Crania AEgyptiaca / Or, Observations on Egyptian Ethnography Derived from Anatomy, History and the Monuments

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.

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.

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]

Clyx.com