Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon.

Nott, Josiah C. (Josiah Clark), 1804-1873.

Date:: 1860

Credit: Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

693/800 (page 637)

$037 second century after Christ, nor the former earlier than the fifth; in no case can either antedate b. c. 250. But, wildly shriek our Brahmanists — the grottos of Ellora, Elephanta, Adjunta, &c.? Alas, gentlemen — Sykes says, not one antedates the ninth century after Christ! Even Prichard, following Prinsep, does not consider these caves earlier than “ a century or two prior to the Christian era, w'hen Buddhism flourished in the height of its glory from Kashmir to Ceylon.” (245) We delude ourselves, probably, with the belief that our opponents in biblical studies will concede that, in our hands, the knife of criticism is double-edged; and that we apply it equally to the notions of Hindoo as well as of Judaean commentators. In the last century it was the fashion to exalt Sanscrit literature at the expense of Jewish ; greatly to the dis- comfort of orthodoxy. The latter may now console itself with the assurance, that its Ilin- dostanic apprehensions were puerile — for, beneath the most ruthless scalpel, a “ Book of the Laxv of Moses ” stands erect with vitality, in the sixth century b. c. ; that is, 200 years before the oldest Pali document of India was inscribed by Chaxdragupta. With the judicious reflections of another Sanscrit authority we take leave of Hindostan ; merely mentioning that our own analysis of Xth Genesis has entirely confirmed the doctrine broached by the learned Col. Vans Kennedy. (246) “ Although I do not derive all the nations of the earth from Shem, JTam, and Japhet, I still think that Babylonia [we read, Ariana] was the original seat of the Sanscrit language and of Sanscrit literature. . . . But this error [i. e. the contrary hypothesis] necessarily proceeds from the assumption, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis give an authentic account of the creation and of the earlier ages of the world; which renders it necessary to insult common sense, and to disi’egard the plainest principles of evidence and reasoning, in order to prove that all the races of mankind and all systems of polytheism were derived from one and the same origin.” Fjg. 360. Those who have leaned upon Faber’s broken reed would do well to peruse our author’s Appendix—“Remarks on the Papers of Lieut. Col. Wilford contained in the Asiatic Re- searches.” To others it may be satisfactory to know, that the earliest Greek mention of India (Sind) occurs in TEschylus, b. c. 525-456: while, about the same times (if Ezra com- piled the “Book of Genesis,” as patristic authority sustained), tradition — which, in our version [Gen. iv. 16), sends Cain into “the land of Nod, on the east of Eden” — pro- bably consecrated some legendary rumor that the forlorn outcast had escaped to the Hin- dus— “ZdNUD, towards the East of Eden,” itself located in Mesopotamia; which Indian people are still called IIINooD, by the Arabs. (247) India became known to Jews and Greeks after the former had been captive in Babylonia, and after the Persian invasions had given new ideas upon Asiatic geography to the latter. Intending to publish other justifications of the correct- ness of our Tableau \_supra, pp. 630, 631] on some future occasion, we suspend further discussion of the “ Semitic streams,” and merely submit specimens of that character upon which we have bestowed the name of “ Assyro-Phoeni- cian.” If, as Dr. Layard states, some of these relics were positively found in the “chamber of records” opened by him at Kouyun- jik, (248) and if, as he declares, they are really of the time of Sennacherib, b. c. 703 to 690, the reader beholds the very earliest known samples of purely-alphabetic writing hitherto discovered. They will become the more precious to his eyes, inasmuch as (in the contingency that Dr. Layard is certain that Fig. 360 belongs to Sennacherib’s reign) here is the closest ap- proximation to that (unknown) character in which the oldest Hebrew books of the Bible were originally written: which fact we shall demonstrate elsewhere. For (245) Researches; 1844; iv. pp. 120,121. (246) Researches into the Nature and Affinity of Ancient and Hindu Mythology; 1831; pp. 368, 369; also pp. 406-422. (247) Monk: Palestine; p.429.$

Licence and re-use

Contents