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.

740/800 (page 684)

brightest page illuminated by science in the XIXth century,—have since demonstrated its accuracy, of the utter impossibility of reconciling Egyptian facts, geological, topographical, ethnological, hieroglyphical, and historical, with Archbishop Usher’s system of patriarchal chronology. “ A manuscript compilation, over which an old and valued colleague, M. Prisse, and myself wiled away at Cairo many delightful weeks in reciprocal exchanges of our several gleanings, under the title of “Analecta Hieroglyphica,” condensed every cartouche, with references to most of the historical monuments, known to hierologists up to April, 1841; and, as many personal friends are aware, this manuscript is still a most important ground- text and manual to those who, like myself, are anxious to ascertain the stability of prior investigations, before hazarding the erection of a theoretical superstructure.” (468) What, then, is the present state of scientific opinion on the era of Menes ? The reader has it before him in the list on p. 682; and, without perplexing himself with vain speculations founded upon ignorance of the stupendous materials transferred from Egypt to Berlin by the Prussian Mission, let him do as we do, await patiently for the publication, hourly due, of Lepsius’s “ Book of Kings.” The authors may be pardoned wThen stating that, in books, manuscript-notes, and epistolary communications from Egypt, Italy, France, Ger- many, and England, they probably possess as much specific and detailed information here at Mobile, on Egyptian monumental chronology, as most men in the world, less a dozen European hierologists — with whom they are in agreeable accord. When, therefore, they put forward no dogmatical system of their own, but wait for the “Book of Kings,” they act themselves in accordance with the counsel offered to fellow-inquirers. Should Lepsius’s work reach their hands before the issue of the present volume, a synopsis of its chron- ology will be appended to our essay. We may also look forward to Biot, the scholarlike astronomer of France, for a profound investigation of the astronomical data, revealed by Egyptian monuments, in their relations to mundane chronology; (464) which will supersede any future recurrence to the cyclic reveries of such youthful star-gazers as Horae. Should, however, a qualified student desire to prepare himself for thorough mastery of Lepsius’s “Book of Kings,” he should commence with Rosellini’s Monumenti Storici; and, that being fundamentally acquired, his next guide is Bunsen, JEgyptcns Slelle in der Weltge- schichte; wherein most of the royal Egyptian names, discovered up to 1845, are compared with the classical lists, and in which the grand alteration produced by Lepsius’s resuscita- tion of the Xllth dynasty (unknown to the lamented Pisan Professor, or, in 1847, to Wil- kinson), is abundantly set forth. “ There is no royal road to the mathematics,” nor is there a straighter path to the comprehension of Egyptian chronology than the one we indicate; but, after these two works, the study of Lepsius, Chronologic der EEgyptcr, “ Einleitung, 1849,” becomes imperative. Such reader will appreciate the general correctness of the following method of verifying, nrchteologically, the progressive layers in which Egyptian history stretches backwards from the Christian era, assumed at 1853 years ago: until the unknown-commencements of Nilotic humanity merge into an undated, but ante-alluvial, period of geology. (465) We gladly borrow the first points of departure, in our journey from the Christian era backwards, from Sharpe (466): — “ The reigns of Ptolemy, of Darius, of CambjTses, and of Tirhakah are fixed by the Baby- lonian eclipses. Hophra and Shishank are fixed because they are mentioned in the Old Testament, since the length of the Jewish reigns, after Solomon, is well known, while those Jewish dates are themselves fixed by the earliest of the Babylonian eclipses in the reign of Tirhakah. Thus are fixed [by Mr. Sharpe] in the Table of Chronology the dynasties of Sais, Ethiopia, and Bubastis. Petubastes lived in the first Olympiad; this fixes the dynasties of Tanis.” Thus, king by king, and event by event, we ascend with precision back to Alexander the Great, n. c. 332; and thence, through the XXXIst, XXXth, XXIXth, XXVIIIth, XXVIIth, (463) Gi.iddON: //mid-boot-; London, Madden, 1349; p. 40;—conf. Nott: Biblical and Physical History of Man: 1849; pp. 69-86; — also Chronology, Ancient and Scriptural: South. Quart. Itcv., Nov. 1850. (464) T)e Hour.6 J,cv. Archcol., Feb. 1853; pp. 656, 686. (465) Gi.iddon : alia; pp. 61-69.

Licence and re-use

Contents