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
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

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.

    739/800 (page 683)
    mythe—that the consecutive dynasties of our common English father-land could fit no Hot- tentot’s estimate of the chronology of John-Chinaman’s sacred book, the Chou-king ; unless, after rejecting Boudicea and Caractacus, we were to permit his reduction of Danes, Saxons, Normans, Plantagcnets, Lancastrians, Yorkites, Tudors, Stuarts, Orangiles, Hanoverians, &c.; together with all British, Scottish, and Irish, periods of anarchy ; not forgetting Cromwell and the Commonwealth ; into one century. Suppose that, after proving why every Anglo- Saxon had erroneously classified, as distinct, those personages, epochas, and historical events, which the “ Tribunals of Literature ” of China had pronounced to be identical, the said mandarin were to show us how beautifully the whole could be reduced, through electro- magnetic typography, into one line of a table, and expressed algebraically by an x, repre- senting an infinitesimal fraction of a second of Creative time. What should we say to His Excellency “ Uncle Josh? Now, whatever the American reader might be pleased to hint to such Chinese mandarin, would be uttered in demotic tongue with “ brutale franchise” by old Manetho (could his mummy arise) to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, at the first glance over the above table: where, in wilful disregard of Lenormant, Champollion, Bockh, Barucchi, Bunsen, Henry, Lesueur, Lepsius, Ilincks, Kenrick, Pickering, Amp&re, De Rougti, Birch, and of every hierologist past, present, and to come, the gallant Knight has made the Illd, IVth, Vlth (VII), VUIth Egyptian dynasties (consecutive in Manetho and, where mentioned, serial upon all monu- ments), contemporaneous !—has actually jammed eleven dynasties, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, into a space (2200 a 1700) of 500 years! And perpetrated, too, all these inexplicable vagaries with theological applause, when, by placing Menes (1st dynasty, Thinites) at 2700 n. c., he shows that valiant knighthood, in a. d. 1851, no longer creeps all over “for fear of interfering with the Deluge of Noah; which [was) 2348 b. c.” before an aspirant to ecclesiastical patronage had won his gilded spurs. We dismiss, therefore, Ilorce JEgypliacce as beneath scientific notice, reserving to our- selves the privilege of a reviewer’s criticism, whenever circumstances may demand its annihilation. With it we snap off the last published peg upon which short-chronology can suspend its clerical hat; because Mr. Sharpe’s arrangement of Egyptian dynasties anterior to the XVIIIth has been respectfully disposed of. When other writers, with hieroglyphical handles to their patronymes, adventure into the rude arena of archaeology as champions of s/tor(-chronography, may their armor be well tempered and their lances tough! The list of Zom^-chronologists, above given, comprehends the “ preux chevaliers ” of archmological science at this day. The minimum of their respective dates for Menes is B. c. 3643 ; the maximum approaches the 6th chiliad b. c. By each authority all biblical computations, Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagmt, are thrown aside among the rubbish of the things that were. “ The sum of all the dynasties varies according to our present sources from 4685 to 5049 years ; the number of kings from 300 to 350, and even 500. It is evidently impossible to found a chronology on such a basis, but Syncellus tells us that the number of generations included in the 30 dynasties was, according to Manetho, 113; and the whole number of years, 3555. This number falls much short of what the summation of the reigns would furnish according to any reading of the numbers, but is nearly the same as 113 generations would produce, at any average of 32 years each.” (461) Fifteen years ago, the learned ethnographer, De Brotonne, reasoning upon this very number, “3555 de Manethon,” obtained b. c. 3901 as “le chiffre le moins <ilev6” for Menes.(462) To neither of the present writers have these results been unknown:— « On my return to Cairo [April, 1840, from a voyage with Mr. Harris to the second cata- ract], I devoted a twelvemonth’s leisure to the verification of the solidity of the basis upon which hieroglyphical revelations had placed Egyptian monumental chronology. The result was a conviction as profound then, as subsequent researches,—echoed by the voice of uni- versal erudition, and embodied in the works of a host of savans whose names gild the (461) Kenkick: Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs: 1850; ii. p. 93. (462) Filiations et Migrations: i. p. 203.