168 Memoir of Samuel George Morton. 
Fortu viitely he instituted a correspondence with a gentleman 
long an inhabitant of Egypt, and, by his varied erudition, and 
the most versatile talents and untiring zeal for learning, the 
fittest person in the world to aid him and promote his ends. I 
speak of Mr. George R. Gliddon, whose enthusiasm for Morton 
appears to have known no bounds ; so that he was indefatigable 
in the search for and in forwarding to Dr. Morton, specimens of 
crania taken from various localities in Egypt, and so verified as 
to their chronological epochs places as to give them the 
highest value as cabinet eidtiaans It is only necessary to refer 
to Dr. Morton’s published works to see how effectual was the 
assistance he derived from that zealous and warm-hearted friend. 
But [I cannot detain you longer with a relation of all that Mr. 
Gliddon effected and proposed in behalf of the subject of this 
memoir, nor can I sufficiently express my admiration of t 
— and a spirit-like enthusiasm with which he helped 
They were wath greatly moved by the disclosures the Beye 
ologists, nor is it surprising they should have been. 
r. Morton, in his Crania 4igyptiaca, p. 39, “sis i ques- 
tion, ‘“ Who were the ancient Egyptians?” and is inclined to ad- 
mit the connection between the old name of Misraim the son of 
Ham, and Mizraim the old name of the Egyptians, as used by 
the Hebrew writers. 
It matters not for the present, whether this idea be well 
founded or not; I having it in hand, only to show you where 
and in what manner Dr. Morton’s sheets were directed. 
Perhaps Professor Rossellini may, with greater rendonaibloiest 
derive Misraim, or Mestraim, as Eusebius writes “ from T'zur 4 
rock, or rocky-pass, whence Matzur, a fortress 0 €. 
sellini says that Mitzraim is a word of dual siguifeation ere 
indicating two rocks, to wit, the two rock-chai s, Lybian 
bian, that on either hand compress the valley "of the “oe e- 
tween their bases.— Ross. Monumenti d’ Egitto e Nubia, 1, 
hether this question ‘of Dr Morton’s can: be best ae Dy 
the philologer or the archeologist, I shall not attempt to deci 
yet I venture humbly to submit, that, in answering the query : 
to who were the Egyptians, it seems reasonable in him, to have . 
thought that, if a word, or a name, or even a whole language 
can clear up the point, or if the stone stelebs obelisks, temples; 
pyramids, and pala ces can answer our demand a plainer av 
the very Eg gyptians ehedtriel fie as Dr. Morton appears, 1 n some 
instances at least, to have successfully done. It is true sal the 
skulls he describes, as from the pyramid- -of-five-ste ps, he has n° 
positively declared to be coeval with that most aucient structure ; 
but if they are so, then they may, he thinks, be regarded as the 
