NATURAL SCIENCES OP PHILADELPHIA. 267 



in the Valley of Hinnom, and close to the Mount of Offence,) and in the neigh- 

 borhood of the painted chambers and the excavation called the tomb of Isaiah, 

 some Arabs had accidentally discovered the doorway of a tomb carved out of 

 the solid rock and concealed by a heap of rubbish, over which the soil had 

 accumulated so as completely to hide the entrance. The doorway represented 

 a Doric pediment, supported by rude pilasters, with some remains of floral 

 embellishments, characteristic of Hebrew sculpture, carved upon the archi- 

 trave. The interior of the tomb consisted of an oblong hall, cut with great 

 precision out of the rock, and having at the inner end and on each side, a 

 number of doors leading into small, oblong chambers or crypts, about seven 

 feet long. On each side of these crypts was a trough or sarcophagus, hewn 

 out of the solid rock, and filled with confused heaps of human bones in an 

 astonishing state of preservation. Each set of crypts contained the skulls of 

 distinct races of mankind. Dr. Wilde secured four of these crania, carried 

 them to Europe, and through Dr. Graves of Dublin, sent casts of them to Dr. 

 Prichard for examination. All the crypts on the right hand side of the tomb 

 contained dense, heavy crania of a long, narrow form, with a flat, recedent 

 forehead, very well marked superciliary ridges, and a prognathous superior 

 maxilla. They evidently belonged to the African type. The skulls in the left 

 hand crypts were of a shape the very reverse, as shown in plate 2, fig. 4 of 

 Dr. Wilde's lithographic illustrations. " Although this skull," says the Dr., 

 " differs in some respects from the true Mongolian, yet under that variety it 

 must be classed. Its most striking character is its very remarkable narrow- 

 ness in its longitudinal diameter, not only in contradistinction to the Ethio- 

 pian, which is characterised by extensive length, but in comparison with all 

 other known crania. It has an uncommon breadth aud flatness of the occipital or 

 posterior region ; and the very remarkable protuberance at the top of the head 

 gives this skull a place among those termed pyramidal." Dr. Prichard re- 

 garded this skull as of Turkish origin, approaching the true Mongolian type 

 more closely than any other. Dr. Wilde considers it probable that the skull 

 appertained to some of the Turcoman tribes which still wander in hordes over 

 the countries anciently named Parthia, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia and Pam- 

 phylia. 



From the above description it will be seen that this skull resembles the 

 fragmentary cranium from Jerusalem. The two appear to belong to closely 

 related types or forms, as may be demonstrated by comparing the fragment 

 Tinder consideration with the drawing given by Dr. Wilde. The form shown 

 in the latter is not the true Turkish as Dr. Prichard supposed. Had he com- 

 pared Dr. Wilde's specimen, as I have Mr. Barclay's, with the skull of a Turk 

 figured by Blumenbach, (Table 2,) he would have seen that though alike in 

 the shortness of the longitudinal diameter, they are too dissimilar in the con- 

 figuration of the occiput to be regarded as specimens of the same cranial type. 

 It must be borne in mind, however, that Dr. Prichard frequently used the 

 term "Turkish" as synonymous with Mongolian. Into this too compre- 

 hensive use of the term he appears to have been betrayed, in consequence ot 

 having adopted the questionable opinion of Remusat, Klaproth and Ritter, that 

 the Turks are not a distinct people, ab origine, but descendants of the Hiong- 

 Nu, who, anterior to the Christian era, threatened to overrun and subjugate 

 China with their mighty hordes.* Domalius D'Halloyf and Latham} assign 

 to the Turks a Scythic origin. The latter expressly says that he considers the 

 Mongoliform physiognomy to be the rule with the Turk and not the exception, 

 and that the Turk of Turkey exhibits the exceptional character of his family. 

 I can find no good reason for thus confounding the Mongolians proper with the 



Nat Hist, of Man, p. 290. 



tDes Races Humaines, Paris, 1845, p. 84. 



t Varieties of Man, pp. 78-9. 



1859.] 



