I
problems that attracted bis penetrating researches. The first concerns
the ancient Mero'ites; the second, that mixed family in which,
under the name of “Austral-Egyptians,” Morton perceived some
possibly-HiWoo affinities. Commencing with the former question,
we recall to mind how the discoveries of the Prussian Scientific Mission
{supra, p. 204), in and around the far-famed Isle of Meroe, have
relieved archaeologists from further discussions as to the illusory antiquity
of a realm that, previously to the eighth century b . c., was merely
a Pharaonic province and an Egyptian colony; and which, moreover,
did not become important, as an independent kingdom, until Ptolemaic
times. It was not, however, until after the publication of his
JEgyptiaca (of which Chevalier Lepsius received a first copy, together
with Gliddon’s Chapters, under the pyramid of Gebel Birkel, in Ethiopia
itself341), that Dr. Morton was informed, by the Chevalier directly,
of results so demolishing to the learned theories of Heeren, Prichard,
and other scholars. Unhappily for science, death arrested the hand
of our illustrious friend before it could register the emendations consequent
upon such immense changes in former historical opinions.
Although one of the authors (G. R. G.) has, in the interim, enjoyed
the advantage of beholding, at Berlin, the sculptures brought from
Ethiopia, and of hearing Chevalier Lepsius’s criticisms, viva voce, upon
Mero'ite subjects, we deem ourselves peculiarly unfortunate that the
Denkmaler, so far as its livraisons have reached us, has not yet comprised
copies of these newly-discovered bas-reliefs. We are unable,
at present, therefore, to demonstrate to the reader, hy the reproduction
of portraits of Queen Ca n d a ce and her mulatto court, the true causes
why the civilization of Meroe declined, and finally became extinguished
: viz., oioirtg to Negro amalgamations, during the first centuries
of our era. This fact may serve as a topic for some future
Appendix to our volume.
To obviate, however, any argument
respecting Mero'ite affinities
with regard to Negro races in anterior
times, we reproduce the portrait
ofManetho’s “ Ethiopian” sovereign,
Tirhaka {supra, p. 151, Eig. 71); the
“ Melek-KUSA, or Cushite king (2
Kings, xix. 9); contemporary with the
Assyrian Sennacherib, whose likeness
has also been submitted under
our Eig. 27 {supra, p. 130.)
Nor did the high-caste lineaments
of these “ Ethiopian” princes, and
Fig. 186.
T i t
the total absence of Nigritian elements in the physiognomies of all
Mero'ites, as known in 1844, escape Morton’s attention.342 His comments
on the accompanying effigies from Meroe suffice.
F ig . 187.343 F l °- 188.344
‘‘The one on the left hand [Fig 87] (that of an
unknown king), has mixed lineaments, neither
strictly Pelasgic nor Egyptian; while the right-
hand personage [Fig. 188], who appears to be a
priest doing homage, presents a countenance which
corresponds, in essentials, to the Egyptian type,
although the profile approaches closely to the Grecian.
The annexed head [Fig. 189—is] also a king,
bearing some resemblance to the one above figured.”
With regard to the “ Hindoo” resemblances
perceived by Morton in certain
Egyptian crania of his vast collection, while we will neither
affirm nor deny them, the authors cannot but think that their lamented
colleague was herein biassed, rather by traditionary data (even yet
supposed to be historical), than by anatomical evidences which, at
any rate, do not strike our eyes as salient. Indeed, we know personally
that, had Morton lived, Prichard’s scholastic learning, but
pertinacious ignorance of hieroglyphical Egypt, would have been dealt
with as by ourselves, under full recognition of the one, and through
respectful exposure of the other. Part IH. of our volume renders it
unnecessary to dwell, in this place, upon Sir W. Jones’s Oriental erudition,
or upon Col. Wilford’s self-delusions, in respect to now-exploded
connections between ancient India and primordial Egypt.
The Greek tradition (Latinice) runs as follows: “¿Ethiopes, ab Indo
fluvio profecti, supra JSgyptum sedem sibi eligerunt.” 346 But, who
are these Ethiopians ? At most, Asiatic “ sun-burned faces” — some
34
F ig. 189.345