Fig. 75. about 1500 years b . c. This head, in Roselhni’s colored plates, presents
n e p t h a I., of XlXth dynasty, about the fifteenth
century b . c. "We have already alluded, when
speaking of classifications of races, to this
scene, and illustrated it in Fig. 1. The god
Horus is represented, conducting sixteen personages,
in groups of four; each of which
groups represents a distinct division of the
human family; and these divisions include all
the races known to the Egyptians, Our full
length (Fig. 75) is a reduced copy of the ¿ame
personage; but taken from the Prussian,161 whereas
the head (Fig. 74) is from the Tuscan work.
A similar scene occurs in the tomb of Ramses
TTT- of the X Xth dynasty, in which the same
divisions are kept u p ; but the individuals selected
differ in race from the preceding, though bearing
a certain generic resemblance. As before stated, each Egyptian
division, like' our generic designations — Caucasian, Mongol, Negro,
&c., contained many proximate types.
Although previously published in his colored folio plates by the
indefatigable Belzoni, the ethnological importance of this tableau, in
the sepulchre of Seti I., was not perceived until, Champollion-le-
Jeune visited Thebes in 1829; nor, indeed, to this day, has its quadripartite
classification of mankind been adequately appreciated.
Some writers have mistaken its import altogether; while none, that
we know of, have deduced from it the natural consequence, that
Egyptian ethnographers already knew of four types of mankind —
red, Mack, white, and yellow — several centuries before the writer of
Xth Genesis; who, omitting the Mack or Negro races altogether, was
acquainted with no more than three — “ Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
Champollion, with his consummate acuteness, at once pronounced
this scene to represent
“ The inhabitants of the four quarters of the world, according to the ancient Egyptian
system: viz., 1st, the inhabitants of Egypt; 2d, the Asiatics; 3d, the inhabitants of
Africa, or the blacks; and 4th, the Europeans.”
We merely object to the term “ Europeans,” instead of “ white
ra c e sb e c a u s e , in the fifteenth century b . c. there was no necessity
for travelling out of Asia Minor in quest of white men; nor could the
Egyptians, at that time, have possessed much knowledge of Europe.
To our eye, Fig. 74 marks a type of the white races in the fifteenth
century b . c. The particular nation to which he belongs is the liebo
of hieroglyphics; probably the JRhibii of the classics.
Figure 76162 is from another part of the tomb of Seti I., also dating
all the lineaments of a Himyarite Arab, except the Mue eye;
which, possibly, may be a mistake of the artist. “ Himyàr” means
red and the Pisan copy is colored red. Upon reference, notwithstanding,
to the great Prussian work,163 wherein, it is to be assumed,
the colors of the original paintings are Fl0 76.
reproduced with greater accuracy, this
face is of a light brown complexion,
with black eyes and beard. While,
perhaps, it is not possible (considering
the numerous transfers of copies between
ancient originals in Egypt and
their multiplied reproductions in modem
plates,) always to avoid discrepancies,
it will be remembered that the
crimson or scarlet tints, adopted by thé . -u •
Egyptians for their own males, is purely conventional—th a t is, being
impossible in real nature — so that, whether the skin be colored red
or brown, the osteological structure of the features remains the same ;
and these are genuiné Arab.
Morton remarks, in his MS. letter
“ This is the very image of a Southern Arab, with his sharp features, dark skin, and
certain national expression, admirably given in the drawing.
As such, his effigy furnishes another antique type of man.
This head (Fig. 77) (vide supra page 108,
fig. 9,) has been already compared with
the Tochari of Strabo and of the Ninevite
•sculptures. There is nothing to favor Os-
burn’s theory, that this man and his maritime
associates vvere Philistines; nor to
oppose Morton/s, that they exhibit Celtic
features. We present it, without comment,
as another evidence of the ancient diversity
of “ Caucasian types and with an indication
of the incompatibility of this man s
F ig. 77.
features with any tongue not a congener of
that class bearing the name of “ Indo-European.” He cannot,
therefore, be a Philistine. 'x'
From the prisoners of R am se s HI., of the XXth dynasty, thirteenth
century b . c., we take Fig. 78 : sculptured on the base of his pavilion
at Medeenet-Haboo.164 A fracture in the wall has obliterated the
hieroglyphics, so that there is no name for him ; but adjacent to him
are prisoners of the Tokkari or Tochari. He may be a mountaineer