the cerebral distinctions between Peruvians and Australians, Mongols and Hottentots, would compel him to admit that the physical difference of human races is as obvious in their internal brains as in their external features. Let us here pause, and inquire what landmarks have been placed along the track of our journey. The reader who has travelled with us thus far will not, I think, deny that, from the facts now accessible, the following must be legitimate deductions: 1. That the surface of our globe is naturally divided into several zoological provinces, each of which is a distinct centre of creation, possessing a peculiar fauna and flora; and that every species of animal and plant was originally assigned to its appropriate province. 2. That the human family offers no exception to this general law, but fully conforms to it: Mankind being divided into several groups of Races, each of which constitutes a primitive element in the fauna of its peculiar province. 3. That history affords no evidence of the transformation of one Type into another, nor of the origination of a new and PERMANENT Type. 4. That certain Types have been PERMANENT through all recorded time, and despite the most opposite moral and physical influences. 5. That PERMANENCE of Type is accepted by science as the surest test of SPECIFIC character. 6. That certain Types have existed (the same as now) in and around the Valley of the Nile, from ages anterior to 3500 years B. C., and consequently long prior to any alphabetic chronicles, sacred or profane. 7. That the ancient Egyptians had already classified Mankind, as known to them, into FOUR RACES, previously to any date assignable to Moses. 8. That high antiquity for distinct Races is amply sustained by linguistic researches, by psychological history, and by anatomical characteristics. 9. That the primeval existence of Man, in widely separate portions of the globe, is proven by the discovery of his osseous and industrial remains in alluvial deposits and in diluvial drifts; and more especially of his fossil bones, imbedded in various rocky strata along with the vestiges of extinct species of animals. 10. That PROLIFICACY of distinct species, inter se, is now proved to be no test of COMMON ORIGIN. - 11. That those Races of men most separated in physical organization - such as the BLACKS and the WHITES-do not amalgamate perfectly, but obey the Laws of Hybridity. Hence 12. It follows, as a corollary, that there exists a GENUS HOMO, embracing muny primordial Types or "Species." Here terminates Part I. of this volume, and with it the joint responsibilities of its authors. It remains for my colleague, Mr. Gliddon, to show what light has been thrown by Oriental researches upon those parts of Scripture that bear upon the "Origin of Mankind." J. C. N. .... "Consilium igitur fuit tractatui de Paradiso pro appendice subnectere breué expositionem decimi capitis Geneseos de humani generis propagatione ex stirpe Noæ. Ex quâ non veteres modo sed et nouitios interpretes horum ignoratione à sacri Scriptoris scopo sæpe aberasse pateret. . . . . Itaque hoc restat. vnicum, vt ad sacram anchoram hoc est ad Scripturam confugiamus: Quæ non solum in genere docet omnes homines ex vnô semine esse editos, nempe ex Adamo in creatione, et post diluuium ex Noâ et tribus filiis, sed et recenset nepotes Now, et qui populi ex singulis ortum duxerint." (PHALEG seu DE DISPERSIONE Gentium et Terrarum divisione facta in ædificatione turris Babel - auctore SAMVELE BOCHARTO: 1651.) 567 Preliminary Remarks. Two centuries intervene, as well as many thousand miles of land and water, between the completion of BOCHART's unsurpassable labors and the seemingly-audacious resumption of his inquiries in the present volume. The author of Geographia Sacra would smile, with more complacency perhaps than some of our readers, did he know that the edifice raised by his enormous erudition, in old scholastic Belgium, had been taken to pieces stone by stone; and, after a scrutinizing, but frugal, rejection of time-rotted superfluities, has been reverentially rebuilt, in the piny-woods of Alabama, on the rough, though beauteous, shore of Mobile Bay. It is with some regret that, in order to compress their work into a portable tome, the authors lop away unsparingly the evidences of studies to which many months were conjointly and exclusively devoted: but, at present, they must content themselves with the briefest synopsis of results. Their references indicate the sources of all emendations proposed-by far the greater bulk of which (with the sole exception of MICHELIS's criticisms of seventy years ago) arise from discoveries made by living Egyptologists, Hebraists, Cuneatic-students, 568 and similar masters of Oriental lore. These references will establish, that, in the conscientious application of enlightened learning to the Hebrew Text of Xth Genesis, commentaries of the genuine English evangelical school have ever played an insignificant part. Where the latter sometimes happen to be right, their facts are taken-generally at second-hand, and mostly without acknowledgment—from Bochart; and wherever, more frequently, they are wrong, they have either ignored his text or the very-accessible criticism of Continental archaologists. Of trivial value in themselves, such popular commentaries possess less weight in science; and, having wasted their own time in hunting through dozens of them for a new fact or an original observation, the authors will spare the reader's by leaving them unmentioned. "Priscorum mendax commenta est fabula vatum, Sincerumque nihil, nil sine labe fuit. Sordibus ex istis densa et caligine lucem Ausus, et ignotus primus inire vias." "The ethnographic chart 569 contained in the tenth chapter of Genesis, presents," says Dr. Eadie, "a broad and interesting field of investigation. It carries us back to a dim and remote era— – when colonization was rapid and extensive, and the princes of successive bands of emigrants gave their names to the countries which they seized, occupied, and divided among their followers. This ancient record has not the aspect of a legend which has arisen, no one can tell how, and received amplification and adornment in the course of ages. It is neither a confused nor an unintelligible statement. Its sobriety vouches for its accuracy. As its genealogy is free from extravagance, and as it presents facts without the music and fiction of poetry, it must not be confounded with Grecian and Oriental mythe, which is so shadowy, contradictory and baseless - a region of grotesque and cloudy phantoms, where Phylarchs are exalted into demigods, born of Nymph or Nereid, and claiming some Stream or River for their sire. The founders of nations appear, in such fables, as giants of superhuman form— or, wandering and reckless outcasts and adventurers, exhibiting in their nature a confused mixture of divine and human attributes; and the very names of Ouranos, Okeanos, Kronos, and Gaea, the occupants of this illusory cloud-land, prove their legendary character. In this chapter there is, on the other hand, nothing that lifts itself above vulgar humanity, nothing that might, nothing that did not happen in those distant and primitive epochs. The world must have been peopled by tribes that gave themselves and their respective regions those several names which they have borne for so many ages; and what certainly did thus occur, may have taken place in the method sketched in these Mosaic annals. No other account is more likely, or presents fewer difficulties; and, if we credit the inspiration of the writer of it, we shall not only receive it as authentic, but be grateful for the information which it contains. Modern ethnology does not contradict it. Many of the proper names occurring on this roll remain unchanged, as the appellations of races and kingdoms. Others are found in the plural or dual number, proving that they bear a personal and national reference (Gen. x. 13); and a third class have that peculiar termination which, in Hebrew, signifies a sept or tribe (x. 17).” 570 The above scholar-like definition of what Dr. Hales styles "that most venerable and valuable Geographical Chart, the tenth chapter of Genesis,571 indicates the absolute impossibility of obtaining satisfactory glimpses of a large portion of humanity's earliest migrations without discussing, at the very threshold of inquiry, that antique document. Apart from this fundamental classification of some human primordial wanderings, bootless indeed would be attempts to follow the cobweb threads of our own ancestral creepings, backward from America to Europe, and thence to their primitive European or Asiatic startingpoints. Every aboriginal tradition we Anglo-Saxons cherish, is but a ray of morning light, flitting though it be, projected from the Aurora of our Eastern homes. "The Orient, with her immense recollections that touch the cradle of the world, as this itself touches the cradle of the sun, with her seas of sand, beneath which nations lie forgotten, endures still. She preserves, yet living in her bosom, the first enigma and the first traditions of the human race. In history as in poetry, in religious manifestations as in philosophical speculations, the East is ever the antecedent of the West. We must therefore seek to know her, in order to become well acquainted with ourselves." 572 But, before the historical character of this Ethnic map can be appreciated before our unhesitating acceptance of it as a witness demonstrably credible—its antiquity, its nature, and its authorship, are indispensable points of preliminary inquiry. The authors of the present work, impressed with the necessity of using the Xth chapter of Genesis as a "ground-text" for a large section of their anthropological researches, coincided in the opinion that an "Archæological Introduction to its study" ought to preface their adoption of its data. In consequence, it was decided, that the labor Involved in such undertaking should be allotted to that one of the writers whose Oriental specialities naturally indicated him as performer of the task. Too complex in nature, no less than too bulky in size, to serve for a chapter in the text of "Types of Mankind,” this Archæological Introduction now becomes a SUPPLEMENT to the work itself; thereby preserving its own unity, at the same time that to the reader it is equally accessible, being bound up in the same volume. The perusal, then, of the SUPPLEMENT is recommended to the reader previously to his further continuation of this work; because the paragraphs upon Xth Genesis, hereto immediately following, are projected under the impression that such will be the natural course. Which taken for granted, we place before us CAHEN'S Genèse,573 for the Hebrew text of Xth Genesis, and proceed to its critical dissection. The method we shall adopt, if at first sight novel, will be found strictly archæological. It would be unphilosophic to set forth with any theory as to age, authorship, or true place, of this document, in the arrangement of the canonical books. These points can resile solely through exegetical analysis of the document itself; whichwritten in the square-letter Hebrew character (not invented prior to the third century after c.); divided into words (a system of writing not introduced in the earliest Hebrew MSS.-tenth century after c.); punctuated by the "Masora" (commencing in the sixth, and closing about the ninth century after c.); and subdivided into verses (not begun before the thirteenth century after c.)- now presents itself to our contemplation. Section A.- ANALYSIS OF THE HEBREW NOMENCLATURE. Omitting, for the present, any comment upon verse 1: "Behold the generations of the children of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; they had children after the deluge "— our point of departure is verse 2. "The children of Japheth," eldest of the three brethren; whose descendants, upon grounds to be justified hereinafter, we denominate IAPETIDE, or White Races. [ Before proceeding, let me mention that, after our Genealogical Table was in type, Prof. Agassiz favored me with the loan of by far the most important work I have ever met with on Japethic questions: viz., Voyage autour du Caucase, chez les Tcherkesses et les Abkhases, en Colchide, en Géorgie, en Armenie, et en Crimée,574 par FREDERIC DUBOIS DE MONTPEreux. Extreme was my satisfaction to perceive that our results not only had been anticipated, but that they were so accurate as to demand no alterations of the Table. Following the profound researches of OMALIUS DE HALLOY,575 and of Count JOHN POTOCKI,576 the personal explorations of M. Dubois supersede everything printed on "Caucasian" subjects. I have made the freest use of his ethnological inquiries, as will be perceived under each Japethic name; but it is not in my power to convey to the reader adequate knowledge of the maps with which this magnificent folio Atlas is profusely adorned. On these, the successive displacements occasioned by the migrations, &c., of ancient "Caucasians" are so skilfully shown, that one's eye seizes instantaneously some 2500 years of history. To take GoMeR, or Kimmerians, as an example. Beginning in the 6th cent. B. C. — Pl. VIIIa. gives “Primitive Georgia before the invasion of the Scythians (Khazars)." 66 66 66 за Now, on such maps, the transplantations of these Kimmerians can be followed, almost station by station: so minutely, that one might infer that GoMeR-ians became known to the Hebrew geographer after they had abandoned the northern Tauride to the Scythians, B. C. 633, and had settled about Paphlagonia, on the south-eastern side of the Black Sea. And so on with all the Tapetida of Xth Genesis. It need hardly be said that, in common with Bochart and ourselves, Dubois perceives nations and countries, and not individuals, in the Hebrew chart.-G. R. G.] -BNI-IPhTt-"Affiliations of JAPHET."- Gen. x. 2. 1. 1-GMR-'GOMER.' Essentially Indo-Germanic, this name, as well as all those of Japethites, is irresolvable into Semitish radicals; and its Hebrew lexicographic affinities, such as to 'complete, consume,' &c., are rabbinical, spurious, and irrelevant. |