of golden vessels, they may have had access to the Arabian Ophir; and
as they carry elephants’ teeth, they had communication with the Indies,
or with Africa. Judging from their portraits, they certainly belonged
not to any of the Abrahamic or Chaldsean tribes. They hear, further-
rmore, considerable resemblance to those primeval heads we shall
exhibit in a succeeding chapter as illustrative of the type of the
founders of the Egyptian empire; and slightly also to the later Egyptian
type (Rot), as represented by Theban artists in their quadruple
classification of races. These JKoufa may possibly have been the
descendants of an Egyptian colony, near the Persian Gulf: like that
of Colchis, if we can trust Herodotus, in Asia Minor.
This figure is from the conquests of
I'IS' 83‘ Seti-Meneptha I., fifteenth century b. c.,
at the temple of Kamac.168 The people
come under the generic class of White
races; and their tribe is called Tohen, by
Rosellini. The same head, in one of
the tombs, appears as the type of White
races in the quadrupartite division of
which we have already spoken. Birch
calls them Tohen, Tahno, or Ten-hno —
“evidently belonging to the white blood,
or Japhetic family of mankind.” Morton,
in his MB. letter, writes, “ they
present Pelasgic features; but the blue eye, reddish hair, and harsh
expression, are not unlike the Scythian race.” The Egyptians seem
to have entertained towards them an excess of hatred, and to have
slaughtered them with more fury than any other people. But we
leave their exact race and country an open question, although their
Caucasian features cannot be mistaken.
We have compared this (Eig. 84)
Fl0‘ 84, and the «next (Eig. 85) with the
Jewish type (vide supra, p. 140).
Rosellini gives no explanations.
Supposed, by Champollion, to be
Lydians — their name reading Lu-
dannu, or Rot-n-no. This head .belongs
to the same Grand Procession
of Thotmes HI., so effectively
colored in Hoskins; but we have
copied Rosellini’s outline, as more
correct.169 Hopkins again perceives “white slaves” of the king of his
Ethiopia! Osburn terms them Arvadites; but Birch, refuting both
opinions, puts these people down as Cappadocians, or Leuco-Syrians;
which seems more rational, did not an elephant’s tooth suggest some
geographical obstacle. The man leads an animal—disputed, whether
it is a bear or lion, the drawing being so very defective. He also
carries an elephant’s tusk. Morton figures this head as Indo-Semitie,
or Indo-Persian; and all attending circumstances assign him a habitation
between Persia and the Upper Indus.
Another from the same scene as the preceding
figure.170 He wears a light dress and
straw hat, and leads an elephant: conditions
indicative of a southern climate. Morton
observes — “ This is a yet more striking
Hindoo, in whom the dark skin, black eye,
delicate features, and fine facial angle, are
all admirably marked. The presence of
the elephant assists us in designating the
national stock, while the straw hat sends
us to the Ganges”—or, much nearer, to the
Indus ?
F ig. 85.
Peculiar interest attaches to both of the above effigies; *the latter
of which enables us to cany the existence of a Hindoo national type
back to the sixteenth century b. c. Although no written Hindostanie
monuments áre extant of an age coetaneous with even the sixth cen-
tury prior to our era, native traditions, zoological analogies, and
admissions of the more sceptical Indologists, justify our considering
the Hindoos to have, inhabited their vast peninsula as early as the
Egyptians did the shores of their Mile, or any other type of men its
original centre of creation, whether in Asia, Africa, Europe, America,
or Oceánica.
We now come to that Egyptian tableau the most frequently alluded
to. andJwhich has prompted much nonsensical, if pious, discussion.
The head (Eig. 86) is one of the “ Rrickmakers,”
from the tomb of an architect— “ Prefect of the
country, Intendant of the great habitations,
R o k sh ere ” — of the time of Thotmes TIT ,
XVHth dynasty, sixteenth century b. c.171 We
copy from Rosellini, who thought them Israelites;
but, according to the chronology of Eepsius,
they antedate Ja co b ; though they may be a
cognate race — perhaps some of his ancestry.
Wilkinson honestly observes: —
“ To meet with Hebrews in the sculptures cannot reasonably be expected, since the
remains in that part of Egypt where they lived have not been preserved; but it is curious