« PreviousContinue »
period amply sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the case.
While there is, therefore, no proof of an alleged pre-historic people and civilization in Egypt, there is, on the other hand, much evidence confirmatory of the Mosaic account of the origin of that nation in the family of Ham.
We have, first, its name. This, in the language of its earliest inhabitants, was Ham, written in the hieroglyphics Kem, and in Coptic variously Chame, Chemi, and Cheme. The word even was applied to the soil itself, and thus, from its rich, dark color, came to signify "black," or rather "sunburned." Among the Hebrews, the name of the country was Misraim, the dual form of which seems to have denoted the two provinces of Upper and Lower Egypt — equivalent to the "two Egypts." This name is retained by the Arabs at the present day, who call the country Misr.
Traces of the names of the sub-families are also found in Egypt and the vicinity. "The Ludim were the true and dominant Egyptian race, called, in their language, Rut, or Lut, i. e., 'men' par excellence. Next, the Pathrusim, or 'people of the southern country,' that is, of the Thebaid, in Egyptian, P-to-res. The Naphtuhim, or people of Memphis, the sacerdotal name of which was Na Phtah (the'Part of Phtah*), and lastly, the Anamim, the Anu of the Egyptian monuments, who seem originally to have been dispersed throughout the whole Nile valley, and who have left traces of their name in the cities of Hgliopolis (in Egyptian, An), Tentyris or Denderah (also sometimes called An), and Hermonthis (An-res, Southern An). A branch of this race maintained, for a long time, a separate existence in a part of the Sinaitic peninsula." * The Caphtorim, from whom were descended the Philistines,f are believed to have originated the name Coptos, as applied to the district or nome which they first settled, which, in its turn, suggested the Greek designation now borne by the entire country, viz., Ai-guftos, Egypt, i. e., the land of Copt. The Casluhim are supposed to have been the aborigines of Casiotis, a region lying on the borders of Egypt, toward Arabia Petraea, where is the modern town of El-kas. The Lehabim were undoubtedly the Libyans, who dwelt in the country west of Egypt, stretching across the desert to the Atlantic.
Second, The physical characteristics and language
* Anc. Hist, of the East, Lenormant, p. 202.
t In Gen. x. 14, they are 6aid to have proceeded from the Casluhim. But this is probably an error, the clause having been transposed from Caphtorim. Compare Jer. xlvii. 4, Amos ix. 7.
of the people. The "Coptic skull and facial outline *' are of" the Caucasian type." "We may allow, too, for considerable admixture with the cognate races to the south and east; and hence, on the one hand, the fullness of lips, and, on the other, the elongated Nubian eye, need not compel us to define the inhabitants of the Nile valley as an African rather than an Asiatic race. The Egyptians may be said to be intermediate between the Syro-Arabian and the Ethiopic type." *
Osburn is still more emphatic in expressing the same opinion. "There is yet another historic trait whereby this most ancient of languages and of modes of writing discourses of its origin. A large class of words in it are Semitic, or (to drop the terminology of a system which modern discovery has shown to be erroneous) are identical with the Hebrew of the Bible. The personal pronoun, the numerals, as well as many names and verbs, expressing actions or objects of very common occurrence, were the same in the Hebrew and Egyptian languages. . . . The words of the ancient Egyptian language, derived from the Hebrew, seem to be those which are of the very essence of human intercommunication. Such are pronouns, numerals, appellations for heat, cold, sitting, standing, moving,
4 Smith's Diet, of Geog., art. sBgyftus. * Monumental History of Egypt, vol. i. pp. 209, 210.
dividing, etc., etc. We believe there exists, either in the Coptic or hieroglyphic texts, words identical with the Hebrew for these and other objects and ideas, all of which, so far as we can collect, are of this primitive and essential character in the structure of speech. Without them, it would be impossible for human beings to interchange thoughts or hold communication by speech at all." *
The testimony of the monuments is to the same effect, proving that the first settlement of the country was in Lower Egypt, precisely where the theory of an Asiatic origin would place it. Mr. Osburn shows this at length, quoting also the opinions of that eminent scholar Lepsius, that " the antiquity of Egyptian monuments, considered in relation to the larger masses of their remains, becomes less remote the higher we ascend the valley, in direct opposition to that which might have been anticipated according to the very eminently received, theory, which assumes that the Egyptian civilization in the valley of the Nile originated in the south, and extended .itself northward." He then continues, "Thus are we able to indicate, with absolute certainty, the point in the valley of the Nile in which are found the monuments of the remotest antiquity, find therefore, by the unerring analogy of the customs of all ancient nations, the spot in which the first settlement in Egypt took place. Everything, both to the northward and southward of this point, is more modern. It will also be seen, by a reference to the map, that this point lies exactly parallel to the Isthmus of Suez, and is precisely the place at which immigrants over that thoroughfare between Asia and Africa, would first find a locality suited to their purpose, after traversing the sands of the desert, and attempting in vain to penetrate the swamps of the Delta."
The second of the supposed pre-historic nations, which, it is thought, could not have been of the Noachian family, are the aborigines of India. The Sanskrit, as is well known, belongs to the Aryan, or, ap it is sometimes called, the Japetic family of languages, and is a sufficient proof that the people of India, who spoke that tongue, were of the Japetic stock. But it is claimed that when the Aryans came into India, they found there a primitive people of another race. Mr. Baldwin regards these as Cushites from Arabia, who were themselves preceded by a nation of Malays. He speaks of the " Cyclopean works of the Cushites" as found in the rock-cut temples, pagodas, etc., which Orientalists have generally regarded as not antedating the time of Buddha, say from five to six centuries B. C.