DERIVED FROM ANATOMY, HISTORY, AND THE MONUMENTS. 155 
9, THE MONGOLIANS. 
It has been contended by Depauw, and others that the ancient Egyptians were of the 
Mongolian race. I find nothing like Mongolian features in any embalmed head in my 
collection, unless some general resemblance can be traced in a solitary instance from 
Thebes, (Plate XIL., Figs. 1, 2,) which, however, partakes more obviously of the Semitic 
form. This observation sustains the opinion of Professor Blumenbach, who in com- 
paring the Egyptians with the several races of men, asserts, that “they differ from none 
more than from the Mongolian, to which the Chinese belong.’’* 
That the Chinese had commercial intercourse with the Egyptians in very early times, 
is beyond question; for vessels of Chinese porcelain, with inscriptions in that language, 
have been repeatedly found in the Theban catacombs.t Yet in 
every instance wherein we detect Mongolians on the monuments, 
they are represented as foreigners and enemies. ‘The annexed 
wood-cut, with the small and somewhat depressed nose, shaven 
head, and crown-lock, scanty beard, moustache, and sallow com- 
plexion, seems clearly to indicate a man of that race. It is copied 
from a drawing in Rosellini, in which Rameses the Third is re- 
presented fighting against the Sheto or Scythians, among whom 
the Mongols appear to be allies or mercenaries, 
REMARKS. 
Since the physical characteristics of the ancient Nilotic population, as derived 
from history and the monuments, coincide in a remarkable manner with the facts 
derived from anatomical comparison, it becomes in the next place necessary to offer 
some explanation of these results; or, to show at what periods and under what circum- 
stances several different branches of the Caucasian race were blended into a single nation 
possessing more or less the characteristics of each, and this again modified in degree by 
another race wholly different from either. It is in the first place necessary to recur to 
the fact of the very long occupation of Egypt by successive dynasties of Hykshos or 
shepherd kings, and that these were not of one but of several nations—Phenicians, 
Pelasgi, and Scythians; while to these followed, at a long interval, an Ethiopian or 
Austral-Egyptian dynasty. Each of these great revolutions must have tended in turn 
to the amalgamation of the Egyptians with other nations; and this result may be referred 
to three principal epochs, independently of several subordinate ones. 
Tue FIRST EPOCH embraces the dynasty of the Hykshos or shepherd kings, commencing 
before Christ two thousand and eighty, and having a duration of two hundred and sixty 
years. 
It is important, however, to observe, that Josephus quoting Manetho, makes the Hyk- 
shos dynasty last five hundred and eleven years; and the learned Baron Bunsen, whose 
work has not yet appeared, extends it to 1000, beginning B. C. 2614.t The shorter 
tC Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1794, p. 198. 
+ Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, Vol. III. p. 108. 
{ See Mrs. Hamilton Gray’s History of Etruria, Vol, I., p, 29. 
