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.

737/800 (page 681)

GS1 upon this subject, 'which would be inexcusable; or he has read them and does not cite them, which would be still more grave. I have not read the name of Lepsius a single time in his book, in respect to all these questions so lengthily treated in the Introduction to Chronology [Berlin, 1848-9]. . . . Not content with this discovery [viz., the imaginary Pane- gyrical Months] M. Poole thinks also to find other new cycles, with the dates which refer to them. I confess that it has been impossible for me to comprehend how, in the presence of pretensions so important, Mr. Poole has not deemed himself obliged to prove the truth of liis allegations, by minutely analyzing the inscriptions which he alleges. Far from that, he contents himself with indicating them, and sometimes even without producing their text in his plates. One cannot lean upon an Egyptian inscription, as upon a passage of Titus Livius, without new explanation, and I will frankly say that I believe in none of the cycles and in none of the dates of Mr. Poole. ... It is evident that in thus handling the ciphers, without controlling their signification and the manner in which they are introduced into the inscriptions, one may end in imagining all the periods that one wishes, and in giving them a certain appearance of truth to the eyes of persons who can discuss but the results. A work thus based must pass for non-avenu.” But, after all, Ilorcc has no “ fear of interfering with the Delugeso the work becomes only another thorn in the side of orthodoxy. Mr. Wilkinson (1835, supra), devoutly fol- lowing archbishop Usher and the margin of king James's version, says the date of tho Flood “ is 2348 b. c.” In its author’s first articles, Ilorcc had declared— “ The date of the accession of Menes, the first king of Egypt, is probably that of the commencement of the first great panegyrical year and first capital year. Eratosthenes and Josephus [say, modern computators on these ancient writers] place his accession some- what later — namely, about 2300 years b. c., instead of 2715. The history of the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th dynasties [of the IV-Vth dynasties, Lf.psius found the amplest details, while the author of Ilorce. dwelt only 15 miles off, at Cairo!] is but scantily furnished us by Manetho and the monuments, and the latter give us but one date [and that fabulous!], that of the commencement of what / have called the second great panegyrical year in the time of Suphis I.. the builder of the great pyramid, and second king of Manetho’s fourth dynasty, b. c. 2350.” (454) Ilorcc thus fixed the building of the great pyramid two years before AVilkinson’s Deluge; and set Menes on the throne, in Egypt, 367 years before the same authority’s catastrophe. But, it was promptly shown, that Horce, in selecting the year b. c. 2715 for Menes, had merely stolen another man’s thunder (455): wherefore, when its author came to reprint those twelve articles in an octavo volume, he so translated his hieroglyphics, astronomically, as to obtain two years’ difference!—“The commencement of the great panegyrical year which preceded that of the Suphises, I have already shown to be in the year b. c. 2717” (456); and then he informs us {hat “ the Septuagint chronology dates the Dispersion of Mankind about the year b. c. 2758 ; that is, about 41 years before the era of Menes”! Computations upon the different copies of the LXX, every one of them as rotten as the MSS. themselves, cause the Creation to fluctuate between b. c. 5904, and b. c. 5054. (457) And the above sentence merely shows its penman’s incompetency to discuss Septuagint questions. To the reader of our disquisition on Xth Genesis [PeLeG, supra, p. 545], the following specimens of Ilorcc's biblical knowledge will be amusing; as much as, to use its author’s favorite adjective, the latter’s credulity is “remarkable”: — “/therefore believe that the Vague year was instituted in the time of Noah ; probably bv Ham [!]. not by Noah. . . . / have only to notice one other important epoch of Bible history—the dispersion of nations. The division [read “split”] of the earth is indicated as having occurred at the birth of Peleg [a “ split”]; when we are told, (Gen. x, 25), * unto Eber were born two sons ; the name of the one (was) Peleg (or division); for in his days was the earth divided.’ [Vide supra, what the Hebrew writer meant!] Now, it was a common custom of Hebrews to name their children from circumstances which occurred at their birth ; and the custom of ancient Arabs was precisely the same, and has continued to the present day. AA’e cannot reckon as exceptions to this the few cases where God changed a name, or imposed a new one; and in the latter case the old name was retained with the new one[!]. The birth of Peleg, according to Dr. Hales, happened b. c. 2754; (454) Art. XII.; Literary Gazette, Dec. 15, 1849; p. 910; — compare Art. VII., p. 522. (455) “ By my reduction of ‘ Manetho ’—2715 ” B. c.; Guddon, Chap., 1S43, p. 51and Hand-book, 1849, p. 4) (456) Op. cit.: p. 63, and p. 97. (457) Riccioli : Chronol. reformata; p. 293. 86

Licence and re-use

Contents