elusion is much strengthened by the fact, that the same head is often repeated on different
monuments.. This and the other portraits of the Egyptian type to which we allude, were
figured during the XYIIIth dynasty of R o se llin i ; and < possess, to Ethnologists, peculiar
interest, from the fact of their vivid similitude to the old Egyptian type, (subsequently resuscitated
by Lepsius), on the earlier monuments of the IYth, Yth, and YIth dynasties; at the
same time that these particnlar effigies offer a marked dissimilarity to the Asiatico-Egyptian
type, which becomes common on the later monuments of the XVIIth and subsequent
dynasties; that is, from 1500 b. c . downwards.
!B — This portrait is the representative of that Asiatic group of races, by ethnographers
termed the Semitic. The hieroglyphic legend over his head reads “N a m u which, together
with “Aamu,” was the generic term for yeZZow-skinned races, lying, in that day,
between the Isthmus of Suez and Tauric Assyria, Arabia and Chaldsea inclusive.
O — Negro races are typified in this class, and they are designated, in the hieroglyphics,
“Nahsu, The portrait, in colour and outline, displays, like hundreds of other Egyptian
drawings, how well marked was the Negro type several generations anterior to Moses. We
possess no actual portraits of Negroes, pictorially extant, earlier than the seventeenth cen-
tury before Christ; but there is abundant proof of the existence of Negro races in the'
Xllth dynasty, 2300 years prior to our era. Lepsius tells us that African languages ante-*
date even the epoch of Menes, b. c ., 3893 j and we may hence conclude that they were then
spoken by Negroes, whose organic idioms bear no affinity to Asiatic tongues.
D — The fourth division of the human family is designated, in the hieroglyphics, by the
name “Tamhu which is likewise a generic term for those races of men by us now called
JapetMc, including all the wAite-skinned families of Asia Minor, the Caucasian mountains,
and “ Scythia” generally.
But we shall return to this Egyptian classification in another
chapter. Our object, here, is simply to establish that the ancient
Egyptians had attempted a systematic anthropology at least 3500
years ago, and that their ethnographers were puzzled with the
same diversity of types then, that, after this lapse of time, we encounter
in the same localities now. They of course classified solely the races
of men within the circumference of their own knowledge, which
comprehended necessarily hut a small portion of the earth’s surface.
Of their contemporaries in China, Australia, Northern and Western
Asia, Europe, and America, the Pharaonic Egyptians knew nothing;
because all of the latter types of men became known even to Europe
only since the Christian era, most of them since 1400 a . d .
We have asserted, that all classifications of the races of men heretofore
proposed are entirely arbitrary; and that, unfortunately, no
data yet exist by which these arrangements can he materially improved.
It is proper that we should submit our reasons for this
assertion. The field we here enter upon is bo wide as to embrace
the whole physical history of mankind; but, neither our limits nor
plan permitting such a comprehensive range, we shall illustrate our
views by an examination of one or two groups of races; premising
the remark that, whatever may he true of one human division—call it
Caucasian, Mongol, Negro, Indian, or other name—applies with equal
force to all divisions. If we endeavor to treat of mankind zoologically,
we can hut follow M. Agassiz, and map them off into those great
groups of proximate races appertaining to the zoological provinces
into which the earth is naturally divided. We might thus make
some approach towards a classification upon scientific principles ;
hut all attempts beyond this must he wholly arbitrary.
“ Unity of races” seems to he an idea introduced in comparatively
modern times, and never to have been conceivedhy any primitive
nation, such as Egypt or China. Neither does the idea appear to have
occurred to the author of Genesis. Indeed, no importance could, in
Mosaic days, attach to it, inasmuch as the early Hebrews have left no
evidences of their belief in a future state, which is never declared in
the Pentateuch.29 This dogma of “ unity,” if not borrowed from the
Babylonians during the captivity of the Israelites, or from vague
rumors of Budhistic suavity in the sixth century b . c., may he an
outgrowth of the charitable doctrine of the “ Essenes ;” x just as the
present Socialist idea of the 11 solidarité of humanity” is a conception
borrowed from S t . P a u l .
The authors have now candidly stated their joint views, and will
proceed to substantiate the facts, upon which these deductions are
based, in subsequent chapters ; unbiassed, they trust, by preconceived
hypotheses, as well as indifferent to other than scientific
conclusions.
With such slight modifications as the progress of knowledge —
especially in hieroglyphical, cuneiform, and Hehraical discovery —
may have superinduced since the publication of his Urania Ægyptiaca,
in 1844, they adopt the matured opinions of their lamented friend,
D r . S am ue l G eorge M orton, as, above all others, the most authoritative.
In the course of this work, abundant extracts from Morton’s
writings render unmistakeahle the anthropological results to which
he had himself attained ; hut the authors refer the reader particularly
to Chapter XI. of the present volume, containing “ Morton’s
inedited manuscripts,”'for the philosophical and . testamentary decisions
of the Founder of the American School of Ethnology.