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.

    757/800 (page 701)
    Assyria should he attributed. Nowhere was this sentimentality exhibited more strongly than at the British Museum. Ninevite bas-reliefs of the 7th century b. c. were reverenced by pious crowds who looked upon them as if their carving had actually been coeval with the “Tower of Babel”; at the same time that Egyptian relics of the IYtli Memphite dynasty, belonging to the 4th chiliad before a., and those stupendous granites of the XVIIth- XVIIIth dynasties, positively dating in the 10th-13th centuries prior to the same era, were passed over in contemptuous silence; although displayed in gigantic halls, whilst Assyria (for want of room) lay in an underground cellar! And yet, withal, the only monumental proof of the existence of either BaBeL, or NINWE, 1500 years b. c., depended then, as it does now, upon Thotmes Illd’s “Statistical Tablet” of Karnac!(534) Nor, excited by the magnificence of their monumental resurrections, can we be surprised that the two explorers somewhat participated, at that time, in the general feeling. But, the habit of dispassionate comparison of art. (upon itself alone) among sculptured antiquities of every period and region collected in European Museums, had instinctively led thorough archaeologists to pronounce the word “ modern,” over every fragment brought to London and Paris from Nimroud or Khorsabad; and this before a single Assyro-cuneatic inscription had been deciphered. First to undertake this thankless office was De Longp6- rier ; (535) who proclaimed, to shocked orthodoxy, that nothing found or published of As- syrian bas-reliefs could possibly ascend beyond the 9th century; at the same time that Khorsab&d had then not yielded anything older than the 7th-8th century b. c. Nevertheless, it was published — “ On the most moderate calculation, we may assign a date of 1100 or 1200 before Christ, to the erection of the most ancient [palace]; but the probability is, that it is much more ancient(536) and maintained — “ There is no reason why we should not assign to Assyria the same remote antiquity we claim for Egypt” [b. c. 3500?]. Col. Rawlinson too, whilst conceding that “ the whole structure of the Assyrian graphic system evidently betrays an Egyptian origin: first organized upon an Egyptian model,”(537) formerly considered the Obelisk of Nimroud to date about the 12th-13th century b. c. Now, this age for Assyrian monumental commencements harmonizes perfectly with Egyp- tian conquests and dominion over much of that country, during the XVIIth dynasty, 15th- 10th centuries b. c. It is merely the arcliceological attribution of any sculptures, yet found and published, to such an epoch that we contest. We are the last to curtail any nation’s chronography ; but, misled so often by hypotheses, we cease to depend any further upon arithmetic where not supported by positively archaeological stratifications. Lepsius, it seems to us, has fairly stated the possibilities of Chaldaic chronology, (538) and future researches by cuneiform scholars will doubtless determine the relative position of each historical stra- tum as firmly for Assyria as has been already done for Egypt. With these provisoes, wo may safely present a synopsis of the last chronological results put forth by Layard. Possessing all the resources at present attainable, and profoundly versed himself in Assyrian studies, his tabulation of the monumental series of reigns inspires full confidence, at the same time that his results accord naturally with the histories of adjacent countries and people. (539) Ante-monumental Period. Into this category are cast the vague and semi-mythical traditions of Nimrod, Ninus, Belus, and their several lines; which, according to classical writers, may ascend to 1903 years before Alexander, equivalent to 2234 b. c. (540) (534) Birch: Op. cit.; 1846; p. 37: —Tiro Egyptian Cartouches found at Nimroud; 1S48; pp. 1G1-177: — Gi.renoN': Olia; p 103. Vide also Bmcn, Annals of Thotmes 111.; Archieologia, 1853, xxxv. p. 160. (535) Revue Archiologique, Oct. 1S47: — Galcrie Assyrienne, MusC-e du Louvre, 1849; p. 16; — Revue Archiol. Oct. 1850. (536) Layard: Nineveh and its Remains; Am. ed., 1849; pp. 176, 179, 185. (537) Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscriptions, &c.; 1S50; pp. 4, 7, 21, 71, 73, 74. (538) Chronologic der JF.gypter ; i. pp. 6-12. (539) Babylon ;, pp. 611-625: — already Rawlinson extends Assyrian antiquity to the 14th century b. c.; Jottr. R. Asiat. Roc., 1853, p. xviii., note. (540) Lepsius: i.p. 10.