It is thus that we trace this peculiar style of countenance in its several modifications through epochs and in localities the most remote from each other, and in every class of the Egyptian people. How different from the Pelasgic type, yet how obviously Caucasian! How varied in outline, yet how readily identified! And if we compare these features with those of the Egyptian series of embalmed heads, are we not forcibly impressed with a striking analogy not only in osteological conformation, but also in the very expression of the face? Compare, for example, the head on page 17 . Observe, also, the six skulls figured, Plate VII., Plate XII., Fig. 4; Plate X., Fig. 4; Plate VIII., Fig. 9, and the numerous accompanying illustrations, and no one, I conceive, will question the analogy I have pointed out. This type is certainly _national_, and presents to our view the _genuine Egyptian physiognomy_, which, in the Ethnographic scale, is intermediate between the Pelasgic and Semitic forms. We may add, that this conformation is the same which Prof. Blumenbach refers to the _Hindoo_ variety in his triple classification of the Egyptian people.[42] And this leads us briefly to inquire, who were the Egyptians? It is in the sacred writings only that we find any authentic records of the primeval migrations of our species. “In the general allotment of territories to the offspring of Noah,” observes Mr. Gliddon, “Egypt, by the concurrent testimony of all Biblical commentators, was assigned to Mizraim, the son of Ham, as a domain and for an inheritance;” whence Egypt has, from the remotest times, been called by the names of Mizraim and Ham, or _Khemé_. Mr. Gliddon adds, that “although the name of Mizraim has not yet been found in hieroglyphic legends, there is abundant scriptural evidence to prove that the country was called Mizraim and Mitzar by the Jews; while at the present day throughout the east, Egypt and Cairo are universally known by the cognate appellation of _Muss’r_.”[43]