Chapter XVI: Section II

_High Antiquity of the Egyptian Nation. Interesting Character of
Egyptian Remains. Extent of Egyptian Conquests. Tartars,
Parthians, Turks, &c. Figures of Jews on Egyptian Monuments.
Egyptian and Semetic Languages and Races connecting links between
the Asiatic and African Languages and Races._

The Egyptian annals of Manetho seem to convey the inference that there must have been in Egypt a series of thirty dynasties, whose reigns occupied a period of time reaching far beyond the commencement of our received chronology. It appears, however, that in the present age the most eminent writers on the antiquities of Egypt are agreed in rejecting this conclusion. The long dynasties of these chronicles are referred by some writers to repetition, by others to the coexistence of distinct dynasties in different parts of Egypt.

But the same eminent writers who have agreed in repudiating the conclusion that seems to be conveyed by Manetho may be said to be equally unanimous in referring the origin of the Egyptians to a date which, tried by the standard of received chronology, will be found to coincide with the very first age in the history of nations.

“By a comparison of Manetho’s work with the Theban table of Eratosthenes,” observes Dr. Prichard,(117) “we find satisfactory data for fixing the origin of the Egyptian monarchy as deduced from these documents in the 24th century before our era.”

Other eminent writers on this subject do not perfectly coincide with Dr. Prichard in adopting this precise date. But they all fix on pretty nearly the same time, which, it will be observed, is about the era of the Flood of Scripture, which immediately preceded the diffusion of the human race. In the annexed Table I have introduced a compendious statement of the views of these writers, more especially of the author of a work entitled “A Monumental History of Egypt,” in a form that will exhibit concurrently the principal Chronological facts and the progress of Writing in Egypt. I may observe that Dr. Lepsius is of opinion that Hieroglyphics, which is a mode of conveying ideas by representations of objects without reference to their names, was the source,—(by means of a gradual transition,)—of phonetic characters, which represented their names or words.

Egyptian Chronology. Progress Of Hieroglyphics And Writing. _Doubtful Period._ The accession of Menai or Menes, and earlier Egyptian Kings.(118) First Pyramid built, it is No hieroglyphics on this supposed, B.C. 2123 Pyramid. _Historical._ Abraham visits Egypt. 1920 Hieroglyphics invented, and gave rise to Phonetic writing, between 2123 and 1740. Osirtasen united Egypt into The name of Osirtasen, in this one Monarchy. 1740 reign the first known specimen of Phonetic characters. (_Monumental Hist._) Joseph in Egypt. 1706 18th Dynasty. 1576 Age of MSS. (_Dr. Lepsius._)

According to the author of the Monumental History, previously to the year 1740 B.C., the commencement of the reign of Osirtasen, who is believed to have been the contemporary and patron of Joseph, “we have little to guide us on the Monuments of ancient Egypt.” According to the same writer, he was the first who united Egypt into one kingdom, that country, he maintains, having previously been divided into little unimportant kingdoms.

The arguments of this able writer, however, do not impugn the conclusion, that though the precise date may be uncertain, the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to the first ages of the human race. The condition of the Egyptians in 1740 B.C. implies a prior existence for many ages, of which we have a distinct proof in the visit of (the Patriarch) Abraham two centuries previously.

The marvellous discoveries made in our day by Champollion, Belzoni, and others, may be said to have thrown a new light on the early history not only of Egypt but of the world! Proofs the most startling have been brought to light of the vast political power and high civilization of the Egyptian nation, combined with a knowledge of science in many branches scarcely surpassed in the present and not equalled in the last generation of European nations! In the Egyptian paintings we have the most distinct portraits, representing not only Negroes, Jews, and other neighbouring races, but also of nations whose light complexions, peculiar physiognomy, and equipments, combined as they sometimes are with delineations of the costumes or natural productions of the countries of which they were natives, betoken the inhabitants of more northern latitudes, confirming the account of Tacitus, who states “The Egyptians overran all Libya and Ethiopia, and subdued the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians and Scythians, with the extensive regions inhabited by the Syrians, the Armenians, and the Cappadocians; and by this conquest a tract of country extending from Bithynia on the Pontic Sea to the coast of Syria on the Mediterranean was reduced to subjection.”

The evidence seems to be clear that some of the nations with whom the Egyptian armies fought, may be identified with the principal Asiatic nations still inhabiting the borders of the Caspian.

“On six of the Phonetic Ovals (published by Champollion) are the names of the heads of the various countries conquered by Sesostris. On one appears the generic name of the Scheti (spelt Sh.e.d.te); on the second, the generic name of the sons of Mosech or the Muscovites, spelt precisely as in the Hebrew (M.s.ek); thirdly, the people of Arakan, spelt very nearly as that name is sounded (as, for example, Ar-rk-k-a-n); fourthly, the people of Casan (spelt C-a-s-n); the fifth is probably Susa, but the middle vowel is omitted, and it stands S-se.”(119)

Casan is a Tartar province, conquered by Russia in the 16th century.

The Scheti, according to Champollion’s opinion, were the Scythians of the classical nations, the modern Tartars.(120)

A conflict between the Egyptians and the Scheti or Scheta forms the subject of one of the most interesting Egyptian battle-pieces, which displays in a striking point of view the high military discipline of the Egyptians. Mr. Wilkinson describes the Scheti “as a nation who had made considerable progress in military tactics, both with respect to manœuvres in the field and the art of fortifying towns, some of which they surrounded with a double fosse. It is worthy of remark, that in these cases the approach to the place led over a bridge; and the sculptures acquainting us with the fact are highly interesting, as they offer us the earliest indication of its use, having been executed in the reign of the great Ramesis, about 1350 years before our era.”

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Their arms were the bow, sword, and spear, and a wicker shield.”

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“They had some cavalry, but large masses of infantry with a formidable body of chariots, constituted the principal force of their numerous and well-appointed army; and if from the manner in which they posted their corps-de-reserve we may infer them to have been a people skilled in war, some idea may also be formed of the strength of their army from the numbers composing that division, which amounted to 24,000 men, drawn up in three close phalanxes, consisting each of 8,000.”

Mr. Wilkinson notices three other nations among those who were connected with the Egyptians either as enemies or allies, viz. “The Rebo,” “The Shairetana,” and “The Tok-kari.”

The Rebo were among the most formidable enemies of the Egyptians. They were distinguished by a light complexion, blue eyes, an aquiline nose, and a costume very like that of Persia or Parthia, indicating a northern as well as an Asiatic country; they wore earrings, and their chiefs sometimes tattoed their arms and legs; they appear as the type of Asia in some of the Egyptian drawings. Their chief weapons were a long straight sword, with a sharp point, and a bow. Champollion concluded the Rebo to have been the Parthians.

Mr. Wilkinson expresses himself unable to trace the Shairetana and the Tok-kari; I conceive, however, that their names and other circumstances serve to identify them with the Sogdians or Bucharians and the Turks, whose territories are intermingled. The name of the Tok-kari obviously resembles that of the Turks, and, according to Adelung, the Bucharians, from their dwelling in Towns, &c., are called Sarti, a name resembling that of the Shairetana. The Shairetana and Tok-kari revolted together against the Egyptians, and were again subdued. The Tok-kari used waggons with two solid wheels, and drawn by two oxen, which appear to have been placed in the rear as in the Scythian or Tartar armies. Their women are seen carrying off their children by drawing them into these waggons at the moment of defeat. These are traits characteristic of the Tartar race, of which the Turks are a branch. These nations were occasionally allied with the Egyptians both against the Scheti and the Rebo, which implies that their country was intermediate between that of the Parthians and the Tartars.

The Egyptian illustrations of Scriptural incidents and localities are of the highest interest:

Champollion found a portrait of a Hebrew, with all the features of the race, in a group consisting of the chiefs of thirty conquered nations, whom an Egyptian King is depicted dragging to the feet of the Theban Trinity. The name of the Egyptian King was phonetically written “Shishak,” the name of the Jewish captive was written “Joudaha Melek,” King of Judea or the Jews. (See I. Kings, 14 chap. 25 and 26 v.) This picture, as Mr. Tattam(121) observes, may be considered as a commentary on this chapter!

Portraits of Jews are frequent amongst the Egyptian remains. “The costume of these Jews is always the same. They wear their black bushy hair occasionally bound by a red fillet; but sometimes they wear hats not unlike the hats dramatically assigned to the Jews of the dark ages. They wear sandals, the military petticoat or philibeg, a baldric crossing one shoulder, a girdle, to which is attached a short sword or dagger, and when engaged in warlike operations, having the upper part of the body covered with a defensive coat, either of leather or armour, and wearing above the whole a tippet like the cape of a great coat. Independent of Phonetic language a mere glance at their lineaments shows that they are Jews!”(122)

The early development of the vast political power and high civilization of this extraordinary people corroborates the conclusion, that the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to a period sufficiently remote to render it extremely improbable that a close specific resemblance should have continued to exist between their language and those of the countries from which the first population of Egypt may have emigrated. This inference does not militate against the supposition that Egypt may have been first colonized from the contiguous Semetic or Syro-Phœnician regions of Judæa and Arabia.(123)

The literature of ancient Egypt forms a treasure as yet but imperfectly explored. “We possess,” says Dr. Lepsius, Hieratic MSS. as far back as the flourishing epoch of the eighteenth dynasty, (which began to reign B.C. 1575, i.e. eighty years before the departure of the Israelites,) and it is probable that this style was in use even earlier. We have MSS. on History, Astrology, Magic, “_Registres de Comptabilities_,” and especially a great quantity of MSS. on Funeral matters.

These remains are probably pregnant with information of the profoundest interest with regard to the early history of mankind! Further inquiries similar to those conducted by Dr. Lepsius with respect to the phases through which the Egyptian Tongue has passed, will probably bring to light numerous proofs of an increasing approximation in its most ancient specimens to the languages of Asia and also to those of the other regions of the continent of Africa. Even in the present state of our knowledge, I may point out that indications are not altogether wanting that the Hebrew and other Semetic Tongues in some respects appear to form a connecting link between the Egyptian and other African languages, on the one hand, and the Sanscrit and other languages, termed Indo-European, on the other. These indications occur not in the words but in the structure of the Semetic Tongues.

In explaining the origin of language, I have noticed that the basis or Root of the Noun and Verb is the same, while the requisite distinction between the different parts of speech is made by appropriate additions, as in the instance of the syllable Er, in Build-er.

It may be inferred that all additions now employed grammatically as prefixes or suffixes were in the first instance used indifferently either before or after the Root. But we find, in this respect, a marked difference between the Indo-European and the Egyptian Tongues. In the former, these grammatical agents are almost invariably placed after, while in the Egyptian they in some instances follow, and in others precede the Root. It will be evident, however, that these grammatical forms themselves are, in numerous important instances, the same in these two Classes of Tongues, and that it is only the order in which they are placed that is different. Thus, in forming the feminine from the masculine, the Egyptians used a prefix, Th, which forms a suffix in the Welsh, as in Son,(124) “A Brother,” Th-son, “A Sister,” (_Egypt._) Gen-eth, “A Girl,” (_Welsh._) Again, the Egyptian plural is formed by prefixing N, as in Phe, Heaven, singular; N Pheou, Heavens, plural, (_Egypt._,) while in many of the Indo-European tongues plurals are often formed by subjoining N, as in Ox, Ox-en (_Eng._), Ych, Ych-en (_Welsh_.), &c.

Now in the Hebrew, Chaldee, &c., though suffixes are employed in numerous instances, formative prefixes are also used, though not so generally as in the Egyptian, between which language and the Indo-European tongues the Semetic languages therefore occupy, in this respect, an intermediate place.

There is, I conceive, pretty distinct evidence that these characteristic peculiarities of the three classes of Tongues just adverted to are results of comparatively recent conventional changes. For a proof that the above noticed formative of the plural was at one time prefixed, as well as affixed, in the Indo-European Tongues,—see, as regards the Sanscrit, the word Nara, corresponding with the Egyptian, p. 129;—as regards the Welsh, see Appendix A, p. 38. On the other hand, Dr. Lepsius’s researches have furnished me with a decisive example of an approximation in the ancient Egyptian to the Indo-European method. “In the age of Hieroglyphics,” he observes, “the feminine termination Th,” above noticed, “always follows, while in Coptic it always precedes the Noun.”

Changes of this nature may be considered trifling in themselves; but they will be found to afford an explanation, at once simple and comprehensive, of the most striking of those features which separate, by differences supposed to be fundamental, the languages of the Egyptian and Syro-Phœnician races from those of the other families of mankind. In grammatical arrangement the African languages are supposed for the most part to agree with the Egyptian.(125)

In physiological characteristics it has been very distinctly established, by the interesting researches of Dr. Prichard, that the Egyptian or Coptic race forms a connecting link between the contiguous Asiatic nations and the Negroes of the interior of Africa. It is worthy of remark, that Vater(126) notices the projection of the nether jaw, “Unterkiefer,” as a characteristic trait of the Jewish nation! It is observable that this is a point of approximation to the African nations!

“If we may form an idea,” says Dr. Prichard, “of the complexion of the Egyptians from the numerous paintings found in their temples, and in splendidly decorated tombs, in some of which the colours are known to be preserved in a very fresh state, we must conclude that this people were of a red-copper, or light chocolate colour, and that they resembled the reddest of the Fúlah and Kafir tribes now existing in Africa. This colour may be seen in the numerous plates in the ‘Description de l’Egypte,’ and in the coloured figures given by Belzoni. A similar complexion is represented on the heads of the cases made of the sycamore-wood, which answer the purpose of sarcophagi, and in almost all Egyptian figures. This red colour is evidently intended to represent the complexion of the people, and is not put on in the want of a lighter paint, or flesh-colour, for when the limbs or bodies are represented as seen through a thin veil, the tint used resembles the complexion of Europeans. The same shade might have been generally adopted if a darker one had not been preferred, as more truly representing the national complexion of the Egyptian race.(127) Female figures are sometimes distinguished by a yellow or tawny colour.”

“Speaking of the Copts, Volney says that they have a yellowish, dusky complexion, neither resembling the Grecian nor Arabian. He adds, that they have a _puffed visage_, _swoln eyes_, _flat_ nose, and _thick lips_, _and bear much resemblance to Mulattoes_.” I have already cited Baron Larrey’s description of the Copts, the principal traits of which are, “a full countenance, a long aperture of the eyelids—‘coupés en amand,’—projecting cheek-bones, dilated nostrils, thick lips, and hair and beard black and crisp. M. Pugnet, an intelligent physician and an ingenious and discriminating writer, has made an attempt to distinguish the Copts, or Qoubtes, as he terms them, into two divisions, those whose ancestry has been intermixed, and partly of Greek and Latin descent, and a class of purely Egyptian origin. He says that nothing is more striking than the contrast between the small and meagre Arabs and the large and fine stature of the Qoubtes. ‘A l’extérieur chêtif et misérable des premières, ceux-ci opposent un air de majesté et de puissance; à la rudesse de leurs traits, une affabilité soutenue; à leur abord inquiet et soucieux, une figure très épanouie.’ ”(128)

A few further examples of the connexion of the Egyptian with other languages are subjoined. O n h, “A Dwelling,” (_Egypt._,) Wohn-ung, Wohn-en (_German_), Onh, “To live,” (_Eg._,) Ōn (_Greek._)—Shage, “A Word, a Discourse,” (_Eg._,) Sage, Sag-en (_German_), Say (_English_). The “Sagas” of the Gothic nations are venerable Oral traditions!—Hinim, “Sleep,” (_Eg._,) Heen (_Welsh._)—Eshau, “A Sow, or Swine,” (_Eg._,) Hus (_Greek_), Sow (_Eng._)—Iri, “To do,” (_Eg._,) a formative expressive of Action; Aud-ire, “To hear,” Ire, “To go,” (_Lat._)—Ra.ma, “Lofty,” (_Eg._,) R.ou.m (_Hebrew._)—Phath, “Foot,” (_Eg._,) Pes, Ped-is (_Lat._), Path (_Eng._)—E h e, “An Ox,” Ehēou, “Oxen,” (_Eg._,) Ych, Ych-en (_Welsh._)—Ma, “A Place,” (_Eg._,) Ma (_Welsh._)