cap. lxx.

Footnote 123:

Among the meager facts which history has preserved in relation to
these intrusive kings, the following is the most remarkable:
“Sabakon (the first king of the Ethiopian dynasty) having taken
Boccoris (the legitimate sovereign) captive, burnt him alive.”
Manetho _apud_ Cory, Frag. p. 126. Could any circumstance have
rendered the Ethiopians more detestable in the eyes of the Egyptians
than this first act of barbarian policy?

Footnote 124:

Egypte Ancienne, p. 207.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).

End of Project Gutenberg's Crania Ægyptiaca, by Samuel George Morton