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 Heliopolis (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, † 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-guptos, 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 Petræa, 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.

† In Gen. x. 14, they are said 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, Smith's Dict. of Geog., art. Ægyptus.

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, and therefore, by the unerring analogy of the cus

* Monumental History of Egypt, vol. i. pp. 209, 210.

toms 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, as 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.

Now, we fully admit that the earliest writings of the Sanskrit-speaking people afford evidence that when that people reached the Punjaub, in Northern India, they found the country already occupied by inhabitants; but the same writings also as clearly seem to intimate that these were not a distinct race from the new comers. This evidence may be regarded as conclusive, at least in reference to those tribes called in the Vedas and elsewhere Dasyas,* and, in fact, all the original tribes of Northern India. This is shown, at some length, by Muir, in his "Sanskrit Texts," one of the most valuable works we have on Indian archæology.† He says, in conclusion, “I have gone over the names of the Dasyas, or Asuras, mentioned in the Rig-Veda, with the view of discovering whether any of them would be regarded as of non-Aryan or indigenous origin, but I have not observed any that appear to be of this character." He also quotes Professors Müller

* This, and not Dasyu (sing.), as Muir writes it, is the proper orthography, according to the usual way of Anglicizing Sanskrit words. The vowel in the last syllable is the same as in the first, viz., short ă, pronounced like u in but — Dǎsyǎ.

Original Sanskrit Texts, on the Origin and Progress of the Religion and Institutions of India, Part I. and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, Part II. By J. Muir, Esq., D. C. L., late of the Bengal civil service. London, 1858 and 1860. + Ibid p. 403.