DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6640#0042
28
BUBASTIS.
is essentially Egyptian, even the attitude. The
Shepherd kings employed native artists for
making their portraits. They had submitted to
the Egyptian civilization. They had yielded
to the ascendency which a superior race "will
always exert on less civilized invaders; but
we may understand their desire that their
foreign origin should be recorded somewhere,
and nothing could show it as well as a good
portrait. It is obvious that the artist en-
deavoured to give an exact likeness of the
king; it is shown by the great difference which
exists between the head and the lower part of
the body, where the hand of a less clever
sculptor is easily traceable. Certainly under
the Hyksos Egyptian art had not degenerated.
The two heads of Bubastis are among the most
beautiful monuments which have been pre-
served. It is impossible not to admire the
vigour of the work as well as the perfection
with which the features are modelled. There
is something harder, even perhaps more brutal
than in the type of the Kamessides, whose
features are more refined and gracious ; but it
comes from the difference in the originals, which
did not belong to the same race.
After along circuit we thus return to our start-
ing point, and we inquire again, where was the
native of country the Hyksos ? consulting
instead of historical documents, the ethnologi-
cal characters which may appear on the monu-
ments. On this point we find a nearly complete
agreement between two of the most eminent
ethnologists of the present day—Prof. Flower
in England, and Prof. Yirchow in Germany.
The illustrious German saw the head now
belonging to the British Museum on the spot, a
few days after it had been discovered, and he
published a drawing of it in a paper read at the
Berlin Academy. Prof. Virchow was struck at
first sight by the foreign character of the fea-
tures, but he added that it was very difficult to
give their precise ethnological definition. " It
may be," says he, " that the models of these
heads were Turanians, but I should not be able
to say which." Prof. Flower expresses himself
in a more positive way on the Mongoloid
affinities of the Hyksos. There is nothing in
these statements which is not in perfect
harmony with the historical facts which are
mentioned above, as having been the cause of
the invasion of the Hyksos. The presence of
a Turanian race in Mesopotamia at a remote
epoch is no more questioned by most Assyrio-
logists. It does not mean that the whole bulk
of the invaders, the entire population which
settled in Egypt, was of Turanian origin. It
would be contrary to well-established historical
facts. It is certain that all that remained in Egypt
of the Hyksos, in the language, in the worship,
in the name of Aamu, by which they were
called, everything points to a decidedly Semitic
influence. But the kings may very well not
have been Semites. How often do we see in
eastern monarchies and even in European
states a difference of origin between the
ruling class, to which the royal family
belongs, and the mass of the people. We need
not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find
there Turks ruling over nations to the race of
which they do not belong, although they have
adopted their religion. In the same way as the
Turks of Bagdad, who are Finns, now reign over
Semites, Turanian kings may have led into
Egypt and governed a population of mixed
origin where the Semitic element was prevalent.
If we consider the mixing up of races which
took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages,
the invasions which the country had to suffer,
the repeated conflicts of which it was the
theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that
populations coming out of this land should
have presented a variety of races and origins.
Therefore I believe that though we cannot
derive a direct evidence from ethnological con-
siderations, they do not oppose the opinion
stated above that the starting point of the
invasion of the Hyksos must be looked for in
BUBASTIS.
is essentially Egyptian, even the attitude. The
Shepherd kings employed native artists for
making their portraits. They had submitted to
the Egyptian civilization. They had yielded
to the ascendency which a superior race "will
always exert on less civilized invaders; but
we may understand their desire that their
foreign origin should be recorded somewhere,
and nothing could show it as well as a good
portrait. It is obvious that the artist en-
deavoured to give an exact likeness of the
king; it is shown by the great difference which
exists between the head and the lower part of
the body, where the hand of a less clever
sculptor is easily traceable. Certainly under
the Hyksos Egyptian art had not degenerated.
The two heads of Bubastis are among the most
beautiful monuments which have been pre-
served. It is impossible not to admire the
vigour of the work as well as the perfection
with which the features are modelled. There
is something harder, even perhaps more brutal
than in the type of the Kamessides, whose
features are more refined and gracious ; but it
comes from the difference in the originals, which
did not belong to the same race.
After along circuit we thus return to our start-
ing point, and we inquire again, where was the
native of country the Hyksos ? consulting
instead of historical documents, the ethnologi-
cal characters which may appear on the monu-
ments. On this point we find a nearly complete
agreement between two of the most eminent
ethnologists of the present day—Prof. Flower
in England, and Prof. Yirchow in Germany.
The illustrious German saw the head now
belonging to the British Museum on the spot, a
few days after it had been discovered, and he
published a drawing of it in a paper read at the
Berlin Academy. Prof. Virchow was struck at
first sight by the foreign character of the fea-
tures, but he added that it was very difficult to
give their precise ethnological definition. " It
may be," says he, " that the models of these
heads were Turanians, but I should not be able
to say which." Prof. Flower expresses himself
in a more positive way on the Mongoloid
affinities of the Hyksos. There is nothing in
these statements which is not in perfect
harmony with the historical facts which are
mentioned above, as having been the cause of
the invasion of the Hyksos. The presence of
a Turanian race in Mesopotamia at a remote
epoch is no more questioned by most Assyrio-
logists. It does not mean that the whole bulk
of the invaders, the entire population which
settled in Egypt, was of Turanian origin. It
would be contrary to well-established historical
facts. It is certain that all that remained in Egypt
of the Hyksos, in the language, in the worship,
in the name of Aamu, by which they were
called, everything points to a decidedly Semitic
influence. But the kings may very well not
have been Semites. How often do we see in
eastern monarchies and even in European
states a difference of origin between the
ruling class, to which the royal family
belongs, and the mass of the people. We need
not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find
there Turks ruling over nations to the race of
which they do not belong, although they have
adopted their religion. In the same way as the
Turks of Bagdad, who are Finns, now reign over
Semites, Turanian kings may have led into
Egypt and governed a population of mixed
origin where the Semitic element was prevalent.
If we consider the mixing up of races which
took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages,
the invasions which the country had to suffer,
the repeated conflicts of which it was the
theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that
populations coming out of this land should
have presented a variety of races and origins.
Therefore I believe that though we cannot
derive a direct evidence from ethnological con-
siderations, they do not oppose the opinion
stated above that the starting point of the
invasion of the Hyksos must be looked for in