DERIVED FROM ANATOMY, HISTORY, AND THE MONUMENTS. 131 
valley of the Nile, at a period anterior to that of the monumental Egyptians. I have, 
also, found grammatical affinities between the Coptic and the Berber, which suggest that 
the monosyllabic elements of the former have been imposed upon the Berber syntax, and, 
therefore, that the Coptic is posterior in nationality to the Berber.” 
Leaving this important and difficult philological inquiry to the abler hands of Mr. 
Hodgson, (for it involves some points on which I am not qualified to judge, and therefore 
offer no opinion,) we may merely remark, that the Berber theory is farther countenanced 
by various mythological considerations, among the most remarkable of which is the 
supposed Libyan origin of several Mgyptian divinities. 
Particular communities of the Libyans are familiar in history by the names of Mauri- 
tanians, Numidians and Getuli. Respecting the physical characteristics of these people, 
history is nearly silent; yet there is sufficient evidence to prove, that they possessed those 
features which are now called Caucasian, independently of any modifications that may 
have resulted from their long intercourse with Phenician colonies, and the Romans, Arabs 
and Vandals in later periods of time. ‘The Libyans were a nomadic and warlike people; 
they were habitually employed in the Carthagenian armies, and in the earlier ages con- 
tended with the Egyptians themselves; for we learn from a passage in Manetho, (Cory, 
Frag. p. 100,) that in the remote age of Necherophes, of the third dynasty, the Libyans 
revolted from the Egyptians, but were soon again subdued. The monuments record 
similar triumphs in the reigns of Osortasen Ist., Thotmes Ist., Rameses the 3d, and indeed 
in almost every dynasty down to the Ptolemaic epoch, when Libya continued to be 
an Egyptian province. In fact, the Libyans hung upon the skirts of Egypt as the Goths 
did upon Rome; and until the researches of the hierologists identified the Hykshos or 
shepherd kings with an Asiatic people, there was strong presumptive evidence that these 
ruthless invaders were, at least in part, no other than the Libyans themselves.* 
The Libyans are represented in our day by the various and motley Berber tribes, who 
under the names of 'Tuaricks, Kabyles and Siwahs, inhabit both north and south of Mt. 
Atlas; and in their physical characters combine the Caucasian physiognomy with various 
shades of complexion, from a fair skin to a dark and tawny hue. 
“The Kabyles,” says Mr. Shaler, “are a white people, of middle stature, muscular, 
athletic and active, but never corpulent; and are of lively, social manners and of inge- 
nious dispositions. Many of them are of light complexions, with hair approaching to 
flaxen, resembling rather the peasants of the south of Europe than the inhabitants of 
Africa.”’| Then come the darker Tuaricks, men of fine mould and adventurous spirit, 
but nomadic, unfeeling and vindictive. 
Dr. Oudney, who saw them in great number, describes them in nearly similar terms, 
but assures us that under favourable circumstances their good, sound sense, would soon 
render them “a shining people.” It is curious, also, to note the following remark of the 
same intelligent traveller: “On almost every stone, in places they frequent, the Tuarick 
characters are hewn out. It matters not whether the letters are written from right to 
“In Jeremiah Cush and Phut are names of African nations; while in hieroglyphies Libya is called Nephaiat, the 
“country of the nine bows.” The root of Nephaiat being Phut (in Coptic a bow) connects the Libyans with Phut, the son 
of Ham, (Gen. x. 6,) and confirms the affiliation of the Libyans and Egyptians. See Gliddon, Anc. Egypt, p. 25, 27, 41. 
} Sketches of Algiers, p. 91. Capt. Lyon’s observations are to the same purpose. Trav. p. 109.—Denham and 
Clapperton, p. 73, 
