Part 5

┌──────┬─────┬────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 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!

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.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.