Mr. Wilkinson expresses himself unable to trace the Shairetana and the Tok-kari; I conceive, however, that their names and other circumstances serve to identify them with the Sogdians or Bucharians and the Turks, whose territories are intermingled. The name of the Tok-kari obviously resembles that of the Turks, and, according to Adelung, the Bucharians, from their dwelling in Towns, &c., are called Sarti, a name resembling that of the Shairetana. The Shairetana and Tok-kari revolted together against the Egyptians, and were again subdued. The Tok-kari used waggons with two solid wheels, and drawn by two oxen, which appear to have been placed in the rear as in the Scythian or Tartar armies. Their women are seen carrying off their children by drawing them into these waggons at the moment of defeat. These are traits characteristic of the Tartar race, of which the Turks are a branch. These nations were occasionally allied with the Egyptians both against the Scheti and the Rebo, which implies that their country was intermediate between that of the Parthians and the Tartars.
The Egyptian illustrations of Scriptural incidents and localities are of the highest interest:
Champollion found a portrait of a Hebrew, with all the features of the race, in a group consisting of the chiefs of thirty conquered nations, whom an Egyptian King is depicted dragging to the feet of the Theban Trinity. The name of the Egyptian King was phonetically written “Shishak,” the name of the Jewish captive was written “Joudaha Melek,” King of Judea or the Jews. (See I. Kings, 14 chap. 25 and 26 v.) This picture, as Mr. Tattam[121] observes, may be considered as a commentary on this chapter!
Portraits of Jews are frequent amongst the Egyptian remains. [pg 141] “The costume of these Jews is always the same. They wear their black bushy hair occasionally bound by a red fillet; but sometimes they wear hats not unlike the hats dramatically assigned to the Jews of the dark ages. They wear sandals, the military petticoat or philibeg, a baldric crossing one shoulder, a girdle, to which is attached a short sword or dagger, and when engaged in warlike operations, having the upper part of the body covered with a defensive coat, either of leather or armour, and wearing above the whole a tippet like the cape of a great coat. Independent of Phonetic language a mere glance at their lineaments shows that they are Jews!”[122]
The early development of the vast political power and high civilization of this extraordinary people corroborates the conclusion, that the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to a period sufficiently remote to render it extremely improbable that a close specific resemblance should have continued to exist between their language and those of the countries from which the first population of Egypt may have emigrated. This inference does not militate against the supposition that Egypt may have been first colonized from the contiguous Semetic or Syro-Phœnician regions of Judæa and Arabia.[123]
The literature of ancient Egypt forms a treasure as yet but imperfectly explored. “We possess,” says Dr. Lepsius, Hieratic MSS. as far back as the flourishing epoch of the eighteenth dynasty, (which began to reign B.C. 1575, i.e. eighty years before the departure of the Israelites,) and it is probable that this style was in use even earlier. We [pg 142] have MSS. on History, Astrology, Magic, “Registres de Comptabilities,” and especially a great quantity of MSS. on Funeral matters.
These remains are probably pregnant with information of the profoundest interest with regard to the early history of mankind! Further inquiries similar to those conducted by Dr. Lepsius with respect to the phases through which the Egyptian Tongue has passed, will probably bring to light numerous proofs of an increasing approximation in its most ancient specimens to the languages of Asia and also to those of the other regions of the continent of Africa. Even in the present state of our knowledge, I may point out that indications are not altogether wanting that the Hebrew and other Semetic Tongues in some respects appear to form a connecting link between the Egyptian and other African languages, on the one hand, and the Sanscrit and other languages, termed Indo-European, on the other. These indications occur not in the words but in the structure of the Semetic Tongues.
In explaining the origin of language, I have noticed that the basis or Root of the Noun and Verb is the same, while the requisite distinction between the different parts of speech is made by appropriate additions, as in the instance of the syllable Er, in Build-er.
It may be inferred that all additions now employed grammatically as prefixes or suffixes were in the first instance used indifferently either before or after the Root. But we find, in this respect, a marked difference between the Indo-European and the Egyptian Tongues. In the former, these grammatical agents are almost invariably placed after, while in the Egyptian they in some instances follow, and in others precede the Root. It will be evident, however, that these grammatical forms themselves are, in numerous important [pg 143] instances, the same in these two Classes of Tongues, and that it is only the order in which they are placed that is different. Thus, in forming the feminine from the masculine, the Egyptians used a prefix, Th, which forms a suffix in the Welsh, as in Son,[124] “A Brother,” Th-son, “A Sister,” (Egypt.) Gen-eth, “A Girl,” (Welsh.) Again, the Egyptian plural is formed by prefixing N, as in Phe, Heaven, singular; N Pheou, Heavens, plural, (Egypt.,) while in many of the Indo-European tongues plurals are often formed by subjoining N, as in Ox, Ox-en (Eng.), Ych, Ych-en (Welsh.), &c.
Now in the Hebrew, Chaldee, &c., though suffixes are employed in numerous instances, formative prefixes are also used, though not so generally as in the Egyptian, between which language and the Indo-European tongues the Semetic languages therefore occupy, in this respect, an intermediate place.