156 OBSERVATIONS ON EGYPTIAN ETHNOGRAPHY, 
period is that of Rosellini; but the longer one is perhaps most consistent with facts, and 
at least makes room for those various dominations which, in the lists of Manetho, precede 
the eighteenth dynasty ; which last, headed by Amunoph the First, drove out the intru- 
sive kings. During this long period the legitimate sovereigns were exiled into Ethiopia; 
and it is evident, that had Meroé been any other than a province or dependency of 
Egypt, it is hardly probable that the Egyptians,—kings, priests, and people,—could have 
found a safe asylum in that country during the long period of their exile. It is expressly 
stated by Josephus that the shepherd kings lived at Memphis, “and made both the 
upper and lower country pay tribute.” It would appear, however, that during the 
greater part of the Hykshos dynasty, the Egyptians retained possession of the Thebaid: 
nevertheless the occupation of Lower Egypt by their enemies, must have effectually pre- 
cluded all communication with other countries excepting Ethiopia, southern Arabia and 
India; which fact will account for a vast influx of population from those countries, (and 
consequently from the slave-regions of Africa) into the Upper Nilotic provinces. 
It is moreover reasonable to suppose that even after the expulsion of the Hykshos, mul- 
titudes of Egyptians would remain in Ethiopia,—that country wherein whole generations 
of their ancestors had lived and died; at the same time that great numbers of Merdites, 
influenced by a variety of motives and especially by social alliances, would descend the 
Nile into Egypt. 
It is moreover evident that while the Egyptians became thus fraternized with the na- 
tions of southern Asia, and the motley races of the Upper Nile, the provinces of Lower 
Egypt would be overrun with the Caucasian tribes of Europe and western Asia; for 
these, either as cognate with thé Hykshos or as allies in their service, must have been in 
immense number to have conquered so populous a country, and especially to have kept 
possession during so long a period. It is to these events, then, that we attribute that 
blending of nations which appears to have been coeval with the early ages of the Nilotic 
Family, and which amply accounts for the ethnographic diversities every where manifest 
on the monuments. 
‘THE SECOND EPocH is comprised in the Ethiopian Dynasty of three kings, which lasted 
forty-four years, beginning B. C. 719. 
These Merdite or Austral-Egyptian kings, during their intrusive occupation of Egypt, 
would naturally, and indeed necessarily engage the neighbouring tribes, and especially 
such as were hostile to Egypt, as mercenary soldiers; and there are more than conjectural 
grounds for believing that the Negroes themselves were thus employed. We are told in 
the Sacred Writings (2 Chron. Chap. xii.) that when Shishak king of Egypt, who is iden- 
tical with Sheshonk of the monuments,—went up against Jerusalem, he took with him 
‘1200 chariots, and three-score thousand horsemen: and the people were without number 
that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubims, the Sukkiims and the Ethiopians.” Of 
this multitude we may presume that the horsemen, and people in chariots were part of 
the Egyptian army ; the Lubims and Sukkiims are by most commentators regarded as 
Libyansand Merdites, while, as the Ethiopians are placed last on the list, and are desig- 
nated in the Hebrew original by the name of Cush, it is not unreasonable to suppose that 
they were Negroes. This view is sustained by a passage in Herodotus,* who states that 
* In my Crania Americana, Note p. 29, I have employed this passage to show, that those Colchians whom Herodotus 
mentions as forming “ part of the troops of Sesostris,” might have been Negroes acting as mercenary or auxiliary sol- 
