Morton very judiciously remarked, that the Egyptian catacombs do
not always contain their original occupants; for these were often displaced,
and the tombs resold for mercenary purposes; whence it happens
that mummies of the G-reek and Roman epochas have been
found in those more ancient receptacles, which had received the
bodies of Egyptian citizens of a far earlier date. This I conceive
to constitute one of the greatest obstacles to investigation, for, save
in four very probable instances, there is no positive evidence that h<?
possessed a single mummy-head beyond the tenth century b. c. ,
although there are tombs that date more than 2000 years earlier, to
which some of the Doctor’s specimens doubtless belong, even if the
proof be defective.
We have shown through the portraits on the monuments that the
population of Egypt was already a very mixed one in the IVth dynasty
; which Lepsius places at 3400 b. c. Dr. Morton confirms this
conclusion by his anatomical comparisons. In the Crania JEgyptiaca
he referred his series of Egyptian skulls to “ two of the great races
of men, the Caucasian and the Hegro : ” subdividing the Caucasian
clfss into three principal types, viz.: the Pelasgic, the Semitic, and
the Egyptian.
Referring to his work for specification of the others, I confine my
observations to the last.
“ The Egyptian form (says Dr. Morton) differs from the Pelasgic in having a narrow and
more receding forehead, while the face being more prominent, the facial angle is conse-
* qnently less. The nose is straight or aquiline, the face angular, the features often sharp,
and the hair uniformly long, soft, and curling. In this series of crania I include many of
which the conformation is not appreciably different from that of the Arab and Eindoo ; but
I have not, as a rule, attempted to note these distinctions, although they are so marked as
to have induced me, in the early stage of this investigation and for reasons which will appear
in the sequel, to group them, together with the proper Egyptian form, under the provisional
name of Austral-Egyptian crania. I now, however, propose.to restrict the latter
term to those Caucasian communities which inhabited the Nilotic valley above Egypt.
Among the Caucasian crania are some which appear to blend the Egyptian and Pelasgio
characters; these might be called the Egypto-Pelasgic heads; but without making use of
this term, exeept in' a very few instances by way of illustration, I have thought best to
transfer these examples from the Pelasgic group to the Egyptian, inasmuch as they so far
conform to the latter series as to be identified without difficulty.” 464
On reading over this classification several comments strike me as worthy of utterance.
1st. That, out of 100 crania presented in a tabular shape (op. oil. p. 19), only 49 are of
the Egyptian form, while 29 are of the Pelasgic or foreign type ; and of the crania from
Memphis, ascertained to be the oldest necropolis, the Pelasgic prevail over the Egyptian in
the proportion of 16 to 7. Those of Thebes are 30 Egyptian to 10 Pelasgic. This proves
that the Egyptian population, if such classification be correct, was an exceedingly mixed
one.
2d. The Semitic was, at all times, a type distinctly marked; and diverse both from the
Pelasgic and the Egyptian, as our previous chapters illustrate.
3d. Hence, the conclusion is natural, that the earliest population of Egypt wqs a native
African one, resembling closely Upper Egyptian Fellahs, and assimilating to the Nubian
(Berber) population: that this stock soon became intermingled with Arab and other Asiatic
races of Semitic and Pelasgic type. Therefore, little confidence can be reposed upon any
very minute classification of such a mixed people. Of craniological ability to distinguish
a pure Pelasgic, Semitic, or African head, as a general rule, I do not doubt; but blended
types must everpresent difficulties: It is enough to know that we possess portraits of
Pelasgic, Semitic and Egyptian types; and that the truthfulness of these portraits is attested
by the crania of the catacombs..
With all his acuteness and experience in craniology, it is clear that
Dr. Morton felt himself much embarrassed in making this classification.
He has several times modified it in his different published
papers j and it is seen above, that in his Egyptian form of crania, he
“ includes many of which the conformation is not appreciably different
from that of the Arab and Hindoo.”
To exemplify how much caution is necessary in classifications of
this kind, it may he proper to refer to Morton’s earlier opinion, that
the Austral-Egyptians were greatly mixed with Hindoos, whose crania
he thinks he can designate; adding, “ That there was extensive and
long-continued intercourse between the Hindoos and Egyptians is
beyond a question,’! &c. How, so great has been the advance of
knowledge within the last five years, that, were Dr. Morton how alive,
such doctrine would no longer be advocated by him; because it is
generally conceded by Egyptologists—our best authorities—that facts
are opposed to any such intercourse, until after the Persian invasion,
b. o. 525.
Dr. Morton classified the crania procured (1838-40) from each
locality for his cabinet by my colleague Mr. Gliddon (then our Consul
at Cairo), into the following series: —
First Series, from the Memphite Necropolis:
A. Pyramid of Five Steps 2 skulls*
B. Saccara, generally 11 “
C. Front of the Brick Pyramid of Dashour 3 <£
D. North-west of Pyramid of Five Steps................. 9
E. Toora (quarries) on the N ile ...................................... 1 “
Second Series, from Grottoes of Maabdeh . 4 “
Third “ « Abydos..... ...... ............... ................. 4 “
Fourth u “ the Catacombs of Thebes...;..........I...................... 55 “
Fifth p ct Koum Ombos...................... 3 “ jjli
Sixth “ “ the Island of Beggeh, near Philse....................... .' 4 “
Seventh t( “ Debdd, in Nubia.... .......... 4 “
On the first series, Morton remarks » A mere glance at this group of skulls will
satisfy any one accustomed to comparisons of this kind, that most, of them possess the Caucasian
traits in a most striking and unequivocal manner, whether we regard their form,
size, or facial angle. It is, in fact, questionable whether a greater proportion of beautifully
moulded heads would be found among an equal number of individuals taken at random
from any existing European nation. The entire series consists of sixteen examples of the
Pelasgic, and seven of the Egyptian form; a single Semitic head, one of the Negroid variety,
and one of mixed conformation. Of the antiquity of these remains there can be no question,”
&c.