[71] The most scholarly analysis of this curious alphabet, called the tifinagh or tifinar, will be found in Prof. Halevy’s Essai d’ Epigraphie Libyque (Paris, 1875).
[72] See Duveyrier, Les Touaregs du Nord, p. 339; H. Bissuell, Les Touaregs de l’ Ouest, pp. 106, 115 (Alger., 1888), etc.
[73] Hooker and Ball, Tour in Morocco, p. 86.
[74] To Prof. A. H. Sayce is, I think, due the honor of showing that the pre-Semitic white race of Palestine was of the Libyan stock. See Nature, 1888, p. 321. He had previously pointed out that the two forms of tenses of the Libyan verb “correspond most remarkably with Assyrian forms” (Introduction to the Science of Language, Vol. II., p. 180). Rawlinson, in his Story of Phenicia (N. Y., 1889), adopts the view that the early Phenicians were Hamites. The epochal discovery of Halevy, now accepted by Delitzsch and other Assyriologists, that the “second” column of the cuneiform inscription is merely a Hamito-Semitic dialect in another character, finally destroys the “Turanian” hypothesis, and restores the ancient Assyrians to the Eurafrican race.
[75] Virchow, after close studies in Egypt, expressed himself very positively that the affinities of the old Egyptian stock were “with the Hamites, with the Berbers and Kabyles, the peoples who from the remotest times have inhabited the regions of the Atlas.” See his address in the Correspondenz-Blatt der deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1888, p. 110.
[76] On the stone age in Egypt, see General Pitt-Rivers, in Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 1881, p. 387, sq.; and especially the exhaustive article by Dr. Virchow in Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthrop. Gesell., 1888, p. 345, sq. As early as 1881 Prof. Henry W. Haynes of Boston announced his discovery of palæolithic stone implements in Upper Egypt. (Mems. of the Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, Vol. X., p. 357.) The latest contribution to the subject is by W. Reiss, Funde aus der Steinzeit Aegyptens (Berlin, 1890).
[77] M. G. de Lapouge goes quite as far. He writes (Revue d’Anthropologie, 1887, p. 308), “L’Egypte s’est civilisée pendant notre quaternaire, et son plus grand developpement a coincidé avec notre epoque néolithique.”
[78] “Jusqu’a cette heure,” writes A. L. Delattre, in the Bulletin des Antiquités Africaines, 1885, p. 242, “les pieces archéologiques de notre collection de Carthage, qui remontent incontestablement à la période primitive de l’histoire de cette ville fameuse, ont toutes le cachet egyptien prononcé.”
[79] Dr. L. Faurot, in Revue d’Ethnographie, 1887, p. 57.
[80] See my essay on this subject, The Cradle of the Semites (Philadelphia, 1890); also the able paper of G. Bertin, “On the Origin of the Semites,” in Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 1882, p. 423, sq., and the speculations of R. G. Haliburton, in Proceedings of the British Assoc. for the Adv. of Science, 1887, p. 907. An excellent summary of the argument that the Semites came from Africa will be found in Gifford Palgrave’s article on Arabia in the Encyclopedia Britannica.