of these identical subjects in Champollion’s folio Monuments d’Egypte?
But, worse than that, viewing the question merely as one of scientific
knowledge and good faith, Prichard continued to publish, volume HI.
in 1841; volume IV. in 1844; and volume V. in 1847. The world
seems exhausted to prove his unitary-hypothesis. He never reverts
to Egyptian archaeology, nor reveals one iota of all these splendid
discoveries. Why? Because they flatly contradict him, and the
antiquated school of which he was the steel-clad war-horse.
Who forced Prichard, at last, either to accept hieroglyphical discoveries
in some of their hearings upon the Natural History of Man, or to
become placed, so to say, without the pale of scientific anthropology ?
Our countryman, Morton,—a student who, deprived of every facility
in Egyptian matters until 1842, printed, in 1844, his uCrania JEgypt-
iaea, or Observations on Egyptian Ethnography, derived from Ana-
tomy, History, and the Monuments; and thereby founded the true
principle of philosophical inquiry into human origins.
Prichard (in justice to his memory let us speak,) acknowledged
Morton’s work in the handsomest manner,130 although not in the
“ Researches.” But, how came it that Prichard should have allowed
an American savan (cut off by the Atlantic from all his own unbounded
facilities,) to anticipate him ? In truth, only because Egyptian
archaeology had shattered Prichard’s wm'iy-doctrine from the
weather-vane to its foundations.
Having disposed thus of their champion, weaker sustainers of
“ unity” who have pinned their creed on his obstinacy, adding their
own blindness to his cecity, may he passed over, without distressing
the reader by recapitulation of shallow arguments and unphiloso-
phical crudities. Nurpbers of their books lie on our shelves undusted,
because there is not a monumental fact to he culled from the whole
of them. Nor shall we do -more than allude to the opinions of the
learned M u re ,191 or of the erudite, though mystical, H e n ry ,192 who
endeavored to confine all these Asiatic wars of the Pharaohs to the
valley of the Nile; because, as neither scholar could read a hieroglyphic,
they debated upon that which they did not understand; and, in
consequence, uttered views that are now entirely superseded by later
Egyptologists, to whose pages we make a point of referring those who
may choose to criticise the bibliographical ground-work of “ Types
of Mankind.”
But we have not finished with the monuments.
M. P risse’s copy of the heterodox king, Atenra-Bakhan (Bex-en-
Aten), now proved to he Amunoph IV., need not here be repeated.
Its reduced fac-simile maybe consulted [supra, page 147); while eveiy
reference required is thrown into a note: 193 and, inasmuch as one of
the writers (G. R. G.) was present at the temple of Karnac, 1839-40,
when the original stone was found, and the design made, we can
vouch for the accuracy of Prisse’s copy of this unique bas-relief.
We mention this, because it differs, though not materially, from the
later reproductions of the same portrait in Lepsius’s Denkmäler:194 a
divergence accounted for by the fact that the French original lay at
Thebes, whereas the Prussians copied others at Tel-el-Amarna, 200
miles off: nor is it to be expected that ancient Egyptian portrait-
sculptors could multiply likenesses of a man more uniformly similar
among themselves, than can our own artists, or even daguerreo-
typists, at the present day. In proof of how artists differ, we here
Fig. 107.
1 2 3
/
present other less faithful copies, followed by Morton.195 The cut
contains, moreover, an attempted portrait of another king, formerly
termed SKAT, whose place, though proved to be nearly coeval with
that of Bakhan, was enigmatical until Lepsius discovered that he
was an immediate successor of the arch-heretic, and,' like him, became
effaced from the monuments when Amun’s priests regained the upper
hand.136
“ This king, AI, was formerly a private individual, and took his sacerdotal title into his
cartouche at a later period. He appears with his wife in the tombs of Amarna,vnot unfre-
quently as a noble and peculiarly-honored officer of king Amunoph IV .; that puritanical
sun-worshipper, who changed his name into that of ‘ Bech-en-Aten ’ ”—i. e. Adorer of the
sun's disk.
In Rosellini’s copy,197 the features of this king AI are atrocious.
Lepsius has since pronounced Bex-en-aten to be Amunoph IV., son