There are few traces of colour remaining on any Ethiopian edifice, yet I found sufficient in one of the porticoes of the pyramids of Gibel el Birkel, to enable me to ascertain the important fact, that the colouring was similar to the Egyptian. That of the human body is of the same red tint; and is it not singular that man is represented of the same complexion in Ethiopia as in every part of Egypt? Such a coincidence could only arise from the circumstance of the one people having derived their knowledge of the arts from the other. The colouring of the Ethiopians and Egyptians was of course, like the form of the figure, conventional. Now, I ask the reader, Where is it most probable that this colour was first established? Was it in a country where the inhabitants must have been nearly of that dark tint represented in these sculptures, or was it in one, 1700 miles farther north, where the people must have been, as they are now, yellow, or, comparatively speaking, white. The first colonies which introduced the arts into Egypt would naturally represent their divinities under the same appearance as in the mother country, and the first kings, and other persons making offerings, would of course be the colonists. Impressed with reverence for the first models presented to them, the Egyptians would continue to use this colour, tacitly acknowledging, by this circumstance, that they derived the knowledge of the arts from Ethiopia. There are several representations in Egypt of black men and black queens, but these almost invariably bear the negro features. Even if they were intended to represent Ethiopians, that colour could only be a mark of distinction, afterwards introduced, as of a blacker nation than themselves; for we find the Ethiopians, on their own edifices, represented as exactly of the same tint as the Egyptians of Thebes and Memphis.
If the artist were to paint them of one of the six colours with which they were acquainted,—white, red, green, blue, yellow, or black, the one approaching nearest to what was probably the real Ethiopian complexion, would certainly be the red. We shall be confirmed in this conclusion, if we consider the latitude and the colour of the present cultivators of the soil. Though they speak the Arabic language, they are most probably (and the tradition I heard at Dongolah confirms the supposition) descended from the race of the true Ethiopians, obliged, by force, to adopt the language and religion of their conquerors. That people, from their climate, could not have been white, and, had they been black, they would have so represented themselves. The Copts, the descendants of the Egyptians, are fairer than the Fellaheen, yet the latter look white in Ethiopia, contrasted with the present inhabitants of that country. It must also be considered that the Arab conquerors, being from the southern part of their country, and therefore darkened by the climate and the desert life they led, would, to a certain extent, give a darker tint to the Ethiopians; nevertheless, I have given views of some Berbers whose complexions are decidedly lighter than they are represented on the walls. (See [Plate XVI.]) We must recollect also that it has ever been a custom of the Orientals to represent themselves and their mistresses as beautifully fair. The present Ethiopians esteem nothing more than a light complexion. Before they were accustomed to Europeans, they looked with horror on what they considered their unnatural whiteness; but if an Ethiopian is celebrating in a song the charms of his mistress, he dwells with the greatest rapture on her fair skin. The petty kings seek wives of equal rank with themselves, chiefly on account of their fair complexion, which the daughters of the meleks acquire by being generally confined to the house; particularly as all mixture with the negro blood is carefully shunned. The colour most approaching to nature, if this conventional one had originated in Egypt, would certainly have been the white, or rather light yellow. Such must have been the colour of the Egyptians; and we cannot suppose that they would pay themselves so bad a compliment as to represent their complexion so many shades darker than it must really have been. Here then we have another great proof that civilisation and art descended the river. I have mentioned, in my topographical description, the passages of Diodorus which state shortly, but explicitly, that the Ethiopians stated the Egyptians to have derived all their knowledge from them. The inquiries of that intelligent traveller penetrated through the veil which the pride of the Egyptians, jealous, and anxious to magnify their antiquity, had thrown over the origin of their institutions; and when to this national propensity we add the obstinate wars, which would naturally eradicate every attachment to their parent land, and induce them to conceal their obligations to Ethiopia, it appears surprising how that intelligent traveller should have been able to ascertain the fact, that civilisation descended from Meroe. Diodorus had no object in inventing that account; and if the Ethiopians gave it to him in Egypt, he had there the means of ascertaining the truth from the priests and other learned men, who, no doubt, were acquainted with the fact; and would have contradicted it if he had not believed it. Herodotus apparently heard a similar account. He visited Egypt during the time of the Persian dynasty, while Diodorus was in that country little more than half a century (sixty years) before Christ, when the philosophy of the Greeks may have penetrated through the pride and false pretensions of the Egyptian priests. Herodotus states that the Egyptians believed themselves to be from where the race of man first existed (ἐξ οὗ ἄνθρωπον γένος ἐγένετο). He mentions that the Thebaid was Egypt before the formation of the Delta[93]: the increase of population forced them to spread themselves down the valleys, emigrating from the Thebaid to the Delta, in the same way, no doubt, as they originally emigrated from Meroe. There is one question connected with this subject, which, I must confess, is an important one; namely, by what language the hieroglyphics of both countries are to be interpreted. Is it by a common one, as emanating from the same origin, or by a different one in the two countries? I shall not now commit myself by a discussion and hasty opinion on a subject which I hope to be better able to treat, as I extend my acquaintance with hieroglyphics, and with the Coptic and the Ethiopian languages. It seems to me, however, that if the Egyptians derived their knowledge of hieroglyphics from Ethiopia, they would, of course, receive from the same source the language by which they were explained.
With regard to the early literature and science of the Ethiopians, we know them only by the monuments; but we may rest satisfied, that they could not have been neglected in a country where, as Diodorus says, the language of hieroglyphics was generally understood. The existence of these on the walls of the porticoes of the pyramids, is a proof that some at least were acquainted with them. It is a very remarkable circumstance, which, even at the hazard of repetition, I must impress upon the reader, that notwithstanding the little sculpture and the few monuments that remain, there is sufficient to corroborate the very words of Diodorus. The reader who has examined my drawings will agree with him, that the Ethiopians buried their dead with as much pomp as the Egyptians; the processions were the same; and although there is some little difference in the style of the sculpture and hieroglyphics, it certainly is my conviction, that the Egyptian style had, as he very correctly expresses himself, its origin in Ethiopia.[94]
History affords no example, at least that I know, of a people being so advanced in the fine arts, without at the same time having applied themselves to the cultivation of the sciences, of history and philosophy. Their religion, as I may show on another occasion, evinces their acquaintance with metaphysics, not being a gross mythology, but the worship, under different forms, of the one great Divinity, whose attributes are manifested in the wonders of the creation. A people who had evidently so much taste for the arts, must have been sensible to the charms of study. Those who had the means would naturally wish to distinguish themselves, or at least their children, by various literary acquirements. Individuals seeking to elevate themselves above the common level would rise together, and what was at first an extraordinary attainment would become necessary to secure admittance into society.
The remarks which I have hitherto made on the arts of Ethiopia are chiefly applicable to their earliest period. In my narrative I have mentioned, that there are still the remains and traces of 80 pyramids at Meroe, 42 at Nouri, and 17 at Gibel el Birkel. In the few which are now nearly entire, the porticoes are decorated with figures sculptured in the round and bulky Ethiopian style. It is impossible now to determine positively whether these are representations of private individuals, of kings, or of members of different royal families. They represent in several instances, two persons,—a king and his wife, and there is one instance of a queen only. The tombs which we can ascertain, from the hieroglyphics, to be those of kings and queens, being not of superior, or even equal magnitude with many of the others, I think it not unreasonable to conclude, that every one of them was erected for a sovereign or some members of a royal family. If they were each of a king or queen who had reigned alone, the immense number which can even now be traced, independent of the many which the desert has swallowed up, would carry us back to an earlier era than can be admitted, for it is evident, from the style of the sculpture, and other appearances of the monuments, that they were erected long previous to the time of Tirhaka, (730 years B.C.)
That Ethiopian king, who reigned over Egypt, constructed a magnificent temple at Gibel el Birkel, which city, if not the place of his birth, and at one time the seat of his empire, was at all events peculiarly favoured by him; for we do not see his name on any Ethiopian edifice, except on an altar in the great temple, and on the walls and columns of the temple of Athor at Birkel.
Part of the temple of Tirhaka is excavated out of the rock, either in imitation of those he had seen in Egypt, or it may perhaps be a more ancient temple, added to and decorated by that king. The style of sculpture at that time was tolerably good, very like the Egyptian, but by no means equal to the best at Thebes. The architecture, however, seems to have then very much declined. The columns of Athor and the deformed Pthah in the temple built by Tirhaka, are very inferior to the fragment we have at Abou Naga, and the great temple at Gibel el Birkel, built, perhaps, by Pionchei, probably a much more ancient king. That edifice, for magnificence, may be compared to any in the valley of the Nile. I may here also remark, that, notwithstanding the great pecuniary resources which Tirhaka must have possessed, as king of two such rich and powerful countries as Egypt and Ethiopia, still the temple erected by him is not to be compared to the splendid edifice of his predecessor.
It is singular, that, with the exception of the remains of this large temple, and some other less important vestiges of smaller edifices there, the colossal statues of Argo, the Ethiopian temple of Amarah, the fragment of an Ethiopian ruin at Naga, on the Nile, and the Ethiopian temples at Mecaurat or Naga, in the desert (see Cailliaud), there are no remains of any sacred edifice of an earlier period than Tirhaka, or indeed of a later, except the ruins at Wady el Owataib. The sepulchres of the kings only are standing. The temples which remain in the best state of preservation above the second cataract are those of Semneh, built by Thothmes III., an Egyptian king, and the magnificent temple of Solib, built by Amunoph III., also an Egyptian monarch. Petronius, in his hatred for every thing that was Ethiopian, probably destroyed all the edifices which had escaped from the ravages of previous wars.
If Gibel el Birkel was Napata (as it is considered by many), the temples might have been destroyed by Petronius, but I have before stated, that I cannot conceive it to be that town. We must therefore attribute its destruction to an earlier era, or to the Christians or Arabs. The great temple of Gibel el Birkel must have required great labour to demolish it so utterly. The immense and massive columns and thick walls would have lasted for ages, had they not been destroyed by violence. As no attempts have apparently been made to restore these edifices, the place was perhaps deserted, and the name erased from among the list of cities. My drawings, plans, &c. of the temples of Semneh, Solib, and the small temple at Gibel el Birkel, will show that they are exceedingly ruined, yet not with the same dreadful destruction as the large temple at the latter place, and others, of which scarcely a vestige remains.
Some of the pyramids of Gibel el Birkel and Meroe bear evidence of the greatest violence having been employed to destroy them, whereas others seem injured only by time. The demolition of the former, may, I conceive, be entirely attributed to the avarice of the Mahometans. The very nature of the construction of the pyramids would certainly present greater difficulties in destroying them, but this could not have been the motive in forbearing from the attempt; for all events it would have been easy for the levellers of whole rows of immense and lofty columns to demolish entirely every portico. That respect for the sepulchres of the dead, which has existed in every age, among civilised and uncivilised nations, prevented probably the devastators from violating the pyramids of Meroe and Nouri, whilst, at both those places, every trace of the temples has been obliterated. Religious bigotry must have been the cause of this violence. The invaders, while they respected the habitations of the dead, the sepulchres of ancient kings, might consider the destruction of the sanctuaries to be the surest mode of eradicating every trace of the idolatrous worship of Ammon.