Shepherd Captives were the Israelites. The accounts of these two tribes of people are confused, as may naturally be expected, but there are certainly many striking traits of resemblance between them. Mr. Shuckford, with whom in this Mr. Volney agrees, thinks there were two races of Shepherd kings, and in this opinion he coincides with most of the ancients; but most certainly, in his treatise against Apion, Josephus only names one.[1] We shall have much to say hereafter respecting these shepherds, under the name of Palli.
The only objection which occurs against Amenophis or Memnon being the leader of the Hindoo race who first came from the Indus to Egypt is, that according to our ideas of his chronology, he could scarcely be sufficiently early to agree with the known historical records of India. But our chronology is in so very vague and uncertain a state, that very little dependance can be placed upon it. And it will never be any better till learned men search for the truth and fairly state it, instead of sacrificing it to the idle legends or allegories of the priests, which cannot by any possible ingenuity be made consistent even with themselves.
Mr. Wilsford, in his treatise on Egypt and the Nile, in the Asiatic Researches, informs us, that many very ancient statues of the God Buddha in India have crisp, curly hair, with flat noses and thick lips; and adds, “nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India.”
This is confirmed by Mr. Maurice, who says, “The figures in the Hindoo caverns are of a very different character from the present race of Hindoos: their countenances are broad and full, the nose flat, and the lips, particularly the under lip, remarkably thick.”[2]
This is again confirmed by Colonel Fitzclarence in the journal of his journey from India. And Maurice, in the first volume of his Indian Antiquities, states, that the figures in the caves in India and in the temples in Egypt, are absolutely the same as given by Bruce, Niebuhr, &c.
Justin states, that the Phœnicians being obliged to leave their native country in the East, they settled first near the Assyrian Lake, which is the Persian Gulf; and Maurice says, “We find an extensive district, named Palestine, to the east of the Euphrates and Tigris. The word Palestine seems derived from Pallisthan, the seat of the Pallis or Shepherds.”[3] Palli, in India, means Shepherd.
This confirms Sir William Jones’s opinion, in a striking manner, respecting a black race having reigned at Sidon.
9. It seems to me that great numbers of circumstances are producible, and will be produced in the following work, to prove that the mythology, &c., &c., of Egypt were derived from India, but which persons who are of a different opinion endeavour to explain away, as inconclusive proofs. They, however, produce few or no circumstances tending towards the proof of the contrary, viz. that India borrowed from Egypt, to enable the friends of the superior antiquity of India, in their turn, to explain away or disprove.
It is a well-known fact that our Hindoo soldiers when they arrived in Egypt, in the late war, recognized the Gods of their country in the ancient temples, particularly their God Cristna.
The striking similarity, indeed identity, of the style of architecture and the ornaments of the ancient Egytian and Hindoo temples, Mr. Maurice has proved[4] beyond all doubt. He says, “Travellers, who have visited Egypt in periods far more recent than those in which the abovecited authors journeyed thither, confirm the truth of their relation, in regard both to the number and extent of the excavations, the beauty of the sculptures, and their similitude to those carved in the caverns of India. The final result, therefore, of this extended investigation is, that, in
I
