| 
| 
DERIVED FROM ANATOMY, HISTORY, AND THE MONUMENTS. 145 
While we conclude, therefore, that the Egyptians were a distinct people from either 
the Arabs or Hindoos, we cannot deny those resemblances which are too obvious to be 
mistaken, yet not to be accounted for without difficulty; nor can there be a reasonable 
doubt that the people of both these nations formed an important part of the once multi- 
tudinous population of Hgypt.* 
5, THE HYKSHOS. 
There is no fact in history more familiar than the rule of the Hykshos or shepherd 
kings in Egypt. The word Hykshos is the same as we have seen (p. 130,) both in the 
Egyptian and Berber or Libyan tongues, and signified a shepherd or a wanderer. It was 
applied to all those foreigners who at different times displaced the native dynasties,— 
Scythians, Hellenic tribes, Phenicians, and others. 
Reserving some remarks for a future part of this memoir, we shall briefly observe that 
there is no monumental record of more than one of these sovereignties, namely, that which 
was expelled by Amunoph the First of the eighteenth dynasty, about eighteen centuries 
before Christ. ‘These people, whose name was held in execration by the Egyptians, are 
said by Herodotus and other historians to have possessed a fair complexion, blue eyes, 
and reddish hair. ‘That they were of the Caucasian race there is no question; but the 
preceding traits apply equally to the Scythians, the Phenicians, and the Edomim or 
Kidomites, and it is probable that the shepherd dynasties of Manetho embraced kings 
from al] these sources.t 
The portraits of these intrusive kings, as recently discovered in various parts of Egypt, 
not only present a physiognomy entirely different from that of the legitimate monarchs, 
but the symbol of their religion is also different, being “the sun, whose rays terminate 
in human hands,” while the accompanying hieroglyphic legends make no allusion to the 
Egyptian deities. “'Their features,’ observes Mr. Perring, from whom I derive these 
facts, “do not at all resemble the Egyptian; and, though much defaced, are evidently 
the same as those found on the propyla of Karnak, where we may recognise a similarity 
with the tall, white, slender, blue-eyed, and red-haired race, painted on the soles of the 
Egyptian sandals, and appearing also on the monuments, where they are emphatically 
called the nicked race of Scheto.’+ One of these effigies is found only on fragments of 
stone which had pertained to temples antecedent to the eighteenth dynasty, which struc- 
tures were overturned by the legitimate kings of that and the succeeding reigns, and 
* The opinions of Sir G. Wilkinson are eminently entitled to respect on all Egyptian questions; and I need not apolo- 
gize for quoting his opinions (however they may differ from those just given,) as briefly expressed in the following pas- 
sage. “In manners, language, and many other respects, Egypt was certainly more Asiatic than African; and though 
there is no appearance of the Hindoo and Egyptian religions having been borrowed from one another, which many 
might be induced to conclude from their great analogy in some points, yet it is not improbable that these two nations 
may have proceeded from the same stock, and have migrated southward from their parent country in central Asia.” 
—Ancient Egypt, Vol. I., p. 3. a 
+ St. Augustine states that the Punic or Phenician tongue was in his day (the fifth century) a living language, and 
very like the Hebrew; and that the Canaanitish language was mediate between the Egyptian and the Hebrew, Mrs, 
H. Gray. Hist. of Etruria, p. 124. : 
t Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol. I., p. 140, 
VOL. IxX.—-40 
