THE EGYPTIANS The ancient Egyptians considered themselves the original inhabitants of their country. This, however, is simply a proof that when they began to speculate concerning their origin they had no recollection of having migrated from an earlier home. Modern ethnologists are nearly unanimous in the belief that the Egyptians came from Asia, for, while there is no such evidence in this case as in that of the European nations, it is certain that they resembled the indigenous African races neither in form, in features, nor in language. Their ideas of a prehistoric age were very unlike those of most other ancient civilized peoples, and their tradi tions were exceedingly obscure.
Classes.—That they were not the original inhabitants is shown by their separation into classes—a fact that can be explained only by the relation of conquerors to the conquered. This separation was distinctly marked, though the classes were not castes in the strict sense of the word. The number of classes is differently stated by ancient authors. Herodotus makes them seven, Plato six, and Diodorus five, as follows: Classes of Ilerodotus. Classes of Plato. Classes of Diodorus.
I. Priests ; I. Priests; r. Priests; 2. Soldiers; 2. Soldiers; 2. Soldiers; 3. Cowherds; 3. Herdsmen; 3. Herdsmen; 4. Swineherds; 4. Ilusbandmen; 4. Ilusbandmen; 5. Traders; 5. Artificers; 5. Artificers.
6. Boatmen; 6. Ilunters.
7. Interpreters.
, There are no sufficient reasons for believing that the Egyptians were a mixed people, or that their institutions were based upon conquest and the consequent distinctions between a dominant and a subju gated race. The difkrent classes or castes were not separated by rigid, impassable lines, as in India, nor was any portion of the population regarded as an alien and naturally inferior people, like the Sudras. Intermarriage and adoption were not forbidden, and social inequalities, though no doubt strongly marked, were such as naturally arose from differences of rank, wealth, and occupation, and do not seem to have inflicted any stigma or mark of degradation on those who stood lowest in the scale. In the mural paint ings the Egyptians of all classes are distinguished in features and color from other races, such as Libyans, Syrians, and Negroes. It has, however, been asserted that cranial differences may be detected between the Egyptians of the earlier and those of the later empire. This is highly improbable in itself, and the evidence; as in most such cases, is dubious and deficient. An absolutely pure race has yet to le discov ered, but there is no people whose homogeneous character is so well attested by its long isolation, the regularity of its history, and the uniformity of its life and customs as is that of the Egyptians.—ED.
121 The paintings in their tombs, which accurately represent their entire life, show that several races differing in physiognomy and in color lived tog-ether and intermingled to some extent in the valley of the Nile.' Hisloiy•—Egyptian history is considered as beginning with the foun dation of the monarchy in Lower Egypt, of which the capital was Mem phis. But authorities differ greatly in regard to the date of this event,
which is calculated from a comparison of the list of kings given by Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived in the third century B. c., with the hieroglyphic records on the monuments. Both these sources of information are defective, and in some cases it is difficult to reconcile them. The reign of Mena, or Merles, the first king, is thus variously dated by distinguished Egyptologists: 5702 B. C., Boeckh; 5004 B. C., Mariette; 4455 B. C., Burgal; 3892 B. C., Lepsius; 3623 B. C., Bunsen. After the union of Upper and Lower Egypt (about 240o B. C., according to Lepsius) the seat of government was established at Thebes.
Under many successive dynasties the nation enjoyed a long continuance of order and peace; and civilization, on the firm basis of agriculture, and to a less extent on that of commerce and manufactures, was slowly but steadily developed. But the long isolation secured by the natural bound aries of the country led apparently to a neglect of other precautions for defence, and about 2100 B. C. Egypt was overrun by a swarm of nomads from the desert, whose chiefs established a dynasty known as that of the Hyksos, or "Shepherd-kings." Several centuries later these were ex pelled, and Egypt, under the kings of the eighteenth dynasty and its successors (1591-940 B. C.), entered on a course of foreign wars and expe ditions, followed by the growth of luxury, the spread of corruption, and other symptoms of internal decay, with the ultimate effect of diminishing the resources and enfeebling the spirit of the nation and making it the easy prey of stronger and more warlike empires. In 672 B. C. Egypt was conquered by the Assyrians, and, though it subsequently recovered its independence, this was finally lost in 525 E. C., when the country became a province of the Persian empire. After the fall of that empire and its division among the successors of Alexander the Great (323 B. C.), Egypt was governed by the Ptolemies, and shared to some extent in the benefits of Hellenic culture, the new capital, Alexandria, being for a time the chief centre of Greek learning and philosophy. Absorbed by the Roman empire (30 B. C.), Egypt enjoyed a long period of comparative prosperity, but its ancient civilization was not replaced by one of a higher order, and it received no return for that instruction in the arts and sciences which it had been the first to impart to the world. Its subsequent history resem bles that of the other Eastern countries that have fallen under the sway of Mohammedan conquerors and rulers. Owing, however, to the nature of the soil, which is kept perpetually fresh by the inundations of the Nile, and to the character of the people—docile, industrious, and not deficient in intelligence—it has suffered less than most other parts of the Turkish dominions, and is more capable of being raised to a higher condition under a just and energetic administration.