m
skeleton. Tlie skull was crushed into many pieces, but, by a cautious manipulation, Dr.
Morton succeeded in reconstructing the posterior and lateral portions. The occiput is
remarkably flat and vertical, while the lateral or parietal diameter measures no less than
five inches and eight-tenths.
“ A chemical examination o f some fragments of the bones proves them to be almost
destitute of animal matter, which, in the perfect osseous structure, constitutes about thirty-
three parts in thè hundred. On the upper part of the left tibia there is a swelling of the
bone, called in surgical language a node, ^an inch and a half in length, and more than half
an inch above the natural surface. This morbid condition may have resulted from a variety
of causes, but possesses greater interest on account of its extreme infrequency among the
primitive Indian population of the country.”*
Mr. Gliddon, while in Paris in 1845-6, presented a copy of the
Crania JEgyptiaca to the celebrated orientalist, M. Fulgence Fresnel,
(well known as the decipherer of the Himyaritic inscriptions, and
now engaged in Ninevife explorations,) and endeavored to interest
him in Morton’s labors. More than a year afterwards, having returned
to Philadelphia, he received there a box from R. K. Haight, Esq.,
then at Naples. The box contained a skull, but not a word of information
concerning it. It was handed over to Morton, who at once
perceived its dissimilarity to any in his possession. It was evidently
very old, the animal matter having almost entirely disappeared. Day
after day would Morton be found absorbed in its contemplation. At
last he announced his conclusion. He had never seen a Phoenician
skull, and he had no idea where this one came from hut it was what
he conceived that a Phoenician skull should he, and it could be no
other. Things remained thus until some six months afterwards, when
Mr. Haight returned to America, and delivered to Mr. G. the letters
and papers sent him by various persons. Among them was a slip in
the hand-writing of Fresnel, containing the history of the skull in
question.f He discovered it during his exploration' of a Phoenician
tomb at Malta, and had consigned it to Morton by Mr. H., whom he
met at Naples. These anecdotes not only show th e , extraordinary
acuteness of Morton, hut they also prove the certainty of the anatomical
marks upon which Craniologists rely.
The Crania JEgyptiaca was published in 1844, in the shape of a
contribution to thè Transactions of the American Philosophical Society.
This apparent delay in its appearance arose from the author’s
extreme caution in forming his conclusions, especially in view of the
fact that he found himself compelled to differ in opinion from the
majority of scholars, in regard to. certain points of primary importance.
Most ethnologists, with the high authority of Prichard at their
* Stephens’ Yucatan, vol. i. pp. 281-2. — Morton’s Catalogue of Crania, 1849, No.
1050.
-j- Catalogue, No. 1852.
head ascribed the Nilotic family to the African race; while the great
body of Archaeologists were disposed to consider the aborigines of
Eo-ypt as (probably black) Troglodytes, from the Upper Nile, whose
first halting-place and seat of civilization was at Meroe. But Morton
took counsel with non« of those authorities of the day. Optimi consultores
mortui; and these dead, but still eloquent witnesses of the
past, taught him clearly the identity of cranial conformation in the
ancient Egyptian and the modem white man. He established, beyond
question, that the prevailing type of skull must come into the Caucasian
category of Blumenhach. He painted out the distinctions between
this and the neighboring Semitic and Pelasgic types. The
population of Egypt being always a very mixed one, he was able also
to identify among his crania those displaying the Semitic, Pelasgic,
Negro and Negroid forms. Turning next to the monuments, he adduced
a multitude of facts to prove the same position. His historical
deductions were advanced modestly and cautiously, but most of them
have been triumphantly verified. While he, in his quiet study at
Philadelphia, was inferentially denying the comparative antiquity of
Meroe, Lepsius was upon the spot, doing the same thing beyond the
possibility of further cavil. The book was written when it was still
customary to seek a foreign origin for the inhabitants of every spot
on earth except Mesopotamia; and the author, therefore, indicates,
rather than asserts, an Asiatic origin for the Egyptians. But his
resume, contains propositions so important, that I must claim space
for them éntire, taking the liberty of calling, the attention of the
readér, by Italics, particularly to the last.
1. The valley of the Nile, both in Egypt and in Nubia, was originally peopled by a branch
of the Caucasian race.
, 2. These primeval people, since called Egyptians, were the Mizraimites of Scripture, the
posterity of Ham/and directly associated with, the Libyan family of nations.
3. In their physical character, the Egyptians were intermediate between the modern European
and Semitic races.
4. The Austral-Egyptian or Meroite communities were an Indo-Arabian stock, engrafted
on the primitive Libyan inhabitants.
5. Besides these exotic sources of population, the Egyptian race was at different periods
modified by the influx of the Caucasian nations of Asia and Europe — Pelasgi or Hellenes,
Scythians and Phoenicians.
6. Kings of Egypt appear to have been incidentally derived from each of the above
nations.
i . The Copts, in part at least, are a mixture of the Caucasian and Negro, in extremely
variable proportions.
• Negroes were numerous in Egypt. Their social position, in ancient times, was the same
that it is now; that of servants or slaves.
9. The natural characteristics of all these families of man were distinctly figured on the
monuments* and all of them, excepting the Scythians and Phoenicians, have been identified
in the catacombs.