| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Crania Ægyptiaca - Observations on Egyptian Ethnography derived from Anatomy, - History and the Monuments
Author: Morton, Samuel George
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Crania Ægyptiaca - Observations on Egyptian Ethnography derived from Anatomy, - History and the Monuments" ***
CRANIA ÆGYPTIACA
OBSERVATIONS ON EGYPTIAN ETHNOGRAPHY,
DERIVED FROM
ANATOMY, HISTORY AND THE MONUMENTS.
BY
SAMUEL GEORGE MORTON, M.D.,
AUTHOR OF “CRANIA AMERICANA;” MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY; VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF
PHILADELPHIA, ETC. ETC.
From the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. IX.
------------------
PHILADELPHIA:
JOHN PENINGTON, CHESTNUT STREET.
LONDON:
MADDEN & CO., LEADENHALL STREET.
1844.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM S. YOUNG, PRINTER.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO
GEORGE R. GLIDDON, ESQ.,
LATE UNITED STATES CONSUL FOR THE CITY OF CAIRO; AUTHOR OF “ANCIENT
EGYPT;”
&c. &c. &c.,
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,
AS A MEMENTO
OF THE ESTEEM AND FRIENDSHIP OF
THE AUTHOR.
Philadelphia,
February 23, 1844.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBSERVATIONS
ON
EGYPTIAN ETHNOGRAPHY,
DERIVED FROM
ANATOMY, HISTORY AND THE MONUMENTS.
------------------
_Read before the American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia,
December 16, 1842, and January 6, and April 6, 1843._
------------------
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
Egypt is justly regarded as the parent of civilization, the cradle of
the arts, the land of mystery. Her monuments excite our wonder, and her
history confounds chronology; and the very people who thronged her
cities would be unknown to us, were it not for those vast sepulchres
whence the dead have arisen, as it were, to bear witness for themselves
and their country. Yet even now, the physical characteristics of the
ancient Egyptians are regarded with singular diversity of opinion by the
learned, who variously refer them to the Jews, Arabs, Hindoos, Nubians,
and Negroes. Even the details of organic structure have been involved in
the same uncertainty,—the configuration of the head, the position of the
ear, the form of the teeth, the colour of the skin, and the texture of
the hair; while the great question is itself undetermined—whether
civilization ascended or descended the Nile;—whether it had its origin
in Egypt or in Ethiopia. These conflicting opinions long since made me
desirous to investigate the subject for myself; but the many
difficulties in the way of obtaining adequate materials, compelled me to
suspend the inquiry; and it is only within a recent period that I have
been able effectively to resume it. It gives me great pleasure to state,
that my present facilities have been almost exclusively derived,
directly or indirectly, from the scientific zeal and personal friendship
of George R. Gliddon, Esq., late United States consul for the city of
Cairo. During a former visit to the United States, this gentleman
entered warmly into my views and wishes; and on his return to the East,
in 1838, he commenced his researches on my behalf; and in the course of
his various travels in Egypt and in Nubia, as far as the second
Cataract, he procured one hundred and thirty-seven human crania, of
which one hundred pertain to the ancient inhabitants of Egypt. Of these
last, seventeen were most obligingly sent me, at the instance of Mr.
Gliddon, by M. Clot Bey, the distinguished Surgeon in chief to the
Viceroy of Egypt. They are arranged by the latter gentleman into two
series, the Pharaonic, and the Ptolemaic; but without availing myself of
this classification, I have merely regarded them in reference to their
national characters.
Mr. Gliddon’s residence for the greater part of twenty-three years in
Egypt, and his varied official and other avocations, together with his
acquaintance with the people, and their languages, have given him
unusual facilities for collecting the requisite materials; while their
authenticity is amply vouched for by one who blends the character of a
gentleman with the attainments of a scholar.
The object of this memoir, therefore, will be to throw some additional
light on the questions to which I have adverted, and to ascertain, if
possible, the Ethnographic characters of the primitive Egyptians; or, in
other words, to point out their relative position among the races of
men.
It is necessary, however, to premise, that the materials in my
possession, were collected without the slightest bias of opinion on the
part of Mr. Gliddon, who, at the period in question, had paid no
particular attention to Ethnography; and indeed very many of these
crania were received by me in their original wrappings, which were first
removed, after the lapse of ages, by my own hands.
It is farther requisite to bear in mind, that, with a few exceptions I
have no clew whatever, whereby to ascertain or even to conjecture, the
epoch to which these remains have belonged. The Egyptian catacombs do
not always contain their original occupants; for these were often
displaced and the tombs re-sold for mercenary purposes: whence it
happens, that mummies of the Greek and Roman epochs have been found in
those more ancient receptacles which had received the bodies of Egyptian
citizens of a far earlier date. The bodies thus displaced, however,
_were not destroyed_; and the Egyptians of at least twenty-five
centuries before our era, though for the most part mingled without
regard to rank or epoch, are still preserved in their interminable
cemeteries.
I disclaim all knowledge of hieroglyphic literature; but I may express
my conviction that the past discoveries and pending researches of Young,
Champollion, Rosellini, Wilkinson, Lepsius, and some other illustrious
men, are destined to unravel much that has hitherto been regarded as
mystical in Egyptian history; while the invaluable disclosures which
they have already made, entitle them to the lasting gratitude of the
student of Archæology.
A few words in reference to chronology. Rosellini places the accession
of the Sixteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings at 2272 years before Christ.
Champollion adopts a nearly similar arrangement. The learned Dr. Wiseman
admits that there are monuments in Egypt as old as 2200 years before our
era; and Dr. Prichard dates the accession of Menes two centuries earlier
in time. The veneration with which these authors regard the Sacred
Writings, has given me the greater confidence in their opinions, which I
therefore adopt in general for the distant landmarks of time; especially
as the latter come fairly within the range of the Septuagint chronology,
which places the epoch of the Deluge at 3154 years B.C., and thus gives
room for the most ancient of the Egyptian monuments. In respect to later
and subordinate dates, I have been governed exclusively by the published
system of Professor Rosellini, which is regarded by competent judges as
more complete than any other.
I have great pleasure in stating, that for the unrestricted use of the
first copy of Rosellini’s splendid work which was brought to the United
States, I am indebted to an accomplished traveller, Richard K. Haight,
Esq., of New York; a gentleman who devotes his leisure hours and opulent
income to the promotion of archaeological knowledge.
To John Gliddon, Esq., United States consul at Alexandria, to the Rev.
George W. Bridges, and to M. E. Prisse, now in Egypt, I also take this
occasion to express my sincere acknowledgments for the practical zeal
with which they have aided my researches.
I have been enabled to make extensive and satisfactory comparisons by
means of nearly six hundred human crania, which form a part of my
private anatomical collection. The numbers in brackets refer to
corresponding numbers on the skulls themselves, and in my printed
catalogue; and will serve as a future test of the accuracy of my
observations, which, embracing as they do, such a multitude of details,
may require some revision and correction.
How far the following observations may assist in solving a problem
which, until lately, has been clothed in equal obscurity and interest,
is not for me to determine; but I trust they will at least, have the
effect of inciting others to researches of a similar nature.
---------------------
EGYPTIAN ETHNOGRAPHY.
“Vix quidem monitu opus est in tanta seculorum serie qua mos
cadavera balsamo condiendi in Ægypto solemnis fecit, inque tam
variorum ejus terræ dominorum et incolarum vicissitudine magnam
mumias intercedere debere variatatem tam quod ad conditurse variam
rationem et materiem; quam quod ad craniorum in mumiis gentilitiam
formam et speciem.”—BLUMENBACH, _Decad. Cran._ p. 12.
It was remarked fifty years ago by the learned Professor Blumenbach,
that a principal requisite for an inquiry such as we now propose, would
be “a very careful, technical examination of the skulls of mummies
hitherto met with, together with an accurate comparison of these skulls
with the monuments.” This is precisely the design I have in view in the
following memoir, which I therefore commence by an analysis of the
characters of all the crania now in my possession. These may be referred
to two of the great races of men, the CAUCASIAN and the NEGRO, although
there is a remarkable disparity in the number of each. The Caucasian
heads also vary so much among themselves as to present several different
types of this race, which may, perhaps, be appropriately grouped under
the following designations:—
CAUCASIAN RACE.
1. The [1]_Pelasgic Type_. In this division I place those heads which
present the finest conformation, as seen in the Caucasian nations of
western Asia, and middle and southern Europe. The Pelasgic lineaments
are familiar to us in the beautiful models of Grecian art, which are
remarkable for the volume of the head in comparison with that of the
face, the large facial angle, and the symmetry and delicacy of the whole
osteological structure. Plate III., Fig. 6, and Plate X., Fig. 8, are
among the many examples of this conformation.
2. The _Semitic Type_, as seen in the Hebrew communities, is marked by a
comparatively receding forehead, long, arched, and very prominent nose,
a marked distance between the eyes, a low heavy broad, and strong and
often harsh development of the whole facial structure. Plate XI., Fig.
2.
3. The _Egyptian_ form differs from the Pelasgic in having a narrower
and more receding forehead, while the face being more prominent, the
facial angle is consequently less. The nose is straight or aquiline, the
face angular, the features often sharp, and the hair uniformly long,
soft, and curling. In this series of crania I include many of which the
conformation is not appreciably different from that of the Arab and
Hindoo; but I have not, as a rule, attempted to note these distinctions,
although they are so marked as to have induced me, in the early stage of
the investigation, and for reasons which will appear in the sequel, to
group them, together with the proper Egyptian form, under the
provisional name of _Austral-Egyptian_ crania. I now, however, propose
to restrict the latter term to those Caucasian communities which
inhabited the Nilotic valley above Egypt. Among the Caucasian crania are
some which appear to blend the Egyptian and Pelasgic characters: these
might be called _Egypto-Pelasgic_ heads; but without making use of this
term, except in a very few instances by way of illustration, I have
thought best to transfer these examples from the Pelasgic group to the
Egyptian, inasmuch as they so far conform to the latter series as to be
identified without difficulty. For examples of this mixed form, I refer
especially to Plate XI., Fig. 1, and Plate III., Fig. 7.
NEGRO RACE.
The true _Negro_ conformation requires no comment; but it is necessary
to observe that a practised eye readily detects a few heads with
decidedly mixed characters, in which those of the Negro predominate. For
these I propose the name of _Negroid_ crania; for while the osteological
development is more or less that of the Negro, the hair is long but
sometimes harsh, thus indicating that combination of features which is
familiar in the mulatto grades of the present day. It is proper,
however, to remark in relation to the whole series of crania, that while
the greater part is readily referrible to some one of the above
subdivisions, there remain other examples in which the Caucasian traits
predominate, but are partially blended with those of the Negro, which
last modify both the structure and expression of the head and face.
We proceed, in the next place, to analyze these crania individually,
arranging them, for the purpose of convenience, into seven series,
according to their sepulchral localities, beginning with the Necropolis
of Memphis in the north:
First series, from the Memphite Necropolis.
A. Pyramid of five steps.
B. Saccàra, generally.
C. Front of the Brick Pyramid of Dashour.
D. North-west of the Pyramid of Five Steps.
E. Toora, on the Nile.
Second series, from the Grottoes of Maabdeh.
Third series, from Abydos.
Fourth series, from the Catacombs of Thebes.
Fifth series, from Koum Ombos.
Sixth series, from the Island of Beggeh, near Philæ.
Seventh Series, from Debod in Nubia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST SERIES.
TWENTY-SIX SKULLS FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
This vast Necropolis extends from the Pyramids of Gizeh to the
southern limit of Saccàra, a distance of about fifteen miles. The
tombs are cut in the solid rock, and frequently communicate with one
another, forming a vast subterranean labyrinth. Memphis is well known
to be one of the oldest, if not indeed the oldest of the Egyptian
cities; and among the tombs now extant Professor Rosellini has found
some which bear inscriptions of a date nearly 2300 years before
Christ, at which period Memphis must have been a large and flourishing
city. The simpler catacombs were probably constructed before the
pyramids; for these last could only result from centuries of
civilization, and next to the catacombs, are the oldest existing
monuments of the human race.
A.—FROM THE PYRAMID OF FIVE STEPS.
In the month of August, 1839, Mr. J. S. Perring, the distinguished
Engineer, discovered a _fourth_ entrance to this pyramid, which was
found to communicate with a recess at the south-western corner of a
large apartment described in his narrative. This communication is a
horizontal gallery one hundred and sixty-six feet long, and the recess
is seventy feet above the floor. “The southern end of the gallery,”
observes Colonel Vyse, “was stopped up with sand; but for the length
of one hundred and sixty feet from the interior it was open, and did
not seem to have been previously visited, as nearly thirty mummies
were found in it apparently undisturbed. They had neither coffins nor
sarcophagi, nor, with the exception of three or four, any painted
decorations. They crumbled to pieces on being touched, and could not
be removed. Mr. Perring, therefore, proceeded to examine them. He
found them enclosed in wrappers, with pitch and bitumen; but he did
not meet with any of the objects usually deposited with mummies,
excepting some of the common stone idols upon the body of the female.
He therefore concluded that they were the bodies of persons employed
in the building.”[2]
Fortunately for my inquiries, Mr. Gliddon was at hand when these
relics were brought to light, and obtained them of Mr. Perring as a
contribution to my researches. With the utmost care on Mr. Gliddon’s
part, two of three reached me in safety, but the third was broken into
numberless fragments. In fact, the consistence of these bones is but
little firmer than unbaked clay, and the animal matter is nearly
obliterated. If Mr. Perring’s opinion be correct, that the persons to
whom these bodies belonged were coeval with the construction of the
pyramid, we may with safety regard them as the most ancient human
remains at present known to us. Whether, as that gentleman suggests,
they pertained to workmen employed in building the pyramid, I will not
pretend to decide; but although they present indifferent intellectual
developments, their conformation is that of the Caucasian race.
Plate I., Fig. 1. (Cat. 838.) An oval head with a broad but rather low
forehead, moderately elevated vertex, and full occiput. The
superciliary ridges are prominent, the orbits oblong-oval, the nasal
bones large, salient and aquiline, the teeth vertical and the whole
facial structure delicate. The head of a woman of about forty
years.[3]—I. C. 90 cubic inches. F. A. 81°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate I., Fig. 2. (Cat. 837.) A large and ponderous skull, with, a
broad but low forehead, and very prominent superciliary ridges. The
vertex is elevated, the occipital region remarkably full, and the
parietal diameter large. The bones of the face are delicately formed,
the nose long and aquiline, the orbits rounded, the teeth vertical.—I.
C. 97 cubic inches. F. A. 83°. _Pelasgic form._
This is the skull of a man who may have reached his fiftieth year. The
teeth are much worn, and parts of the sutures nearly obsolete. This
person, long antecedent to his death, had received a severe wound over
the right orbit, beginning at the nasal bone and extending upwards and
outwards nearly two inches, fracturing and depressing both tables of
the skull. The consequent deformity is manifest, although the
cicatrization is complete.
B.—FROM THE MEMPHITE NECROPOLIS.
Eleven skulls from various mummy pits in the great Necropolis of
Saccàra. In Mr. Gliddon’s memoranda he remarks that these heads were
mostly taken from the mummies themselves, and from the best
constructed pits; and that having been enclosed in coffins painted and
otherwise ornamented with different degrees of care, they probably
pertained to the higher class of Egyptians.
Plate II., Fig. 1. (Cat. 808.) A large elongate-oval head, with a
broad, high forehead, low coronal region, and strongly aquiline nose.
The orbits nearly round; teeth perfect and vertical.—I. C. 97 cubic
inches. F. A. 77°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate II., Fig. 2. (Cat. 815.) A beautifully formed head, with a
forehead high, full, and nearly vertical, a good coronal region, and
largely developed occiput. The nasal bones are long and straight, and
the whole facial structure delicately proportioned. Age, between
thirty and thirty-five years.—I. C. 88 cubic inches. F. A. 81°.
_Pelasgic form._
Plate II., Fig. 3. (Cat. 812.) Skull of a woman of twenty years? with
a beautifully developed forehead, and remarkably thin and delicate
structure throughout. The frontal suture remains.—I. C. 82 cubic
inches. F. A. 80°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate II., Fig. 4. (Cat. 806.) A thin cranium, of a short-oval form;
the forehead is broad, the coronal region low, and the whole face
prominent. Age, about thirty years. I. C. 83 cubic inches. F. A. 77°.
_Egyptian form._
Plate II., Fig. 5. (Cat. 814.) Cranium of a man of eighty or ninety
years, with a full but rather receding forehead, and strongly
developed cranial structure.—I. C. 97 cubic inches. _Pelasgic form._
Plate II., Fig. 6. (Cat. 810.) An admirable conformation, as seen in
the broad, high forehead, full occiput, and gently aquiline nose.
Probably a female of twenty years.—I. C. 86 cubic inches. F. A. 78°.
_Egyptian form?_
Plate II., Fig. 7. (Cat. 805.) A narrow, elongated head, with an
indifferent frontal region. A man of fifty?—I. C. 79 cubic inches. F.
A. 83°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate II., Fig. 8. (Cat. 807.) A large, thin, oval cranium, with a
broad, receding forehead, tumid occiput, a long and very aquiline
nose, and remarkably prominent face. The frontal suture remains
entire. Probably a man of thirty years.—I. C. 88 cubic inches. F. A.
74°. _Semitic form._
Plate III., Fig. 2. (Cat. 809.) A female head, with a somewhat
receding forehead and low coronal region.—I. C. 81 cubic inches. F. A.
78°. _Egyptian form._
Plate III., Fig. 1. (Cat. 811.) A small head, with a narrow frontal
region, receding forehead, and broad parietal diameter. A female? of
about twenty-five years.—I. C. 73 cubic inches. F. A. 76°. _Egyptian
form._
(Cat. 813.) Skull of a child of eight years, with a finely developed
forehead, tumid occiput and full facial angle. _Pelasgic form._
C.—FROM THE FRONT OF THE NORTHERN BRICK PYRAMID OF DASHOUR.
Three skulls exhumed by Mr. Perring from the above mentioned locality
in the Memphite Necropolis. They were discovered in the month of
August, 1839, in the process of trenching to find an entrance to the
pyramid. The following extract from Col. Vyse’s admirable work
embraces all the information we possess in relation to these remains,
merely premising that none of the _mummied_ heads alluded to has come
into my possession.
“At the depth of about four feet six inches, above fifty bodies were
found, ten of which were mummies, embalmed and deposited in the usual
manner. The others were much decayed, and had been buried in their
clothes, and in some instances were bound round with common cord and
laid in wooden coffins, or among a few branches of date trees. Some of
the clothes were woollen, others coarse linen, with a fringed border
of bright scarlet worsted. The heads were covered with bright red
network. Mr. Perring imagined that these bodies had belonged to a
pastoral people, probably to Bedouins, and that they had been
interred, together with the mummies, at a very early period, before
the introduction of Christianity.” VYSE, Pyramids, III., p. 60.
These crania, which are remarkably small, possess much of the Egyptian
form, and are well represented in the following outlines.
[Illustration]
(Cat. 795.) An oval cranium with a receding forehead, full coronal
region, strongly developed upper maxilla, and prominent face.—I. C. 75
cubic inches. F. A. 76°.—_Egyptian_ blended with the _Negroid form_?
(Cat. 796.) A small oval head, low forehead, and salient and very
aquiline nose. Facial bones thin and delicately proportioned.—I.C. 80
cubic inches. F.A. 75°. _Egyptian form._
(Cat. 797.) A small, thin, irregularly formed head, with a full
forehead and salient nose. The alveoli are absorbed by age. A woman of
70 years?—I.C. 76 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
D.—FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS, NORTH-WEST OF THE PYRAMID OF FIVE
STEPS.
Nine skulls of mummied Egyptians, taken by Mr. Gliddon from a large
pit which had just been opened by the Arabs. Mr. G. remarks that No.
803 is a male, and 804 a female, both unwrapped by his own hands.
“These mummies were all of a superior order, and enclosed in wooden
cases. The pit was opened in my presence, and consisted of a deep
shaft cut through the solid rock, with two or three chambers filled
with undisturbed mummies.”
Scarcely any integuments remain on these heads, the removal of the
wrappings leaving the bone for the most part completely denuded.
Plate III., Fig. 3. (Cat. 804.) A remarkably beautiful female head,
not exceeding the age of twelve years. _Pelasgic form._
Plate III., Fig. 4. (Cat. 799.) A ponderous skull, with a fine
frontal, and full coronal region. Probably a man of 35 years.—I.C. 87
cubic inches. F.A. 82°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate III., Fig. 5. (Cat. 816.) A beautifully oval and finely arched
cranium, with a high, prominent forehead, tumid occiput, aquiline
nose, and oblong orbitar cavities. A man of 45?—I.C. 92 cubic inches.
F.A. 78°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate III., Fig. 6. (Cat. 798.) A delicately proportioned and finely
arched head. The cheek bones are small, and the nose strongly
aquiline. Age, about 45 years.—I.C. 84 cubic inches. F. A. 80°.
_Pelasgic form._
Plate III., Fig. 7. (Cat. 802.) A finely developed cranium, with a
delicate, but rather prominent face, and strongly arched nose.
Probably a female of 50 years.—I.C. 81 cubic inches. _Egypto-Pelasgic
form._
Plate III., Fig. 8. (Cat. 803.) A large, oval head, with a broad,
receding forehead, low coronal region, and salient nose. A man of 45
or 50 years.—I. C. 92 cubic inches. F.A. 82°. _Pelasgic form._
(Cat. 800.) Skull of a child of 10 years, with a receding forehead,
narrow, projecting face, and salient teeth. _Negroid form._
(Cat. 801.) A juvenile head, heavy, but beautifully proportioned,
especially in the frontal region. _Pelasgic form._
Plate III., Fig. 9. (Cat. 825.) A large and remarkably intellectual
head, of the finest proportions throughout. The hair is in part
preserved, and is long, smooth and of a dark-brown colour.—I. C. 93
cubic inches. F. A. 81°. _Pelasgic form._
E.—FROM TOORA, ON THE NILE.
Plate II., Fig. 9. (Cat. 840.) Skull of a man from the ancient
quarries at Toora, opposite Memphis, on the east bank of the Nile,
about seven miles above Cairo. From this place the stones were
obtained for building the Pyramids of Gizeh, and many later
structures, down to the epoch of the Ptolemies. Mr. Gliddon was
present at the exhumation of several of these crania, yet, owing to
their extremely fragile state, but one reached me in safety, and for
this I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Mash. They were found in
rude sarcophagi of limestone, and wrapped in coarse matting. These
remains, which were discovered in 1837-38, are supposed to have
pertained to the master-quarrymen.
The head figured is of an elongated oval form, with a moderate frontal
development and low coronal region. The nose is strongly salient and
aquiline, and the whole cranial structure thin and delicate.—I. C. 89
cubic inches. F. A. 79°. _Pelasgic form._
_Remarks on the preceding series of Crania._—A mere glance at this
group of skulls will satisfy any one accustomed to comparisons of this
kind, that most of them possess the Caucasian traits in a most
striking and unequivocal manner, whether we regard their form, size,
or facial angle. It is, in fact, questionable whether a greater
proportion of beautifully moulded heads would be found among an equal
number of individuals taken at random from any existing European
nation. The entire series consists of sixteen examples of the Pelasgic
and seven of the Egyptian form, a single Semitic head, one of the
Negroid variety, and one of mixed conformation. Of the antiquity of
these remains there can be no question; and with respect to a part of
them, those from the Pyramid of Five Steps, we have evidence of a more
precise character.
These most ancient mummies appear to have been prepared with but
little bitumen, and to have undergone desiccation by some primitive
and simple process of embalming; such, for example, as first
saturating the body in natron, and then subjecting it to heat in an
oven. It is also to be remarked, that in these two heads the brain has
not been removed through the nostrils, according to the general
custom, for the ethmoid bone is unbroken; and the cranial contents
could therefore only have been withdrawn through the foramen magnum at
the base of the skull.
This last remark also applies to sixteen other heads of this series;
whence I was at first led to suppose that they could not pertain to a
very remote epoch. But when we find that the oldest remains are
similarly characterized, and bear in mind that the removal of the
brain through the nose was a conventional part of the more perfect art
of embalming, may we not suppose that this imperforate state of the
cranium points to an early epoch of Egyptian history, before mankind
had resorted to those elaborate methods of preserving the dead body
which are so remarkable in the _Theban_ catacombs? It has been
conjectured, that the proximity of the Natron Lakes to the city of
Memphis gave rise to the custom of embalming; and it is not an
improbable supposition that the profuse employment of bitumen was a
subsequent refinement of the art. This suggestion derives some support
from another fact; namely, that in every instance in which I have
observed the brain to have been removed through the nose, the bones
and integuments are much more charged with bitumen than in the
imperforate crania.
It may, perhaps, be conjectured by some that the Pelasgic heads of
this series belong to the Ptolemaic epoch, and hence pertain to the
Greek inhabitants of that age: but it must be remembered that the rule
of the Ptolemies lasted but about three hundred years; whereas the
Egyptians were themselves the masters of Memphis, and entombed their
dead in its necropolis more than two thousand years before either the
Persians or Greeks effected the conquest of the country, no less than
during the period of and after these epochs of foreign domination.
Of the sixteen adult Pelasgic skulls in this series, two or three are
small; yet the whole number gives about 88 cubic inches for the
average internal capacity of the cranium, or size of the brain, while
the mean of the facial angle is 80°. The seven Egyptian crania have a
mean internal capacity of 80 cubic inches, and a facial angle of 77°.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND SERIES.
FOUR HEADS FROM THE GROTTOES OF MAABDEH, NEAR MAGARAT-ES-SAMÒUN.
This is the name of a series of sepulchral grottoes in Middle Egypt,
on the limestone hill opposite Manfaloot, and near the modern village
of Maabdeh. It is within the ancient nome of Heracleopolis. This
cemetery is a natural cavern, which was chiefly dedicated to embalmed
crocodiles, but in some measure, also, to man. Mr. Gliddon observes
that the human mummies are of the common order, and adds: “I brought
them from a measured distance of 438 feet under ground, horizontally,
averaging about twenty feet below the surface.”
Plate IV., Fig. 1. (Cat. 833.) A large, oval head, with a very low,
receding forehead, and large, aquiline nose. A man of 35 years? The
hair is long, soft, and curling, and the beard is partially preserved
on the lower jaw. _Pelasgic form?_
This person has been much disfigured by ulceration of the cartilage of
the nose and the adjacent integuments; part of the upper lip has been
removed by the disease, which appears partially on the lower jaw, and
may account for the beard not having been shaved. The embalming
process has been very carefully conducted. Large lozenge-shaped
patches of gold-leaf are seen on the centre of the forehead and over
each eye, with smaller pieces dispersed in other places, and
especially on the _bone_ and _teeth_ of the upper jaw, where these
have been denuded or exposed by ulceration.
Plate IV., Fig. 2. (Cat. 834.) A female head, of a short, oval form,
with a narrow, receding forehead, prominent nose, and very protruding
maxillæ. The teeth, which are salient, indicate a person of 25 or 30
years of age; and the lower jaw, which is very angular, has a
remarkable downward projection. The hair was long, but harsh, and was
necessarily removed with the integuments, on account of the imperfect
nature of the embalmment, which appeared to have been effected with a
soft or tar-like bitumen. _Negroid form._
Plate IV., Fig. 3. (Cat. 835.) A woman of 30? with a long, narrow
head, slightly salient nose, and very projecting face. The hair is
eight or ten inches long, harsh, but not wiry. _Negroid form._ I.C. 71
cubic inches. F.A. 73°.
Plate IV., Fig. 4. (Cat. 836.) A female head of a fine oval form, with
a broad, convex forehead, low coronal region, and strongly aquiline
nose. This head retains a profusion of long, fine, curling hair, and
the face is gilded over the eyes and lips. This is a striking example
of the _tumid face_ which is not unfrequently seen on the monuments.
_Egyptian form._
_Remarks._—The two Negroid heads belong, obviously, to the lower class
of people, for the bodies have been hastily and imperfectly embalmed,
without mummy cases, and in ordinary wrappings. The two latter remarks
apply to the other individuals of this series, which have,
nevertheless, been much more carefully embalmed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD SERIES.
FOUR SKULLS FROM ABYDOS.
The city of Abydos, the second in size in the Thebaid, was on the west
bank of the Nile, and, like Thebes, possessed a palace of Rameses
III., and a temple of Osiris, the guardian divinity of the city.
Plate V., Fig. 1, (Cat. 819.) An elongated head, with an indifferent
frontal and low coronal region, straight nose, small orbits, and
prominent upper jaw.—I. C. 85 cubic inches. F. A. 79°. _Egyptian
form._
Plate V., Fig. 2. (Cat. 820.) A large and finely moulded cranium, with
a broad, full forehead, and long, but abruptly salient nose. The upper
jaw has a remarkable downward elongation, which reduces the F. A. to
76°.—I. C. 96 cubic inches. A man of 40. _Egyptian form._
Plate V., Fig. 3. (Cat. 817.) A large, beautifully developed cranium,
of harmonious proportions, but somewhat ponderous structure.—I. C. 89
cubic inches. F. A. 80°. _Pelasgic form._
Plate V., Fig. 4. (Cat. 818.) A small head, narrow and retreating,
with a tumid occiput, very large, aquiline nose, and delicate,
prominent face.—I. C. 69 cubic inches. F. A. 77°. _Semitic form._
_Remarks._—In a memorandum accompanying these skulls, Mr. Gliddon
observes that “they were obtained from a mummy-pit behind the temple
of Rameses III., and they belong to the best class. Among the relics
found in the same pit were a scarabæus, bearing the prenomen of
Thotmes IV., and a piece of stamped pottery, (apparently enclosed with
a mummy to denote the epoch,) which bore the nomen of Rameses III. It
may, therefore, be reasonably conjectured, that these remains belong
to the eighteenth Diospolitan dynasty, fixed by Professor Rosellini
between the years 1822 and 1874, B.C.”
The four heads are entirely denuded, but little appearance of bitumen
remaining; nor is the ethmoid bone perforated. The bones bear the
impress of age, and, in one instance, have become softened, and almost
friable, from decomposition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTH SERIES.
FIFTY-FIVE HEADS FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
The greater part of this extensive and singularly perfect and varied
series of heads, was collected by Mr. Gliddon during two visits to
Thebes. They were all taken from the catacombs at _El Gourna_, on the
western bank of the Nile. If we may judge by the different degrees of
care manifested in the embalming process, they embrace individuals of
every class excepting the highest and lowest; for the latter,
according to the testimony of Herodotus, were never embalmed in the
proper sense of that word; and the former were deposited in more
elaborate sepulchres.
Plate VI., Fig. 1. (Cat. 860.) A man of fifty, with a small but well
proportioned cranium. The bones of the face are small, and the whole
osseous structure very thin.—I. C. 80 cubic inches. F. A. 82°.
_Egyptian form._
(Cat. 853.) Head of a man of fifty, with a low coronal region,
receding forehead, full occiput, aquiline nose, and remarkable
flatness beneath the temporal muscles.—I. C. 95 cubic inches.
_Egyptian form._
Plate VI., Fig 2. (Cat. 865.) An oval head with a full but retreating
forehead, a large, aquiline nose, and angular, prominent face. The
eyes are embalmed open. _Semitic form._
Plate VI., Fig. 3. (Cat. 893.) A singularly thin cranium, especially
in the lateral parietal regions. The forehead is moderately expanded
and the nose straight.—I. C. 85 cubic inches. F. A. 81°. _Pelasgic
form._
Plate VI., Fig. 4. (Cat. 850.) A large oval cranium, with a voluminous
forehead, a small aquiline nose, and rounded orbits. Age, seventy to
eighty years?—I. C. 86 cubic inches. _Pelasgic form._
Plate VI., Fig. 5. (Cat. 859.) An octogenarian female, with a small
but well proportioned head, and delicate facial bones. This cranium,
which is remarkable for its tenuity, retains a very little smooth,
long hair.—I. C. 82 cubic inches. _Pelasgic form._
Plate VI., Fig. 6. (Cat. 881.) Skull of a female not exceeding
seventeen years of age, with a beautifully developed forehead, and
delicate facial bones, yet possessing an obvious downward elongation
of the upper jaw, as in the Hindoo.—I. C. 71 cubic inches. F. A. 80°.
_Egyptian form._
Plate VI., Fig. 7. (Cat. 889.) A well formed, oval head, with a
remarkably prominent nose and chin.—I. C. 83 cubic inches. F. A. 83°.
_Egyptian form._
Plate VI., Fig. 8. (Cat. 870.) A long oval cranium, with a broad,
receding forehead, tumid occiput, very long aquiline nose, and sharp
features. The hair, which is cut close, is brown and silky.—I. C. 79
cubic inches. A man of thirty? _Semitic form._
Plate VI., Fig. 9. (Cat. 876.) A small, but oval male head, with hair
of a fine texture and brown colour.—I. C. 83 cubic inches. _Egyptian
form._
Plate VII., Fig. 1. (Cat. 851.) A narrow, elongated cranium, with a
retreating forehead, and rather produced maxillæ. The whole osseous
structure is remarkably delicate. A woman of thirty-five?—I. C. 79
cubic inches. F. A. 80°. _Egyptian form._
Plate VII., Fig. 2. (Cat. 861.) Skull of a man of fifty, large and
massive: forehead and coronal region but moderately developed; face
projecting, with a small, aquiline nose.—I. C. 91 cubic inches. F. A.
78°. _Egyptian form._
Plate VII., Fig. 3. (Cat. 857.) A female cranium, long, narrow, and
much flattened at the sides, and rather ponderous. The whole face is
long, angular, and prominent, with a slight yet manifest negro
expression. A little hair remains, long, black, and smooth.—I. C. 83
cubic inches. F. A. 77°. _Egyptian, blended with the Negro form?_
Plate VII., Fig. 4. (Cat. 848.) A female head, with a narrow but
elevated and finely arched frontal region, which forms, with the
straight nose, something of a Grecian profile. The face, however, is
not in keeping with the head, being much produced.—I. C. 82 cubic
inches. F. A. 80°. _Egyptian form._
Plate VII., Fig. 5. (Cat. 847.) A small head, narrow and laterally
compressed, with a well formed forehead, and full occiput. The nose is
very large and salient, and the maxillary structure much produced. A
woman of thirty.—I. C. 68 cubic inches. F. A. 76°. _Egyptian form._
Plate VII., Fig. 6. (Cat. 854.) A small but well proportioned cranium
of a female not exceeding fifteen years of age. The forehead is full
(by an oversight inadequately represented in the drawing,) and the
whole of the osseous structure extremely delicate. _Egyptian form._
(Cat. 849.) Skull of a man of twenty-five years, finely oval, with a
broad receding forehead, and full coronal region. Facial bones
broken.—I. C. 81 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
(Cat. 894.) A beautiful juvenile head, with a broad high forehead,
large, prominent nose, and oval orbits. _Pelasgic form._
(Cat. 887.) A child of twelve or fourteen years, with a finely turned
forehead, long, aquiline nose, and vertical teeth. A little long, fine
hair remains on the occiput. _Egyptian form._
(Cat. 868.) Skull of a child of beautiful organization, excepting a
slight inequality in the occipital region. _Pelasgic form._
Plate VIII., Fig. 1. (Cat. 878.) An elongated head, with a broad
receding forehead, long and nearly straight nose, and prominent chin.
This person has been most carefully embalmed, with a profusion of
gilding on various parts of the face. The hair is soft and curling,
and of a dark-brown colour. A man of fifty?—I. C. 77 cubic inches.
_Egyptian form._
Plate VIII., Fig. 2. (Cat. 879.) A man of fifty, admirably embalmed. A
broad and full, but receding forehead, a large aquiline nose, and
strong maxillæ. _Pelasgic head_ of the Roman conformation.
Plate VIII., Fig. 3. (Cat. 839.) A short-oval cranium, with a full but
retreating forehead, straight nose, and large prominent maxillæ.—I. C.
74 cubic inches. F. A. 78°. _Egyptian blended with the Negro form?_
Plate VIII., Fig. 4. (Cat. 871.) A juvenile female head, with a full
but receding frontal region, long nose, sharp features, tumid occiput,
and rounded orbits. _Egyptian form._
Plate VIII., Fig. 5. (Cat. 866.) A small, juvenile, female head, with
a convex but retreating forehead, and the whole face remarkably sharp,
projecting, and repulsive. This head is elaborately gilded, and
retains a portion of long, fine, smooth hair. _Egyptian form?_
(Cat. 873.) An oval cranium, with a good frontal region, and salient
nasal bones. The alveoli have been almost destroyed by absorption
consequent to advanced age.—I. C. 88 cubic inches. _Pelasgic form?_
Plate VIII., Fig. 6. (Cat. 883.) A well-developed cranium, with a long
straight nose. A man of forty?—I. C. 82 cubic inches. F. A. 81°.
_Egyptian form._
[Illustration]
(Cat. 888.) Head of a man of thirty-five years? most carefully
embalmed, with a high frontal region, and very long prominent angular
face.—I. C. 85 cubic inches. _Egyptian_ blended with Negro or Malay
lineaments? The conformation of this head is not unlike that of some
modern Nubians.
Plate VIII., Fig. 7. (Cat. 880.) A female head? of a fine oval form,
long, straight nose, and quadrangular orbits. The angles of the lower
jaw are remarkably expanded. The hair, which is cut short, is fine,
and of a dark-brown colour.—I. C. 85 cubic inches. F. A. 80°.
_Egyptian form._
Plate VIII., Fig. 8. (Cat. 867.) A large head with a broad convex
frontal region, and full occiput. The nose is large and remarkably
salient, and the maxillary bones projecting and ponderous. A little
soft, dark-brown hair is attached to some remaining fragments of the
scalp.—I. C. 86 cubic inches. F. A. 78°. _Egyptian form._
This person has evidently undergone decapitation, and in order to
attach the head again to the body, a ball of mummy cloth has been
formed on the end of a piece of reed _within the cranium_, and the
other end has been thrust between the spine and adjacent muscles, and
confined there by bandages. There is also an excision of the occipital
protuberance, by means of an axe or other sharp instrument, seemingly
made by an unskilful effort to sever the head from the body.
Plate VIII., Fig. 9. (Cat. 855.) Head of a female not exceeding
eighteen years of age, with a finely developed forehead, very long
aquiline nose, small but prominent face, and very peculiar features.
Hair, dark-brown, and extremely fine. The face is gilded.—I. C. 78
cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
(Cat. 874.) Head of a child of nine or ten years, closely shaved and
elaborately gilded, with a high, full forehead, projecting jaws, and
oblique teeth. _Egyptian blended with the Negro form?_
(Cat. 48.) Skull of a child of eight years, with a fine frontal
region, but rather prominent face. Hair long, and of a dark-brown
colour. _Egyptian form._
Plate IX. (Cat. 856.) A cranium of harmonious proportions, with a fine
forehead, gently aquiline nose, delicate facial bones, and perfect
teeth. A man of thirty?—I. C. 92 cubic inches. F. A. 80°.
_Egypto-Pelasgic form._
Plate X., Fig. 1. (Cat. 844.) A finely formed female head, with a
straight nose, and delicate facial bones. Hair abundant, soft, and
curling.—I. C. 68 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 2. (Cat. 872.) A woman of fifty?—with a low receding
forehead, and prominent facial structure. Hair abundant, long, and
very fine, of a light brown or auburn colour, and elaborately curled
and platted.—I. C. 72 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 3. (Cat. 862.) Head of a man of sixty, with a broad
receding forehead, salient nose and light facial bones. Hair, long,
soft, and curling.—I. C. 79 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 4. (Cat. 843.) Head of a woman of thirty? most
carefully embalmed; with a full forehead, very long, straight nose,
and sharp delicate features, but prominent face. There is a profusion
of long, brown, curling hair.—I. C. 74 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 5. (Cat. 877.) Head of a man with a broad receding
forehead, salient nose, and delicate features. Hair, dark-brown,
smooth and curling. The beard, though short, is preserved.—I. C. 89
cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 6. (Cat. 60.) Head of a female not exceeding eighteen
years of age, with a low forehead, long, straight nose, and rather
prominent face. Hair long and fine. This style of head is very common
on the Egyptian monuments. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 7. (Cat. 882.) Head of a young girl, with a very
prominent nose, and long, smooth, curling hair: gilding on the eyelids
and nose. _Egyptian form._
Plate X., Fig. 8. (Cat. 884.) Head of a woman of thirty, of a
faultless Caucasian mould. The hair, which is in profusion, is of a
dark-brown tint, and delicately curled. _Pelasgic form._
Plate X., Fig. 9. (Cat. 875.) A small female head, of seventy? years,
with a fine frontal development, straight nose, and large oval orbits.
The long, curling hair is of a yellowish colour, but has probably been
gray, and dyed by _henna_.—I. C. 73 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate XI., Fig. 1. (Cat. 846.) Head of a youth of about eighteen
years, with a remarkably broad and lofty forehead, a small straight
nose, and delicately formed face. A little smooth, dark hair remains,
and the whole has been elaborately embalmed, with a profusion of
gilding on the face.—I. C. 87 cubic inches. This is one of the most
perfectly formed heads that have ever come under my notice, yet the
eyes are widely separated, the distance between the nose and mouth is
remarkable, and the chin is short and receding. _Egypto-Pelasgic
form._
Plate XI., Fig. 2. (Cat. 842.) Head of a man of about fifty years of
age, with a broad but very low and receding forehead. The nose is very
large, and strongly aquiline, the teeth vertical and much worn, the
cheek bones prominent, and the whole face remarkable for harshness of
expression. A little brown hair remains on the occiput.—I. C. 85 cubic
inches. _Semitic form._
This head possesses great interest, on account of its decided Hebrew
features, of which many examples are extant upon the _monuments_.
(Cat. 886.) Head of a man of fifty? small but well proportioned
throughout. The teeth, which are vertical, are remarkably worn by
attrition.—I. C. 76 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate XII., Figs. 1, 2. (Cat. 845.) An oval head with a full forehead,
and long aquiline nose. The orbits are far apart, and the balls
replaced with bone, on which the iris is distinctly painted. The hair,
which is cut short, is fine and straight.—I. C. 73 cubic inches. This
head has something of the _Semitic_ character, both as respects
configuration and expression, and I class it, though with some
hesitation, with that series.
TWO HEADS OF LUNATICS, FROM THEBES.
[Illustration]
Wood-cut 1. (Cat. 841.) An elongated head, with a very receding
forehead, long, aquiline nose, and large, ponderous jaws, which
project so as to reduce the facial angle to about 65°. This person has
been embalmed with evident care, but with the mouth open, the tongue
protruded, and the eyelids raised, giving a frightfully vacant
expression to the whole countenance, and leaving no reasonable doubt
that this is the head of an idiot. A little hair remains, which is
remarkably fine, and encroaches on the eyebrows.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
Wood-cut 2. (Cat. 863.) Another idiotic head, embalmed also with the
mouth open and the tongue partially protruded. The cranium is long,
the forehead low and receding, the face remarkably prominent, and the
whole expression, as in the former instance, to the last degree vacant
and repulsive. I presume that no one accustomed to comparisons of this
nature can examine these heads, without agreeing with me in opinion as
to their position in the intellectual scale. It may appear, and,
indeed, is surprising, that two idiotic heads should be found among
one hundred taken at random from the catacombs; and I can only explain
the fact by supposing that a particular tomb was reserved for this
unfortunate class of persons; and that the Arab servant employed by
Mr. Gliddon, in his explorations at Thebes, invaded by chance this
very sanctum. It is well known that idiotic persons have, in all ages,
been regarded with a certain degree of veneration in the East; and
hence their remains would be likely, in Egypt, to be carefully
preserved after death. In examining Professor Rosellini’s plates, I
find a solitary example of an idiot, whose head is represented in the
annexed diagram; and it is curious to remark, that the sagacity of the
Egyptian artist has admirably adapted this man’s vocation to his
intellectual developments, for he is employed in stirring the fire of
a blacksmith’s shop. This singular effigy is seen at Thebes.
NEGROID HEADS.
In addition to the two heads of this class from Maabdeh and one from
Memphis, I subjoin descriptions and outline drawings of five others
from Thebes, which are here grouped for the advantage of more ready
comparison.
[Illustration]
Fig. 1. (Cat. 864.) A female cranium, of a narrow oval form, with a
low, receding forehead, small nose, and protruding face. There is much
of the Negro _expression_ in the bony structure of this head.—I. C. 77
cubic inches. F. A. 75°.
Fig. 2. (Cat. 858.) A large and rather ponderous cranium, with a well
developed forehead, salient nose, jaws powerfully developed and
protruding, and the upper teeth presenting obliquely outwards.—I. C.
87 cubic inches. F. A. 77°.
Fig. 3. (Cat. 885.) An oval head, with a convex frontal region, small,
depressed nose, and very projecting face.—I. C. 77 cubic inches. F. A.
76°.
Fig. 4. (Cat. 852.) A small head, with a low, receding forehead, and
strong, small nose, projecting maxillæ, and obvious Negro expression.
A little hair remained, which was cut short, and was coarse without
being woolly.—I. C. 77 cubic inches. F. A. 75°.
Fig. 5. (Cat. 869.) An oval head, with a good frontal development,
salient nose, and very projecting face.—I. C. 88 cubic inches. F. A.
76°.
In the preceding five crania, the Negro features and expression
greatly predominate; at the same time there is an evident mixture of
Caucasian characters. Two of them might pass, perhaps, for genuine
Negroes, but for the comparatively fine texture of the hair. I
therefore regard them as Mulattoes, to which class, also, may be
referred a large proportion of the modern COPTS.
* * * * *
(Cat. No. 1044.) The subjoined wood-cut illustrates a remarkable head,
which may serve as a _type_ of the genuine EGYPTIAN conformation. The
long, oval cranium, the receding forehead, gently aquiline nose, and
retracted chin, together with a marked distance between the nose and
mouth, and the long, smooth hair, are all characteristic of the
monumental Egyptian.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTH SERIES.
THREE HEADS FROM KOUM OMBOS.
The remains of this once celebrated city are seen on a sandy hill on
the eastern bank of the Nile, to the south of Thebes. The Ombites were
celebrated for the worship of the crocodile, which they embalmed with
care and deposited in the catacombs. The three following heads were
obtained by Mr. Gliddon from the Ombite necropolis.
Plate XII., Fig. 3. (Cat. 830.) A female head of 30 years, with a low,
narrow forehead, straight nose, and sharp, prominent features. The
hair, which is in profusion, is long, fine and curling.—I. C. 77 cubic
inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate XII., Fig. 4. (Cat. 831.) Head of a woman of 30 years?, with a
narrow, but high and convex forehead, strong aquiline nose, and sharp
facial structure. The hair is abundant, long, fine and curling.—I. C.
68 cubic inches. _Egyptian form._
Plate XII., Fig. 5. (Cat. 832.) An oval, thin skull, with a good
frontal development, salient nose and delicate facial bones.—F. A.
81°. _Egyptian form._
It is remarkable that two of the preceding skulls (the third being too
much broken for measurement) give an average internal capacity of less
than 73 cubic inches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIXTH SERIES.
FOUR HEADS FROM A TUMULUS NEAR THE ISLAND OF PHILÆ.
Philæ was the ancient boundary between Egypt and Nubia, and this
little island contained several of the most venerated shrines of the
Egyptian deities. The island of Beggeh (the ancient Senem) was also a
consecrated spot, and is immediately contiguous to Philæ. It contains
a funereal tumulus, which is supposed to have been the common
sepulchre of those pilgrims who died during their sojourn, and hence,
as Mr. Gliddon remarks in his memoranda, “they may have been of any
nation or of any epoch.”
Plate XII., Fig. 6. (Cat. 821.) A finely moulded head, with a good
frontal development, aquiline nose, and delicate facial bones.—I. C.
74 cubic inches. F. A. 79°. _Pelasgic form._
(Cat. 822.) A juvenile head, of perhaps 12 years, thin and
inequilateral, with a good forehead, and broad, inter-parietal
diameter. The face is broken, and the ethmoid bone imperforate.
_Egyptian form._
(Cat. 824.) A very narrow, infantile head, with brown, soft, curling
hair. The face is deficient, and the head is rather desiccated than
embalmed. _Egyptian form?_
Plate XII., Fig. 7. (Cat. 823.) An unmixed _Negro_, with a narrow,
elongated head, well-developed forehead, short and flat nasal bones,
everted upper jaw, and short, gray, woolly hair. This appears to be
the cranium of a woman of at least 60 years of age. The bones are
thin, and the whole structure remarkably small.—I. C. 73 cubic inches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVENTH SERIES.
FOUR SKULLS FROM DEBOD, IN NUBIA.
Debod or Deboud is about twelve miles south of Philæ, on the left bank
of the Nile, and in north latitude 24°. It was the site of the ancient
Parembole, and yet possesses some ruins of a once splendid temple of
Ammon.
The following heads were all obtained from a single pit, and from the
rude manner in which they were embalmed and wrapped, Mr. Gliddon (who
obtained them with his own hands) supposes them to have pertained to
people of the lower order.
Plate XII., Fig. 8. (Cat. 829.) Skull of a woman of 50? with a low but
convex forehead, with which the nasal bones have formed a nearly
straight line. The coronal region is low, and the whole osseous
structure strong and rather harsh.—_Egyptian form._ I. C. 70 cubic
inches. F. A. 85°.
Plate XII., Fig. 9. (Cat. 827.) Skull of a man of 40, which strongly
resembles the preceding. The forehead is low, but broad and vertical,
the whole cranium long, the coronal region compressed, the orbits
large, and the upper maxillæ slightly everted.—I. C. 82 cubic inches.
_Egyptian form._
Plate XIII. (Cat. 826.) A fine oval head, with a broad, high, convex
forehead, large, straight nose, and rather prominent maxillæ. On one
side is a mass of long, black hair, much curled, and of a fine
texture.—I. C. 74 cubic inches. F. A. 77°. _Egyptian form._
(Cat. 828.) An elongated, infantile head, with a narrow but vertical
forehead, delicately formed face, very full occiput, and (what is not
uncommon in children) a F. A. of 90°. _Egyptian form._
_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.
[Illustration]
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]
[Illustration:
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!
[Illustration:
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.
[Illustration:
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]
[Illustration:
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]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
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.
[Illustration:
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]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
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]
The Libyans are represented in our day by the various and motley
Berber tribes, who under the names of Tuaricks, Kabyles and Siwahs,
inhabit both north and south of Mt. Atlas; and in their physical
characters combine the Caucasian physiognomy with various shades of
complexion, from a fair skin to a dark and tawny hue.
“The Kabyles,” says Mr. Shaler, “are a white people, of middle
stature, muscular, athletic and active, but never corpulent; and are
of lively, social manners and of ingenious dispositions. Many of them
are of light complexions, with hair approaching to flaxen, resembling
rather the peasants of the south of Europe than the inhabitants of
Africa.”[50] Then come the darker Tuaricks, men of fine mould and
adventurous spirit, but nomadic, unfeeling and vindictive.
Dr. Oudney, who saw them in great number, describes them in nearly
similar terms, but assures us that under favourable circumstances
their good, sound sense, would soon render them “a shining people.” It
is curious, also, to note the following remark of the same intelligent
traveller: “On almost every stone, in places they frequent, the
Tuarick characters are hewn out. It matters not whether the letters
are written from right to left, or _vice versa_, or horizontally,” a
singular accordance with the graphical system of the ancient
Egyptians.[51] It would therefore appear, that these roving
descendants of the Libyan race possess, even now, some vestiges of
that innate love of sculpture which was cultivated on so grand a scale
by the temple-builders of the Nile.
Yet farther south are the darker Berber tribes called Siwahs or
Shouas, who are said by Major Denham to have “free open countenances,
with aquiline noses and large eyes; their complexion is a light copper
colour. They possess great cunning with their courage, and resemble,
in appearance, some of the best favoured Gypsies in England.” Dark as
they are, he remarks that “in comparison with the Negresses they are
almost white.” They are vastly numerous throughout all Soudan, Houssa
and Bornou, and the Sultan of the latter country has no less than
15,000 of them in his army.[52]
In other instances, although they are few in comparison, the Berbers
assimilate more to the Negro on account of the proximity of the two
races; a remark which is especially made by Dr. Oudney in reference to
the Tuaricks of Mourzouk, who have black and curling hair, but which,
“from a Negro mixture, is inclined to be crispy.”[53]
Here then are the various gradations of the Caucasian type which
appear to have marked the ancient Egyptians, together with a degree of
that intermixture of the Negro race which is revealed in the
catacombs, and perpetuated in the modern Coptic population.
In connexion with this subject, it is curious to remark that the
Guanches of the Canary Islands were a branch of the Berber or Libyan
stock; and the singular perfection to which they brought the art of
embalming, long since led to the supposition that they might have been
affiliated with the Egyptians. The only Berber skull in my possession
is of this insular branch of that race, and like the one figured by
Professor Blumenbach, bears a striking resemblance to the Egyptian
conformation.[54]
THE ETHIOPIANS.—Every one who has paid the slightest attention to the
present inquiry, is aware of the entire vagueness of the name
_Ethiopia_ (Cush) as used by the ancients; which, like _India_ in
modern times, was applied to countries very remote from each other,
and whose inhabitants were remarkably dissimilar. Thus
Austral-Egyptians, Hindoos, Arabs, and Negroes, and even the Egyptians
themselves, have each in turn been embraced in this designation.
Our present inquiry, however, relates to that people who occupied the
valley of the Nile, from Philæ to Meroë, and perhaps yet farther
south; a region at the present time inhabited by the Nubians, Senàaree
and the Abyssinians, with all those endless varieties of race which
necessarily result from immemorial proximity to the Negro countries.
It is a point of great interest and importance to ascertain the
physical characteristics of the _aboriginal_ communities of this
branch of the Nilotic family; but they become at an early period so
blended with exotic nations that their distinctive features must be
chiefly derived from the monuments, unless the catacombs of Meroë
should hereafter throw additional light on the subject. Of the
monumental evidence we have already spoken: we have seen that the
proper Egyptian physiognomy, the same which abounds at Thebes, is
every where conspicuous on the tombs and temples of the Meröite[55] or
monumental Ethiopians. That these people had no affinity, even in the
remotest times, to the Negro race, would appear from the evidence
already adduced, and also from other facts which remain to be noticed.
Among the paintings of the Grand Procession (epoch of Thotmes IV.,) at
Thebes, Mr. Hoskins remarks that the Negro is represented with all the
characteristic features of his race, but that the Ethiopians are
painted red like the Egyptians, having their hair dressed in curls
above their foreheads, and in ringlets upon their shoulders.[56]
(Plate XIV., Fig. 22.) So also in the voyage of Scylax, B.C. 360, the
Ethiopians are described as a beautiful people, with long hair and
beard; and the distinguished English traveller just quoted remarks
that the heads sculptured on the pyramids of Meroë have a nearly
European profile. Two of these, which are associated with the same
legend, are represented by the subjoined figures.[57] The one to the
left hand (that of an unknown king) has mixed lineaments, neither
strictly Pelasgic nor Egyptian; while the right hand personage, who
appears to be a priest doing homage, presents a countenance which
corresponds in essentials to the Egyptian type, although the profile
approaches closely to the Grecian.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
The annexed head, also of a king, and bearing some resemblance to the
one above figured, is copied from Mr. Waddington’s[58] drawing of a
group over the portico of the Fifth Pyramid at Djebel Birkel (the
ancient Armada?) supposed to be among the oldest sculptures in Nubia.
We have already alluded to the opinion of Prof. Ritter and others,
that the old Bejas and the modern Bishareens were derived from the
Berber or Libyan stock of nations. I am ready to go farther and adopt
the sentiment of the learned Dr. Murray, that the Egyptians and
monumental Ethiopians “were of the same lineage, and probably
descended from a Libyan tribe.”
This view of the case at once reconciles the remark of Champollion,
Rosellini, Heeren and Rüppell, that they could detect the present
Nubian physiognomy every where on the monuments; but at the same time
it supersedes the necessity of their inference that Nubia was the
cradle of civilization, and that the arts, descending the river, were
perfected in Egypt. The latter question cannot be definitively settled
until the archæologists decide on the relative antiquity of the
Egyptian and Nubian monuments. In the present state of the discussion,
however, the preponderance of facts is greatly in favour of Egypt.[59]
Without attempting to discuss this intricate question on the present
occasion, I will merely add my conviction that the original Meröites
were neither Arabs nor Hindoos, (although, as we shall explain, they
became greatly modified by these nations in after time) but that they
formed an unequivocal link in the Libyan chain of primitive Caucasian
nations.
THE FELLAHS.—These people, also called Arab-Egyptians, are found every
where in the valley of the Nile, of which they are the principal
cultivators. “Their heads,” observes Mr. Lane, “are a fine oval, the
forehead of moderate size, not high, but generally prominent; their
eyes are deep sunk, black and brilliant; the nose is straight and
rather thick; the mouth well formed; the lips are rather full than
otherwise; the teeth particularly beautiful, and the beard is commonly
black and curly, but scanty.”[60] They have a yellowish complexion,
and are, in general, a strong, well formed people. There can be little
question that the Fellahs are a mixture of the Arab stock with the old
rural population of Egypt; an amalgamation which dates chiefly from
the seventh century of our era, (A. D. 640,) when the Saracens under
Amrou conquered the country, and separated it from the Greek empire.
The constant influx of Arab population from that time to the present
must have more or less modified the features of the previous
inhabitants; and yet even now we are assured by Jomard and others,
that the Fellahs of upper Egypt present a striking resemblance, in all
respects, to the monumental paintings and sculptures. “A l’aspect des
hommes du territoire d’Esné, d’Ombos, ou d’Edfoû, ou des environs de
Selsélé, il semblerait (pour emprunter une image du plus célèbre des
ecrivains modernes) que les figures des monuments de Latopolis,
d’Ombos, ou d’Apollinopolis Magna, se sont détachées des murailles, et
sont descendues dans la campagne.”[61]
Mr. Gliddon’s kindness has furnished me with eight Fellah skulls, of
which five are represented in the subjoined wood-cuts. Three of them
only are adult, and all are small, and present a remarkable prominence
of the face (termed _prognathous_ by Dr. Prichard;) a feature which
appears exaggerated in the following outlines, on account of the
occiput and teeth being drawn on the same plane.
[Illustration]
The large receding forehead,[62] so characteristic of both Arabs and
Fellahs (and, as we have seen, of the several links of the great
Semitic chain of nations,) is well marked in most of these crania,
together with the long and salient nose.
That several of them are in feature more Arab or even Hebrew than
Egyptian (A, C,) is obvious, and the reason has been already given;
yet how far the Fellahs will compare, in the details of physical
character, with the true Libyan or Berber tribes, remains for future
investigation. When this shall have been accomplished, it may be found
that the Fellahs preserve the nearest approximation to the ancient
Egyptians of any people now inhabiting the valley of the Nile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. THE PELASGIC RACE.[63]
The proofs that people of the Pelasgic stock were in early times the
rulers of Egypt is attested by history and the monuments. Manetho
states that the XVI. dynasty was composed “Of thirty-two Hellenic
shepherd kings, ([Greek: poimenes Ellênes basileis],[64]) who reigned
five hundred and eighteen years.” It is not to be supposed that the
number of either kings or years is accurately given: all that is
necessary to our purpose is the main fact of Hellenic dominion in
Egypt, which is moreover sustained by monumental evidence; for happily
the tombs and temples preserve the portraits of the Nilotic
sovereigns, executed with so much individuality of feature and
expression, as to leave little doubt of the general fidelity of the
likenesses. These effigies, which are now indelibly preserved in the
great works of Champollion and Rosellini, present the following
interesting results.[65]
[Illustration]
The oldest identified human effigy now extant is that on the _Tablet
of Wady Halfa_, preserved in the gallery of Florence.[66] This
venerable relic, which has been satisfactorily proved to date more
than two thousand two hundred years before the Christian era,[67]
represents Osortasen the First in the form of Ammon, and receiving
from the god Monthou (Mars) the people of Lybia bound with cords as
captive nations.
The features of the king are strictly Pelasgic; and the facial angle,
(allowing for the unnatural elevation of the ear,) measures upwards of
eighty degrees. It is also remarkable that this head is strikingly
like those of the Ptolemaic sovereigns of Egypt, and especially
corresponds in every feature with the portrait of Ptolemy Euergetes
II., although eighteen centuries elapsed between their respective
reigns. We therefore recur to our proposition, that whether this
effigy be a portrait or not, it at least proves that the artists of
those primeval times derived their ideas of the human countenance from
Caucasian models.
The next of these heads which can be identified with its epoch, is
that of Amunoph I. This again presents a fine cast of European
features; such, in fact, as would embellish a Grecian statue; and yet
this monarch reigned in the valley of the Nile, and held his court in
Memphis more than eighteen hundred years before the birth of Christ.
(Plate XIV., Fig. 1.) And if from this remote period we trace the
physiognomy of the kings and queens of the subsequent reigns, we
perceive among them many equally beautiful models, some of which are
not inferior to the _beau ideal_ of classic art. Take, for example,
the heads of Menepthah and Rameses III., in the character of
priest,—Rameses X., Rameses XI., and Amenmeses,—the queens Nofre-Ari,
and Nitocris, and the daughter of Phisham (or Pihmé,) the regent
priest, and let me ask among what people we shall find more graceful
facial lines, or more varied intellectual expression? (Plate XIV.)
It may be suggested that in some of these heads the Pelasgic character
is not wholly unmixed, and especially in reference to Amunoph the
First. In this instance there is something of the Egyptian, or, as
Professor Blumenbach would express it, the Hindoo physiognomy. I wish
it to be understood, however, that I do not assert all these
sovereigns to have been of the Pelasgic or Japetic stock; for some of
them, as Rameses the Third, and Menepthah the First, are on other
occasions represented with decidedly Egyptian features. These mixed
and varied Caucasian lineaments may perhaps have been derived from the
antecedent Hellenic kings, who in giving place again to the native
Egyptians, must doubtless have left their national characteristics
more or less blended with those of the indigenous families.
The following heads, which are all of strictly Caucasian proportions,
are _fac simile_ copies from Rosellini. They are derived from groups
of figures engaged in various mechanical and other operations, as
represented in the tombs and temples of Thebes, and various other
parts of Egypt.
[Illustration]
The annexed head, (1) that of a reaper, is one of a great number
executed in bas-relief in the celebrated tombs of Eilethyas, which
possess a greater interest and value in ethnography on account of
their venerable antiquity; for they date with and before the
eighteenth dynasty, and consequently are at least three thousand six
hundred years old.[68] The great French work, (Déscription de
l’Egypte,) contains an extended series of illustrations from the same
remarkable tombs in which a similar cast of features is almost every
where apparent.[69]
[Illustration]
The same style of face is not less decidedly expressed in another head
(2) from Rosellini,[70] of which the original painting is preserved in
the Royal Gallery at Florence. It represents an artisan. How admirably
do the features conform to the Grecian type!
[Illustration]
I repeat the remark, and yet more emphatically, in reference to the
admirable battle scene at Abousimbel, of the age of Rameses the Third,
wherein eighty soldiers are depicted in a single group, each one
bearing a shield and spear.[71] Are they mercenaries from one of the
Hellenic tribes? I select the two subjoined examples; (3) for a close
resemblance pervades them all. Here again every line is Grecian; and
yet when these paintings were executed, the wandering Pelasgi had
hardly begun to associate themselves in civilized communities, and the
arts of Greece were unknown.
[Illustration]
Paintings of a similar ethnographic character are seen in profusion at
Beni-Hassan, whence is derived the annexed outline, representing one
of the leather-dressers of that group. The straight line for the nose
and forehead is strictly Pelasgic, and conforms in most respects to
the other facial traits. (4)
The same general physiognomy is often much more rudely expressed, as
in the tomb of Imai, at Gizeh, which is of the age of Shufo, of the
fourth dynasty, and consequently the period of disputed chronology.
Rude as these figures are, and identified with an humble sphere of
life, they have the Caucasian form, and partake of the same
ethnographic lineaments with the more elaborately finished
outlines delineated above. It may be observed, with respect to
Egyptian art, that while the bas-reliefs are for the most part
executed with remarkable beauty and precision, the paintings, owing to
the use of a single colour, and the absence of perspective or shading,
are often coarse and defective; and the two annexed drawings will
serve to illustrate this negligent style of art.
[Illustration]
It is thus that we trace the Pelasgic type of feature and expression
through all the various castes of the Egyptian population, beginning
with kings and ending with peasants and plebeians. The illustrations
have been purposely selected from those remote times wherein
chronology becomes confusion, down to the later periods of recorded
history,—a vast period of thirteen centuries, of which the latest date
looks back nine hundred years before the birth of Christ!
People of Pelasgic features and complexion are often seen on the
monuments as prisoners taken in war. One of these is copied, Plate
XIV., Fig. 23. It is from Abousimbel, and dates with Rameses III. The
very fair skin, regular features and black hair seem to point to a
nation of southern Europe. The nose is nearly straight, and on the
same line with the forehead, although the latter recedes more than is
consistent with our ideas of the Grecian profile.[72]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE SEMITIC RACE.[73]
That people of this great family were numerous in Egypt is amply
attested both by sacred and profane history; and the proximity of
their respective countries necessarily brought the Semitic and
Egyptian communities into frequent contact for war or for peace. This
fact is abundantly proved by the monuments. The Jewish people,
however, appears, for the most part, to have been admitted into Egypt
upon sufferance; for the Exodus, and all subsequent annals, are
conclusive on this subject.
Those peculiar lineaments which, from very remote times, have
characterized some of the Semitic nations, have been already noticed.
How many of these nations possessed these physical characters, cannot
now be determined; but it is probable that all partook of them in
degree. It is in the temple of Beyt-el-Wàlee, in Nubia, in paintings
of the age of Rameses II., (B.C. 1579,) that we meet with one of the
earliest unquestionable delineations of these people. (Plate XIV.,
Fig. 24.)
An additional illustration is that given in the margin. It is also
preserved in the temple of Bey-el-Wàlee, and is of the same date as
the head above described. These people are generally represented as
enemies or bondsmen; nor have I any doubt that the figures in the
celebrated _Brickmaker’s scene_, in the tomb of Rekshari, at Thebes,
of the age of Thotmes IV., are those of a Semitic nation, and, in all
probability, Hebrews. Their features obviously correspond with those
of the latter people; and their scanty beards, which have been made an
objection to this view of their nationality, may be regarded as a
compulsory badge of captivity. Perhaps the most Hebrew _portrait_ on
the monuments is that of Aahmes-Nofre-Ari, Queen of Amunoph I., who is
said by the hieroglyphists to have been by birth a Meröite. (Plate
XIV., Fig. 13.) Semitic features, as we have already shown, are
occasionally found among the embalmed heads from the catacombs; in
proof of which I refer, with confidence, to Plate XI., Fig. 2; and
also, though less strongly marked, to Plate II., Fig. 8, Plate VI.,
Figs. 2 and 8, and to Plate XII., Figs. 1 and 2.
[Illustration]
My studies have not qualified me for philological comparisons and
inferences, but I cannot forbear introducing the following views of
the learned Dr. Lepsius, on account of their direct bearing upon this
interesting question. Speaking of the Egyptian and Coptic tongues, he
says:—“I have now discovered, in the essence of the language itself,
not only that there is no appearance whatever of any grammatical
change, and that it possesses, perhaps in a higher degree, that
principle of stability so peculiar to the Semitic dialects, but also
that it has preserved in its formation traces of a higher antiquity
than any Indo-Germanic or Semitic language wherewith I am acquainted,
which traces will therefore be most unexpectedly important even for
these two families. At the same time the Coptic cannot be termed
either Semitic or Indo-Germanic. It has its own peculiar formation,
though, at the same time, _its fundamental relationship with these two
families_ is not to be mistaken.”[74]
THE ARABS.—The southern or peninsular Arabs are a people of middle
stature, with a complexion varying from a sallow hue to a very dark
colour. They have sharp, bold features, a rather prominent face, and a
straight or gently aquiline nose. The head is, moreover, comparatively
small, and the forehead rather narrow and sensibly receding; to which
may often be added a meagre and angular figure,[75] long, slender
limbs, and large knees. Some tribes are also remarkable for the small
stature of the men, which, according to Burckhardt, does not exceed
five feet two or three inches; while, with a thick head of hair, they
possess a short, thin, and pointed beard.[76]
Such are some of the Bedouins; but the most formidable Arab tribes
have always been the Hemyarites of Yemen; a restless and enterprising
people, whose migrations have been chiefly directed to Africa, and
especially to the valley of the Nile; a region which they have invaded
and more or less occupied from the earliest times, through the reigns
of the Pharaohs, Ptolemies, and Cæsars, down to a recent period of our
own era. What language can be stronger than that of Juba, (about the
commencement of our own era,) that the inhabitants of the valley of
the Nile, from Philæ to Meroë, were not Ethiopians, but Arabs? So,
also, in the days of Strabo, half the population of _Coptos_ itself
was made up of the same people.
The cranial resemblances between the Arabs and ancient Egyptians
impressed me forcibly from the commencement of my inquiries; which
last I have been able to prosecute in a more satisfactory manner by
means of a series of Arab skulls, obtained in Egypt by Mr. Gliddon. I
subjoin outline drawings of five of them, in order that the reader may
judge for himself.
[Illustration]
These skulls are all adult, and though comparatively small, give a
mean internal capacity of eighty-four cubic inches, which is above the
Egyptian average. The analogy, however, is greater in form than in
size, as may be observed by comparing the above outlines with several
of the embalmed heads from the catacombs, and especially that figured
Plate VI., Fig. 7. In fact, the resemblance between the Egyptian and
Arab head is so striking, that nothing but a faithful study of the
monuments has satisfied me that the two nations were primitively
distinct from each other; and that what I at first believed to be the
_Austral-Egyptian_ conformation, is no other than the Egyptian itself.
Some very ancient paintings, copied by Rosellini from the temple
decorations at Beyt-el-Wàlee, in Nubia, appear, also, to pertain to
the Arab physiognomy. (Plate XIV., Figs. 19, 20.) In these the
yellowish-red complexion indicates, we might suppose, some affinity
with the Egyptian nation, while the small, pointed beard, and sharp,
prominent face, point to the Arabian stock of nations. Their name
reads _Tohen_ on the monuments; and they pertain to the age of Rameses
II., and illustrate the conquests of that monarch 1579 years before
Christ.
Without entering into a philological discussion, it is worthy of
remark, that the Gheez or Ethiopic language, the oldest of the known
tongues of Abyssinia, is directly allied to the Arabic and Hebrew. The
period of its introduction into Africa is unknown, though it probably
dates far beyond our era. Moreover, among the ruins recently
discovered at Hasan Ghorâb, (170 miles east of Aden,) at Sanaa, and at
other places in Yemen, inscriptions have been abundantly found in the
old Ethiopic tongue, which, in the opinion of the late Professor
Gesenius, is a modification of the parent Hemyarite language.
These few facts, with others which will be adduced hereafter, go to
prove that the Egyptian people must have been more or less blended
with the Arabian race; nor can there be a question that the Meröite or
Austral-Egyptian communities were composed, at least in part, of an
Indo-Arabian stock engrafted on the aboriginal Libyan population.
An able but anonymous author not only asserts the Arab origin of the
monumental Ethiopians, but endeavours to prove, by an ingenious series
of facts and reasonings, that they were the “Blemies of history, a
Bejáwy branch of the Arabian family;” that they were broken and
finally dispersed by the policy of the Roman government, which, in the
reign of Dioclesian, introduced Negro colonies from Kordofan; and,
finally, that the Nubians of our day are not, as a nation, descended
from the ancient stock. The last proposition, as a general rule, is
undeniable; but the preceding conclusions are not yet susceptible of
proof.[77]
Convinced as we are that the Egyptians were a distinct and aboriginal
people, the sentiment of M. Jomard may yet become, to a certain
extent, an axiom in ethnography:—“L’Arabie à été de tout temps, et
elle est encore de nos jours, l’aliment de la population
Egyptienne.”[78]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. THE HINDOOS.
I observe among the Egyptian crania, some which differ in nothing from
the Hindoo type either in respect to size or configuration. I have
already, in my remarks upon the ear, mentioned a downward elongation
of the upper jaw, which I have more frequently met with in Egyptian
and Hindoo heads than in any others, although I have seen it
occasionally in all the races. This feature is remarkable in two of
the following five crania, (A, B,) and may be compared with a similar
form from Abydos. (Plate V., Fig. 2.)
[Illustration]
The Hindoo head is also remarkable for its small size, its narrow
form, especially in front, and often, also, for the delicacy of the
osteological structure. The bones of the face, however, project more
than those of the European, and there is not unfrequently a manifest
eversion of the upper jaw. (B.) The nose is rather small, and the
bones are variously aquiline, straight, or moderately compressed. My
observations have been made on thirty-seven crania, for which I am
indebted to Drs. Burrough and Carson, of this city, and to Dr. Martin
and Mr. H. Piddington, of Calcutta. Of these, twenty-four are adult,
varying from eighteen to eighty years of age, and give an average
internal capacity of but eighty cubic inches; the largest head
measuring ninety cubic inches, the smallest only sixty-nine.[79] They
pertain, for the most part, to _low-caste_ Bengalees.
[Illustration]
It is in that mixed family of nations which I have called
Austral-Egyptian that we should expect to meet with the strongest
evidence of Hindoo lineage; and here, again, we can only institute
adequate comparisons by reference to the works of Champollion and
Rosellini. I observe the Hindoo style of features in several of the
royal effigies, and in none more decidedly than in the head of
Asharramon, as sculptured in the temple of Debod, in Nubia. The date
of this king has not yet been ascertained; but as he ruled over Meroë,
and not in Egypt, (probably in Ptolemaic times,) he may be regarded as
a good illustration of at least one modification of the
Austral-Egyptian type.
[Illustration]
Another set of features, but little different, however, from the
preceding, is seen among the middling class of Egyptians as pictured
on the monuments, and these I also refer to the Hindoo type. Take, for
example, the four annexed outlines, copied from a sculptured fragment
preserved in the museum of Turin. These effigies may be said to be
essentially Egyptian; but do they not forcibly remind us of the
Hindoo?[80] The mummied head figured Plate X., Fig. 6, has the same
general form and cast of features.
The Hindoos are also represented on the monuments as prisoners and
tribute-bearers to the kings. My drawing, Plate XIV., Fig. 21, is
copied from the “Grand Procession” of Thotmes IV. The man leads a
bear; an indication that he is of a foreign country, for there are no
bears indigenous to Africa. Moreover, the characters of the animal, as
delineated in Rosellini, are not unlike those of the celebrated
grotesque species of India called by naturalists _Ursus labiatus_,
which has been, in all ages, a favourite with Hindoo mountebanks. The
man himself has an aquiline and pointed nose, thin beard, receding
forehead, and comparatively fair complexion, which assimilate him to
some Indo-Semitic or Indo-Persian tribe.
[Illustration]
In the same celebrated scene I notice another head of the same general
cast, but of a darker complexion and more delicate features, who
answers yet more accurately to the type of the northern Hindoos. He
wears a light dress and grass hat, and moreover leads an elephant, all
of which point to a warm climate. Mr. Hoskins remarks that “the
elephant must be from Ethiopia: if, therefore, they [the attendants]
are Scythians, as some suppose, they must be employed as slaves
bringing the produce of Ethiopia.” And he concludes by suggesting that
they may be white slaves of the latter country, sent as a present to
the Egyptian king. This appears to me to be an involved and
unsatisfactory explanation. The elephant, like the bear, is obviously
an Asiatic animal, (for the Egyptians made no use of the living native
species,) and it is evident that this group is merely typical of some
conquered Hindoo nation, or proximate and cognate tribe.
Winkelman, Blumenbach, and other authors, have also been struck with
these cranial resemblances; and certain physical analogies were
familiar to the writers of antiquity. They are especially recorded by
Strabo and Arrian, who compare the southern Hindoos to the Ethiopians,
and the northern Hindoos to the Egyptians. Various shades of
complexion, as we have remarked, were common to both countries,
together with a small stature and slender limbs.
History, mythology and the arts discover various additional analogies
between these venerable nations. Apis, the Egyptian bull, was the
symbol of Osiris; and the white bull is the animal on which Siva is
represented on the Indian pagodas: worship was bestowed alike on the
Ganges and the Nile; both nations paid homage to the sun and the
serpent; and even at the present time, the objects held in greatest
veneration by the Hindoos of the Vishnu sect are the ape, the monkey,
the bird called garruda, and the serpent capella. Among the symbols of
superstition in each are the sphinx, the lotus, the lingam, and the
cross. “The dog, sacred to Bhairava, a form of Siva, and the jackall
of Durga, remind us of the barking Anubis, the companion of Osiris.
The dogs of Yama, one of which was termed Cerbura, or spotted, and was
feigned to have three heads, corresponds remarkably, as Mr. Wilford
has observed, with the three-headed Cerberus, the dog of Pluto.”[81]
This affinity is also recognised in their almost exclusive vegetable
diet, and by the singular institution of castes. Analogies are,
moreover, traced in the architecture of the two nations, whether in
their monolithic temples and subterranean sanctuaries, or in the
statuary and minor decorations of their stupendous temples.[82]
That there was extensive and long-continued intercourse between the
Hindoos and Egyptians is beyond a question; and history speaks, also,
of conquest and migration. Which was primitively the dominant power?
The Egyptians very naturally decided this point in their own favour;
for they assert that Osiris crossed Arabia to the utmost inhabited
parts of India, and built many cities there. “He left, likewise,” says
Diodorus, “many other marks of his being in these parts, which have
induced the inhabitants to believe and affirm, that this god (Osiris)
was born in India.”[83] Thus it appears that, in the age of Diodorus,
the Hindoos not only worshipped, but claimed as original to
themselves, the principal divinity of the Egyptians. There is,
moreover, a passage in Syncellus which directly asserts that the
Hindoos, who, as we have observed, are sometimes called Ethiopians in
ancient history, formed colonies in Egypt. “Æthiopes ab Indo fluvio
profecti, supra Ægyptum sedem sibi eligerunt.” Heeren, from whom I
derive this quotation, remarks, that as the Hindoos would necessarily
arrive by sea, they would establish themselves on the coast. We grant
it; but a commercial and migratory people would soon find their way to
the great mart of Meroë, and thence to every part of the Egyptian
provinces. It has been observed by Mr. Bonomi, that the affiliation of
the Hindoos with the people of the upper Nile is confirmed by the
affinity which exists between the Ethiopic and Sanscrit systems of
writing, as pointed out by Dr. Wall and Mr. Tudor.[84]
Dr. Prichard, whose profound investigations into this and all other
questions in ethnography, command our highest respect, while he admits
that great difficulties present themselves in the present inquiry,
remarks “that a common origin, if not of the races themselves, at
least of the mental culture characteristic of both of them, has been
proved; and that the people of India and of Egypt derived from one
source the first principles of all their peculiarities of thought and
action, of their religious and social observances, and civil and
political institutions; and that these principles had even been
developed to a considerable extent, before the nations themselves were
entirely cut off from communication with each other or with a common
centre.”[85]
It has been proved by the philosophic Heeren, that Meroë was the grand
emporium of the trade between the richest and most productive portions
of the earth; the gold countries of eastern Africa, the spice lands of
India, and the region of frankincense and precious stones in southern
Arabia. He has shown that the communication between these countries
was established in the most ancient periods, and continued without
interruption through successive ages of time; that the ruins of Adulé,
Azab, and Axum, yet mark the caravan routes between Meroë and Arabia
Felix; and that Yemen, though separated from India by an open sea, is
yet connected with it by nature in an extraordinary manner. “One half
of the year,” he adds, “from spring to autumn, the wind regularly sets
in and wafts the vessels from Arabia to India; the other half, from
autumn to spring, it as regularly carries them back from India to
Arabia.”[86]
In truth, what Diodorus says, in general, of early Egyptian commerce
and conquest by sea, need be no longer regarded as fabulous, although
the details, like much that we glean from the remote history of all
heathen nations, are to be received with circumspection. He tells us
that Sesostris (Rameses III.) fitted out a fleet of four hundred ships
in the Arabian gulf, with which he conquered all the countries
bordering on the Erythrean sea, as far as India, whence he led an army
beyond the Ganges until he again reached the ocean. This account is
not likely to be _all_ fable, especially since it comes from a Greek
historian; and we may safely regard it as an indication of that
extensive maritime enterprise in which the Egyptians engaged with the
southern nations of Asia. When the Romans under the guidance of
Hippalus, eighty years after their conquest of Egypt, began to trade
with India by way of the Red Sea and Malabar, they only re-established
the ancient route, which had been long forgotten amidst the chaos of
political revolutions. In fine, if the Egyptians had been their own
historians, we should probably learn that they were as familiar with
India in ancient as the English are in modern times.[87]
While we conclude, therefore, that the Egyptians were a distinct
people from either the Arabs or Hindoos, we cannot deny those
resemblances which are too obvious to be mistaken, yet not to be
accounted for without difficulty; nor can there be a reasonable doubt
that the people of both these nations formed an important part of the
once multitudinous population of Egypt.[88]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. THE HYKSHOS.
There is no fact in history more familiar than the rule of the Hykshos
or shepherd kings in Egypt. The word Hykshos is the same as we have
seen (p. 38,) both in the Egyptian and Berber or Libyan tongues, and
signified a _shepherd_ or a wanderer. It was applied to all those
foreigners who at different times displaced the native
dynasties,—Scythians, Hellenic tribes, Phenicians, and others.
Reserving some remarks for a future part of this memoir, we shall
briefly observe that there is no monumental record of more than one of
these sovereignties, namely, that which was expelled by Amunoph the
First of the eighteenth dynasty, about eighteen centuries before
Christ. These people, whose name was held in execration by the
Egyptians, are said by Herodotus and other historians to have
possessed a fair complexion, blue eyes, and reddish hair. That they
were of the Caucasian race there is no question; but the preceding
traits apply equally to the Scythians, the Phenicians, and the Edomim
or Edomites, and it is probable that the shepherd dynasties of Manetho
embraced kings from all these sources.[89]
The portraits of these intrusive kings, as recently discovered in
various parts of Egypt, not only present a physiognomy entirely
different from that of the legitimate monarchs, but the symbol of
their religion is also different, being “the sun, whose rays terminate
in human hands,” while the accompanying hieroglyphic legends make no
allusion to the Egyptian deities. “Their features,” observes Mr.
Perring, from whom I derive these facts, “do not at all resemble the
Egyptian; and, though much defaced, are evidently the same as those
found on the propyla of Karnak, where we may recognise a similarity
with the tall, white, slender, blue-eyed, and red-haired race, painted
on the soles of the Egyptian sandals, and appearing also on the
monuments, where they are emphatically called the _wicked race of
Scheto_.”[90] One of these effigies is found only on fragments of
stone which had pertained to temples antecedent to the eighteenth
dynasty, which structures were overturned by the legitimate kings of
that and the succeeding reigns, and the _materials_ used in erecting
those splendid Pharaonic monuments of which they yet form a part.
The three following heads are copied from Mr. Perring’s very
interesting memoir.
[Illustration]
No. 1, the portrait of a king whose name is read _Skai_ by
Champollion, copied from his tomb in the western valley near Thebes.
The bold, heavy features, and harsh expression are very remarkable,
and Mr. Perring observes that this personage is represented of a much
lighter red than is usual with the Egyptians.
No. 2. Head of another king of this exotic dynasty, with long sharp
features, whose name reads _Atenre-Backhan_ on the monuments, copied
from a stone in the second propylon of Karnak.
No. 3. Another effigy of the same king, from the grottoes of El Tell,
of which Mr. Perring remarks, that having been copied in haste it is
somewhat in caricature.
El Tell, or Tel-el-Amarna, appears to have been the stronghold of
these “foreign marauders,” respecting whom Mr. Gliddon, after
suggesting the probability that the sovereigns may have been of
Arabian origin, inquires—“whether the present inhabitants, whose
village occupies the once warlike camp or city of _Atenre_, have in
their views and in their physical conformation, some vestiges of that
early tribe of heterodox conquerors? And may not then the cause of the
almost instinctive terror with which the natives of other parts of
Egypt regard this vicinity, proceed from vague traditions of ancient
predatory habits,—some fitful legend that has outlived thirty-five
centuries?”[91]
[Illustration]
There are many effigies of the same general character of the age of
the fourth Rameses. One of them, a captive, is figured in the margin.
Wilkinson reads their name Tochari on the monuments; Rosellini
translates it Fekkaro. To my view they have the lined and hardy
features of the Celts or Gauls, of whom, however, we have little
knowledge at that remote date, (B.C. 1400,) although even then they
occupied a large part of southern Europe. They perhaps rather pertain
to the Phenician branch of the Caucasian race.
[Illustration]
There are other paintings, especially some at Abousimbel of the age of
Rameses III., which correspond in every particular with the Scythian
physiognomy as recorded in history;[92] and the name of _Scheto_, by
which they are designated on the monuments, confirms the suggestion of
the hieroglyphists that they represent a Scythian or Scytho-Bactrian
people.[93]
The researches of Lord Lindsay seem to prove that the Assyrians were
also among the Hykshos conquerors of Egypt; and the shepherds who
invaded Egypt before the time of Abraham are called _Cushim_ by the
ancients, which means Ethiopians or Babylonians; for the country on
both sides of the Persian Gulf was called _Cush_.[94]
Plutarch, quoting Manetho, asserts that Tiphonean or red-haired men
were sacrificed in the temples of Eletheias, and their ashes scattered
to the winds. Was this done in commemoration of the hatred which the
Egyptians bore to the red-haired Hykshos?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. THE COPTS.
From various antecedent remarks it will be perceived that I regard the
Copts as a mixed community, derived in diverse proportions from the
Caucasian and the Negro; and this diversity of origin may explain the
dissimilar characteristics which travellers have ascribed to them.
Denon, for example, described them as having “flat foreheads, eyes
half closed, and raised up at the angles, high cheek bones, a broad,
flat, and short nose, a large, flattened mouth, placed at a
considerable distance from the nose, thick lips, a little beard, a
shapeless body, crooked legs, without expression in the contour, and
long, flat toes.”[95] Denon even thinks that these features
correspond, in a remarkable manner, with the human face and figure as
represented in Egyptian painting and sculpture! And Sonnini, after
describing them in nearly analogous terms, adds the moral reproach,
that while “they are the ugliest of men, they are the filthiest and
most disgusting.”[96]
If we compare these seemingly exaggerated descriptions with those of
Brown, Lane, and some other travellers, the discrepancy is so great
as, at first thought, to baffle all explanation. Brown, for example,
“was not struck with any resemblance to the Negro features or form;”
and he saw nothing remarkable in the texture of the hair.[97] “The
eyes of the Copts,” says Mr. Lane, “are generally large and elongated,
slightly inclining from the nose upwards, and always black. The nose
is straight, excepting at the end, where it is rounded and wide; and
the lips are rather thick, and the hair is black and curly.”[98]
Madden adds that they are characterized by a remarkable distance
between the eyes. Belzoni observed among them some as fair as
Europeans; Rosellini assures us that they are largely mixed with
Jewish and Roman blood;[99] and D’Avezac, like Depauw, discovers in
them a partial Chinese ancestry. These, and numberless other opinions
which might be cited, prove that the Copts differ greatly among
themselves; and that they are, physically and morally, a mixture of
all the nations which have successively held dominion in Egypt, or
swelled its varied population—Egyptians of various castes, Greeks,
Romans, Arabs, Hebrews, Negroes, and some others Such was, at least in
part, the opinion of Pugnet, (whose memoir I have not seen,) for he
separates them “into two divisions; those whose ancestry has been
intermixed, and partly of Greek and Latin descent, and a class of
purely Egyptian origin.”[100] But, after all, perhaps the traces which
are most invariable in the Copt are derived from the Negro; and they
are manifest in the very bones of the head and face.
“The inhabitants of the towns of Arabia and Egypt,” says Burckhardt,
“are in the daily habit of taking in wedlock Abyssinian as well as
Negro slaves;”[101] and, in a subsequent part of his travels, the same
intelligent author describes a class of people in Nubia who are the
direct offspring of this mixture of race, and who seem, from his
description, to answer the characters of the Copts themselves. “The
Nouba slaves (among whom must be reckoned those who are born in Senaar
of male Negroes and female Abyssinians) form a middle class between
the blacks and the Abyssinians. Their features, though they retain
evident signs of Negro origin, have still something of what is called
regular; their noses, though smaller than those of Europeans, are less
flat than those of Negroes their lips are less thick, and the cheek
bones less prominent. The hair of some is woolly but among the greater
part it is similar to the hair of Europeans, but _stronger_, and
always curled.” Another, and yet more striking example of the Negroid
conformation is seen in the vast Foulah or Fellatah population of
central Africa, which is now spread over a region of fifteen hundred
miles from east to west, and five hundred miles from north to south.
That they are a mixed progeny of Arabs, Berbers and Negroes, no longer
admits of a reasonable doubt. Such is the opinion of D’Avezac and
Hodgson, Vater, Adelung, and most other inquirers. “In the midst of
the Negro races,” observes M. D’Avezac, “there stands out a métive
population, of tawny or copper colour, prominent nose, small mouth,
and oval face, which ranks itself among the white races, and asserts
itself to be descended from Arab fathers and Taurodo mothers. Their
crisped hair, even woolly, though long, justifies their classification
among the _Oulotric_ (woolly-haired) populations; but neither the
traits of their features, nor the colour of their skin, allow them to
be confounded with Negroes, however great the fusion of the two types
may be.”[102] These and other facts derived from the slave trade, when
considered in connexion with the Negro colonization of Nubia in the
reign of Dioclesian, will account, I may repeat, not only for every
blending of race observable in that country, but also assists us in
tracing the origin of the Copts;—not to a _period_ of time, it is
true, but to circumstances which have been in operation for ages, and
which were once, in all probability, far more active than they are at
present.
By the kindness of Mr. Gliddon I possess three Coptic skulls, two of
which are adult, and are accurately sketched in the subjoined
drawings, (A and B.)
[Illustration]
In A the cranium is elongated, narrow, but otherwise mediately
developed in front, with great breadth and fulness in the whole
posterior region. The nasal bones, though prominent, are broad, short,
and concave, and the upper jaw is everted. There is, also, a
remarkable distance between the eyes. The facial angle measures 81°,
the internal capacity 85 cubic inches.
In the second head, B, the head is long and narrow, with a receding
forehead, flat or concave nasal bones, and short, everted upper
maxilla. Facial angle 78°; internal capacity 77 cubic inches.
A glance at these two crania will satisfy any one that they possess,
in degree, both the conformation and expression of the Negro.
The third skull, that of a child of two years of age, corresponds in
general form with the preceding, without having the African
characteristics quite so obviously expressed.
It therefore follows, from all the evidence we possess in relation to
the Copts, that, as a people, they partake sensibly, and sometimes
largely, of Negro lineage.
An inspection of the royal portraits preserved in Rosellini, shows
several heads which are obviously of the Coptic form; those, for
example, of Sabakon and Tirhaka, of the Ethiopian dynasty, and of the
queen Metumva, of an earlier epoch. (Plate XIV.) The same lineaments,
though in less degree, are also obvious in the effigies of Sheshonk
(Shishak) and Osorkon II., of the twenty-second dynasty, and in a few
others of different periods of time. I wish it to be understood that I
do not say these sovereigns were of Coptic lineage; but merely that
their physiognomy, as expressed on the monuments, has the Coptic
character. The history of the Copts remains an enigma in Egyptian
ethnography.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. THE NUBIANS.
It seems necessary, in further elucidation of this subject, to submit
a few additional facts and observations in reference to the Berbers,
or present inhabitants of Nubia, in order to show their relative
position to the ancient occupants of that country. As the celebrated
Burckhardt saw them in almost every locality, we shall mainly content
ourselves with his graphic delineation. The Berbers, says he, are of a
dark red-brown complexion, “which, if the mother is a slave from
Abyssinia, becomes a light brown in the children; and if from the
Negro countries, extremely dark. Their features are not at all those
of the Negro, the face being oval, the nose often perfectly Grecian,
and the cheek bones not prominent. The upper lip, however, is somewhat
thicker than is considered beautiful among northern nations, though it
is still far from the Negro lip. Their hair is bushy and strong, but
not woolly.” The same intelligent traveller subsequently speaks of
their language, respecting which he was certainly well qualified to
judge; he assures us that the people south of Siout are ancient
Bedouin tribes, who speak a very pure Arabic; and he makes a nearly
similar remark respecting those who inhabit the river banks from
Dongola to Senaar, and thence westward to Bornou, although they speak
many different dialects.[103]
It is well known, however, that there are whole tribes in Nubia whose
language is not derived from the Arabic; and these may be more nearly
allied to the primitive population. “The inhabitants of Dar Dongola,”
says Dr. Rüppell, “are divided into two principal classes, namely, the
Barábra, or _descendants of the old Ethiopian natives of the country_,
and the races of Arabs who have emigrated from the Hedjar. The
ancestors of the Barábra, who, in the course of centuries have been
repeatedly conquered by hostile tribes, must have undergone some
intermixture with people of foreign blood; yet an attentive inquiry
will enable us to distinguish among them the old national physiognomy
which their forefathers have marked upon colossal statues, and the
bas-reliefs of temples and sepulchres. A long, oval countenance, a
beautifully curved nose, somewhat rounded towards the tip,
proportionately thick lips, but not protruding excessively, a
retreating chin, scanty beard, lively eyes, strongly frizzled but
never woolly hair, a remarkably beautiful figure, generally of middle
size, and a bronze colour, are the characteristics of the genuine
Dungolawi.”[104] He adds, that the same traits of physiognomy are
generally found among the Ababdé, the Bishareen, and partially among
the people of Shendy and Abyssinia.
It must be acknowledged, however, that we can hardly expect to find
the genuine Egypto-Ethiopian lineaments in any considerable number
among the modern Nubians. Placed as the former were, between the
Egyptians on the north, the Indo-Arabian nations on the east, and the
Negroes on the south and west, and this, too, through the long period
of several thousand years, their features must have become sensibly
modified, even in the earliest times, by that blending of race which
was inseparable from their position; and as the Koldagi and other
Negro tribes have, at different times, established themselves in large
bodies in Nubia, we need be at no loss, I conceive, in accounting for
any traces of Negro lineage in some Barábra communities of the present
day.
Dr. Prichard considers “the descent of the modern Nubians, or Barábra,
from the Nouba (a Negro nation) of the hill country of Kordofan, to be
as well established as very many facts which are regarded as certain
by writers on ethnography.” With every deference to that distinguished
ethnographer, we may inquire, what became of the pre-existing
inhabitants when the tribes of Kordofan colonized Nubia? Were they
destroyed or expelled? History makes no mention of either; and we are
justified in the opinion that an amalgamation of races took place,
whence some of those diversities of organization observable in the
modern Nubians. That this intermixture of races has continued to the
present time, the reader will find abundant evidence in other parts of
this memoir; yet I cannot here refrain from adding an observation from
Cailliaud, who, remarking on the shortness of life among the people of
Senaar from disease and dissipation, declares that the number of
Negroes which pours into the country, and the fruitfulness of the
women, are the resources which serve to repair the vast and continual
waste of population.[105] I may be told that this is proving too much.
A sensible writer, and one who has ingeniously and instructively
investigated the Nubian question, remarks as follows:—“The Arab tribes
near Shendy may still, perhaps, justly boast of the purity of their
blood; but, generally speaking, within the limits mentioned above, the
slave or Negro population is about a sixth of the whole, and
continually amalgamating with it. While nature kindly endeavours to
wash out the stain, every caravan from the south or west pours in a
new supply of slaves, and restores the blackening element.”[106]
This author, however, in his desire to ascribe to climate the chief
agency in the transformation of the Negro into the Nubian, seems to
overlook the fact that while the Negroes flow into the country on the
one side, the migratory Arabs invade it on the other, thus furnishing
inexhaustible materials for the blending of the two races. I fully
acquiesce, as before hinted, in the accuracy of the following opinion,
as applied to a large proportion of the modern Nubians; namely, “that
they are descended, not from the possessors of Ethiopia in its
flourishing period, but from the prædial and slave population of the
country, increased by colonists, and raised into a nation by peculiar
circumstances between the third and sixth centuries of the Christian
era.”[107]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. THE NEGROES.
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.
[Illustration]
The hair on some other figures of this group is dressed in short and
separate tufts, or inverted cones, precisely like those now worn by
the Negroes of Madagascar, as figured in Botteller’s voyage.
In the midst of the vanquished Africans, seated in his car and urging
on the conflict, is Rameses himself; whose manly and beautiful
countenance will not suffer by comparison with the finest Caucasian
models. The annexed outline, (for all the figures are represented in
outline only,) will enable the reader to form his own conclusions
respecting this extraordinary group, which is believed to date about
fifteen hundred and seventy years before the Christian era.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. THE MONGOLIANS.
It has been contended by Depauw, and others that the ancient Egyptians
were of the Mongolian race. I find nothing like Mongolian features in
any embalmed head in my collection, unless some general resemblance
can be traced in a solitary instance from Thebes, (Plate XII., Figs.
1, 2,) which, however, partakes more obviously of the Semitic form.
This observation sustains the opinion of Professor Blumenbach, who in
comparing the Egyptians with the several races of men, asserts, that
“they differ from none more than from the Mongolian, to which the
Chinese belong.”[118]
[Illustration]
That the Chinese had commercial intercourse with the Egyptians in very
early times, is beyond question; for vessels of Chinese porcelain,
with inscriptions in that language, have been repeatedly found in the
Theban catacombs.[119] Yet in every instance wherein we detect
Mongolians on the monuments, they are represented as foreigners and
enemies. The annexed wood-cut, with the small and somewhat depressed
nose, shaven head, and crown-lock, scanty beard, moustache, and sallow
complexion, seems clearly to indicate a man of that race. It is copied
from a drawing in Rosellini, in which Rameses the Third is represented
fighting against the _Sheto_ or Scythians, among whom the Mongols
appear to be allies or mercenaries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMARKS.
Since the physical characteristics of the ancient Nilotic population,
as derived from history and the monuments, coincide in a remarkable
manner with the facts derived from anatomical comparison, it becomes
in the next place necessary to offer some explanation of these
results; or, to show at what periods and under what circumstances
several different branches of the Caucasian race were blended into a
single nation possessing more or less the characteristics of each, and
this again modified in degree by another race wholly different from
either. It is in the first place necessary to recur to the fact of the
very long occupation of Egypt by successive dynasties of Hykshos or
shepherd kings, and that these were not of one but of several
nations—Phenicians, Pelasgi, and Scythians; while to these followed,
at a long interval, an Ethiopian or Austral-Egyptian dynasty. Each of
these great revolutions must have tended in turn to the amalgamation
of the Egyptians with other nations; and this result may be referred
to three principal epochs, independently of several subordinate ones.
THE FIRST EPOCH embraces the dynasty of the Hykshos or shepherd kings,
commencing before Christ two thousand and eighty, and having a
duration of two hundred and sixty years.
It is important, however, to observe, that Josephus quoting Manetho,
makes the Hykshos dynasty last five hundred and eleven years; and the
learned Baron Bunsen, whose work has not yet appeared, extends it to
1000, beginning B.C. 2514.[120] The shorter period is that of
Rosellini; but the longer one is perhaps most consistent with facts,
and at least makes room for those various dominations which, in the
lists of Manetho, precede the eighteenth dynasty; which last, headed
by Amunoph the First, drove out the intrusive kings. During this long
period the legitimate sovereigns were exiled into Ethiopia; and it is
evident, that had Meroë been any other than a province or dependency
of Egypt, it is hardly probable that the Egyptians,—kings, priests,
and people,—could have found a safe asylum in that country during the
long period of their exile. It is expressly stated by Josephus that
the shepherd kings lived at Memphis, “and made both the upper and
lower country pay tribute.” It would appear, however, that during the
greater part of the Hykshos dynasty, the Egyptians retained possession
of the Thebaid: nevertheless the occupation of Lower Egypt by their
enemies, must have effectually precluded all communication with other
countries excepting Ethiopia, southern Arabia and India; which fact
will account for a vast influx of population from those countries,
(and consequently from the slave-regions of Africa) into the Upper
Nilotic provinces.
It is moreover reasonable to suppose that even after the expulsion of
the Hykshos, multitudes of Egyptians would remain in Ethiopia,—that
country wherein whole generations of their ancestors had lived and
died; at the same time that great numbers of Meröites, influenced by a
variety of motives and especially by social alliances, would descend
the Nile into Egypt.
It is moreover evident that while the Egyptians became thus
fraternized with the nations of southern Asia, and the motley races of
the Upper Nile, the provinces of Lower Egypt would be overrun with the
Caucasian tribes of Europe and western Asia; for these, either as
cognate with the Hykshos or as allies in their service, must have been
in immense number to have conquered so populous a country, and
especially to have kept possession during so long a period. It is to
these events, then, that we attribute that blending of nations which
appears to have been coeval with the early ages of the Nilotic Family,
and which amply accounts for the ethnographic diversities every where
manifest on the monuments.
THE SECOND EPOCH is comprised in the Ethiopian Dynasty of three kings,
which lasted forty-four years, beginning B.C. 719.
These Meröite or Austral-Egyptian kings, during their intrusive
occupation of Egypt, would naturally, and indeed necessarily engage
the neighbouring tribes, and especially such as were hostile to Egypt,
as mercenary soldiers; and there are more than conjectural grounds for
believing that the Negroes themselves were thus employed. We are told
in the Sacred Writings (2 Chron. Chap. xii.) that when Shishak king of
Egypt, who is identical with Sheshonk of the monuments,—went up
against Jerusalem, he took with him “1200 chariots, and three-score
thousand horsemen: and the people were without number that came with
him out of Egypt; the Lubims, the Sukkiims and the Ethiopians.” Of
this multitude we may presume that the horsemen, and people in
chariots were part of the Egyptian army; the Lubims and Sukkiims are
by most commentators regarded as Libyans and Meröites, while, as the
Ethiopians are placed last on the list, and are designated in the
Hebrew original by the name of _Cush_, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that they were Negroes. This view is sustained by a passage in
Herodotus,[121] who states that in the army of Xerxes which invaded
Greece was a legion of _Western Ethiopians_, “who had hair more crisp
and curling than any other men.”[122] Now if the army of Xerxes
embraced a legion of African Negroes, it would not be remarkable if
the Egyptian troops should have been composed in part of the same
people; which, indeed, with respect to the Ethiopian dynasty, may be
assumed as a thing of course: for the Meröites would naturally avail
themselves of every expedient to establish their power by augmenting
the number of their exotic confederates, and by extending to them
those privileges which had once been sacred to particular castes. For
these and other oppressive acts, the Meröite kings were hated by the
Egyptians; and no sooner were they expelled than their names were
erased from the monuments.[123]
THE THIRD EPOCH dates from the conquest by Cambyses, B.C. 525, and
continues through the whole of the Persian dynasty, or, in other
words, until the Ptolemaic era, B. C. 332,—a period of nearly two
hundred years.
Every one knows that the Persian dominion in Egypt was marked by an
utter disregard of all the established institutions. No occasion was
omitted which could humble the pride or debase the character of the
people. The varied inhabitants of Europe, Asia and Nigritia poured
into the valley of the Nile, abolishing in degree the exclusiveness of
caste, and involving an endless confusion of races.
The prelude to these changes and misfortunes can be traced to the
reign of Psammeticus the First, who permitted to foreigners, and
especially to the Greeks, a freedom of ingress which the laws and
usages of the country had previously denied them. The same policy
appears to have been fostered by the subsequent kings of the same
dynasty, until its consummation by Amasis; (B.C. 569) when, in the
language of Champollion-Figéac, Egypt became at once Egyptian, Greek,
and Asiatic; her national character was lost for ever; her armies were
filled with foreign mercenaries; the throne was guarded by European
soldiers, and continual wars completed the destruction of a tottering
kingdom.[124]
------------------
CONCLUSIONS.
1. The valley of the Nile, both in Egypt and in Nubia, was originally
peopled by a branch of the Caucasian race.
2. These primeval people, since called Egyptians, were the Mizraimites
of Scripture, the posterity of Ham, and directly affiliated with the
Libyan family of nations.
3. In their physical character the Egyptians were intermediate between
the Indo-European and Semitic races.
4. The Austral-Egyptian or Meröite communities were an Indo-Arabian
stock engrafted on the primitive Libyan inhabitants.
5. Besides these exotic sources of population, the Egyptian race was
at different periods modified by the influx of the Caucasian nations
of Asia and Europe,—Pelasgi, or Hellenes, Scythians and Phenicians.
6. Kings of Egypt appear to have been incidentally derived from each
of the above nations.
7. The Copts, in part at least, are a mixture of the Caucasian and the
Negro in extremely variable proportions.
8. Negroes were numerous in Egypt, but their social position in
ancient times was the same that it now is, that of servants and
slaves.
9. The national characteristics of all these families of Man are
distinctly figured on the monuments; and all of them, excepting the
Scythians and Phenicians, have been identified in the catacombs.
10. The present Fellahs are the lineal and least-mixed descendants of
the ancient Egyptians; and the latter are collaterally represented by
the Tuaricks, Kabyles, Siwahs, and other remains of the Libyan family
of nations.
11. The modern Nubians, with a few exceptions, are not the descendants
of the monumental Ethiopians, but a variously mixed race of Arabs and
Negroes.
12. Whatever may have been the size of the _cartilaginous_ portion of
the ear, the osseous structure conforms in every instance to the usual
relative position.
13. The Teeth, differ in nothing from those of other Caucasian
nations.
14. The Hair of the Egyptians resembled, in texture, that of the
fairest Europeans of the present day.
15. The physical or organic characters which distinguish the several
races of men, are as old as the oldest records of our species.
* * * * *
NOTE.—I have taken frequent occasion to quote the opinions of the late
Professor Blumenbach, of Göttingen, whose name is inseparably
connected with the science of Ethnography; but I have to regret that
up to the present time I have not been able to procure either in this
country or from Europe, the last two memoirs which embrace his views
on Egyptian subjects, and especially the work entitled, “Specimen
historiæ naturalis antique artis operibus illustratæ.” His views,
however, as previously given to the world, have been repeatedly
adverted to in these pages; and his matured and latest observations,
as quoted by Dr. Wiseman, appear to have confirmed his original
sentiments. “In 1808,” says Dr. Wiseman, “he more clearly expressed
his opinion that the monuments prove the existence of _three distinct
forms_ or physiognomies among the ancient inhabitants of Egypt. Three
years later he entered more fully into this inquiry, and gave the
monuments, which he thought bore him out in this hypothesis. The first
of these _forms_ he considers to approach to the Negro model, the
second to the Hindoo, the third to the Berber, or ordinary Egyptian
head. (_Beträge zur Naturgeschichte_, 2 _ter Th._ 1811.) But I think
an unprejudiced observer will not easily follow him so far. The first
head has nothing in common with the _Black race_, but is only a
coarser representation of the Egyptian type; the second is only its
mythological or ideal purification.” _Lectures on the Connexion
between Science and Revealed Religion, 2d edit. p. 100._
I thus place side by side the opinions of these learned men. With
respect to Professor Blumenbach, I may add that when he wrote on
Egyptian ethnography there were no _fac simile_ copies of the
monuments, such as have since been given to the world by the French
and Tuscan Commissions; and again, that learned author had not access
lo a sufficient number of embalmed heads to enable him to compare
these with the monumental effigies. With these lights he would at once
have detected _an all-pervading physiognomy which is peculiarly and
essentially_ EGYPTIAN; and in respect to which all the other
forms,—Pelasgic, Semitic, Hindu and Negro are incidental and
subordinate; sometimes, it is true, represented with the attributes of
royalty, but for the most part depicted as foreigners, enemies and
bondsmen.
With Egyptian _statuary_ I am little acquainted. The only four years
of my life which were spent in Europe were devoted almost exclusively
to professional pursuits; and the many remains of Egyptian art which
are preserved in the British and continental museums, have left but a
vague impression on my memory. How invaluable to Ethnography are the
two statues of the First Osortasen, now in the royal cabinet of
Berlin! These I have not seen, nor the memoir in which Dr. Lepsius has
described them.
I have, for the most part, omitted any remarks on the intellectual and
moral character of the Egyptians, because they would have extended my
work beyond the limits prescribed by the present mode of publication.
I have also avoided, as much as possible, those philological
disquisitions which have of late years combined so much interest and
discrepancy, but which are all-important to Egyptian ethnography, and
are daily becoming better understood, and therefore of more practical
value. For an instructive view of this question, and many collateral
facts and opinions, the reader is referred to the third volume of Dr.
Prichard’s _Researches into the Physical History of Mankind_; a work
which commands our unqualified admiration both in respect to the
multitude and the accuracy of the facts it contains, and the genius
and learning with which they are woven together.
I look with great interest to the researches of Dr. Lepsius at Meroë;
as well as to those of my friend Dr. Charles Pickering, who is now in
Egypt for the sole purpose of studying the monuments in connexion with
the people of that country. And finally, it gives me great pleasure to
state that the profound erudition of the Baron Alexander de Humboldt
is at this moment engaged in a work which will embrace his views on
Egyptian ethnography, and give to the world the matured opinions of a
mind which has already illuminated every department of natural
science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERRATA.
Page 36,—fifth line from the bottom, for “page 109,” read _page_ 17.
" 36,—fourth line from the bottom, for “six figured skulls,”
read _six skulls figured_.
" 41,—fifth line from the bottom, for “Armada,” read _Armada?_
" 43,—fourth line from the top, for “Semitic” read _Hebrew_.
" 45,—eighth line from the bottom, for “are” read _is_, and
“conform” read _conforms_.
[Transcriber’s Note: These changes have been made in the electronic
versions of this book. June, 2019]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. I.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE PYRAMID OF FIVE STEPS
AT SACCARA.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. II.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. III.
_J. T. French del._
FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF MEMPHIS.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. IV.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE GROTTOES NEAR MAABDEH.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. V.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM A TOMB AT ABYDOS.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. VI.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. VII.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. VIII.
_J. T. French del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
T. Sinclair’s Lith. Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. IX.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. X.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XI.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM THE CATACOMBS OF THEBES.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XII.
_M. S. Weaver del._
_Figs. 1. 2._ Catacombs of Thebes.
_Figs. 3. 4. 5._ Tombs of Koum Ombos.
_Figs. 6. 7._ From a Tumulus at Philæ.
_Figs. 8. 9._ From Deboud.in Nubia.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XIII.
_M. S. Weaver del._
FROM A TOMB AT DEBOD IN NUBIA.
Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Pl. XIV.
_Drawn from Rossellini by R. H. Kern._ _On stone by M. S. Weaver_
_Figs. 1. to 18._ (inclusive) _Portraits of the Kings and Queens of
Egypt._
_Figs. 19. to 24._ (inclusive) _People of various Nations._
_Lith. of T. Sinclair, Phil^a._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
-----
Footnote 1:
I do not use this term with ethnographic precision; but merely to
indicate the most perfect type of cranio-facial outline.
Footnote 2:
Explorations at the Pyramids, Vol. III., p. 44.
Footnote 3:
The letters I. C., denote the internal capacity of the cranium.—F.
A., the Facial Angle. The skulls of persons under sixteen or
eighteen years of age are seldom measured, and never admitted into
the computations of this memoir.
Footnote 4:
It will be observed, on comparing this table with the original one
published in the _Proceedings_ of the Society for December, 1842,
(and since republished in Mr. Gliddon’s _Ancient Egypt_,) that there
is a great difference in the relative number of Pelasgic and
Egyptian heads; which fact has been already adverted to, and
explained, (page 4.) I have been governed in the present
classification, by the manifest presence of the Egyptian
physiognomy, even in those instances in which it appears to be
blended with an equal and even preponderating Pelasgic character. It
will be observed, however, that _the whole number of Caucasian
heads_ is nearly the same in both tables; and that the relative
proportion of Semitic, Negro and Negroid crania is unaltered.
Footnote 5:
Lawrence’s Lectures on Zoology, &c., p. 347.
Footnote 6:
Decas Quarta, p. 6.
Footnote 7:
Lawrence, ut supra, eighth edition, p. 325.
Footnote 8:
Description de L’Egypte, Antiq. II., pl. 49, 50.
Footnote 9:
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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Crania Ægyptiaca - Observations on Egyptian Ethnography derived from Anatomy, - History and the Monuments" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.