THE SHEPHERD KINGS OF EGYPT. 179 



nita — the greatest uncertainty prevailing as to its clironologj, tlie order 

 and succession of its dynasties and sovei-eigns, as well as to tlie origin 

 of its varied population ; that its most intimate relations were with 

 Palestine, and anything tending to throw light upon the history of 

 the latter country must necessarily be of value to the Egyptologist ; 

 that its ruling families from the beginning of monarchy were 

 Caucasian, and came into Egypt from the north-east ; that the first of 

 these families in point of order and importance was that of the Auritae 

 or Horites ; that the Shepherd Kings shew intimate connections with 

 the tribes which, after their expulsion, waged constant wars with the 

 Pharaohs, and whose residence was found principally in Philistia and 

 the land of Moab ; that there is presumptive evidence of no ordinary 

 character for the identity of the Philistines and the Shepherd line ; 

 that the records of Egyptian monarchy sliow many remarkable 

 analogies with the order and character of the names in the fourth 

 chapter of the First Book of Chronicles, some of which (those of the 

 Horites) have been proved to belong to Egypt ; that there was in 

 Egypt a family of Shethites persistently opposed to the Horite 

 dynasties. 



III. In regard to other histories and mythologies. — That, while the 

 ancient records of historical peoples (Phoenicians, Assyrians and 

 Babylonians, Arabians, Persians, Indians, stocks of Asia Minor, 

 Greece, Italy, &c.) do contain names and traditions which the JSTeo- 

 Platonic school of mythologists can torture into solar allegories and 

 elaborate systems of nature worship, there is no evidence that such was 

 the origin of these names and traditions, and there remains, after the 

 utmost efforts of their ingenuity have been put forth upon them, an 

 immeasurably larger residuum of unresolvable facts bearing all the 

 marks of historical origin ; that the history of these various peoples 

 is so indissolubly bound up with their mythology that it is impossible 

 to tell where one ends and the other begins, and that he who 

 allegorizes the one is logically obliged to do the same with the other ; 

 that the mythologies and early histoiies of all these peoples have well 

 established points of connection one with another, extending to 

 identity of names, genealogies and related circumstances, so that 

 Paber's conclusion, which refers this to the fact of their having 

 dwelt at one time in intimate contact, is the only possible solution of 

 the problem presented by comparative mythology; that all these 

 mythologies, or coxrupted fragments of history, refer to Egypt, 



