Natural History Review/1861/On the Crania of the Most Ancient Races of Man

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
XVII.—On the Crania of the Most Ancient Races of Man. By Professor D. Schaaffhausen, of Bonn. (From Müller's Archiv., 1858, pp. 453. With Remarks, and original Figures, taken from a Cast of the Neanderthal Cranium. By George Busk, F. R. S., &c.

In the early part of the year 1857, a human skeleton was discovered in a limestone cave in the Neanderthal, near Hochdal, between Düsseldorf and Elberfeld. Of this, however, I was unable to procure more than a plaster cast of the cranium taken at Elberfeld, from which I drew up an account of its remarkable conformation, which was, in the first instance, read on the 4th of February, 1857, at the meeting of the Lower Rhine Medical and Natural History Society, at Bonn.[1] Subsequently Dr. Fuhlrott, to whom science is indebted for the preservation of these bones, which were not at first regarded as human, and into whose possession they afterwards came, brought the cranium from Elberfeld to Bonn, and entrusted it to me for more accurate anatomical examination. At the General Meeting of the Natural History Society of Prussian Rhineland and Westphalia, at Bonn, on the 2nd of June, 1857,[2] Dr. Fuhlrott himself gave a full account of the locality, and of the circumstances under which the discovery was made. He was of opinion that the bones might be regarded as fossil; and in coming to this conclusion, he laid especial stress upon the existence of dendritic deposits with which their surface was covered, and which were first noticed upon them by Professor Mayer. To this communication I appended a brief report on the results of my anatomical examination of the bones. The conclusions at which I arrived were:—1st. That the extraordinary form of the skull was due to a natural conformation hitherto not known to exist, even in the most barbarous races. 2nd. That these remarkable human remains belonged to a period antecedent to the time of the Celts and Germans, and were in all probability derived from one of the wild races of North-western Europe, spoken of by Latin writers; and which were encountered as autochthones by the German immigrants. And 3rdly. That it was beyond doubt that these human relics were traceable to a period at which the latest animals of the diluvium still existed; but that no proof in support of this assumption, nor consequently of their so-termed fossil condition, was afforded by the circumstances under which the bones were discovered.

As Dr. Fuhlrott has not yet published his description of these circumstances, I borrow the following account of them from one of his letters. "A small cave or grotto, high enough to admit a man, and about 15 feet deep from the entrance, which is 7 or 8 feet wide, exists in the southern wall of the gorge of the Neanderthal, as it is termed, at a distance of about 100 feet from the Düssel, and about 60 feet above the bottom of the valley. In its earlier and uninjured condition, this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying in front of it, and from which the rocky wall descended almost perpendicularly into the river. It could be reached, though with difficulty, from above. The uneven floor was covered to a thickness of 4 or 5 feet with a deposit of mud, sparingly intermixed with rounded fragments of chert. In the removing of this deposit, the bones were discovered. The skull was first noticed, placed nearest to the entrance of the cavern; and further in, the other bones, lying in the same horizontal plane. Of this I was assured in the most positive terms by two labourers who were employed to clear out the grotto, and who were questioned by me on the spot. At first no idea was entertained of the bones being human; and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they were recognised as such by me, and placed in security. But, as the importance of the discovery was not at the time perceived, the labourers were very careless in the collecting, and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and to this circumstance it may be attributed that fragments merely of the probably perfect skeleton came into my possession."

My anatomical examination of these bones afforded the following results:—

The cranium is of unusual size, and of a long-elliptical form. A most remarkable peculiarity is at once obvious in the extraordinary development of the frontal sinuses, owing to which the superciliary ridges, which coalesce completely in the middle, are rendered so prominent, that the frontal bone exhibits a considerable hollow or depression above, or rather behind them, whilst a deep depression is also formed in the situation of the root of the nose. The forehead is narrow and low, though the middle and hinder portions of the cranial arch are well developed. Unfortunately, the fragment of the skull that has been preserved consists only of the portion situated above the roof of the orbits and the superior occipital ridges, which are greatly developed, and almost conjoined so as to form a horizontal eminence. It includes almost the whole of the frontal bone, both parietals, a small part of the squamous and the upper-third of the occipital. The recently fractured surfaces show that the skull was broken at the time of its disinterment. The cavity holds 16,876 grains of water, whence its cubical contents may be estimated at 57.64 inches, or 1033.24 cubic centimetres. In making this estimation, the water is supposed to stand on a level with the orbital plate of the frontal, with the deepest notch in the squamous margin of the parietal, and with the superior semicircular ridges of the occipital. Estimated in dried millet-seed, the contents equalled 31 ounces, Prussian Apothecaries' weight. The semicircular line indicating the upper boundary of the attachment of the temporal muscle, though not very strongly marked, ascends nevertheless to more than half the height of the parietal bone. On the right superciliary ridge is observable an oblique furrow or depression, indicative of an injury received during life.[3] The coronal and sagittal sutures are on the exterior nearly closed, and on the inside so completely ossified as to have left no traces whatever, whilst the lambdoidal remains quite open. The depressions for the Pacchionian glands are deep and numerous; and there is an unusually deep vascular groove immediately behind the coronal suture, which, as it terminates in a foramen, no doubt transmitted a vena emissaria. The course of the frontal suture is indicated externally by a slight ridge; and where it joins the coronal, this ridge rises into a small protuberance. The course of the sagittal suture is grooved, and above the angle of the occipital bone the parietals are depressed.

mm.[4]
  1. The length of the skull from the nasal process of the frontal over the vertex to the superior semicircular lines of the occipital measures,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
303 (300) = 12⋅0".
  1. Circumference over the orbital ridges and the superior semicircular lines of the occipital,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
590 (580) = 23⋅37" or 23".
  1. Width of the frontal from the middle of the temporal line on one side to the same point on the opposite,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
104 (114) = 4⋅1" − 4⋅5".
  1. Length of the frontal from the nasal process to the coronal suture,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
133 (125) = 5⋅25" − 5".
  1. Extreme width of the frontal sinuses,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
25 (23) = 1⋅0" − 0⋅9".
  1. Vertical height above a line joining the deepest notches in the squamous border of the parietals,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
70 = 2⋅75".
  1. Width of hinder part of skull from one parietal protuberance to the other,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
138 (150) = 5⋅4" − 5⋅9".
  1. Distance from the upper angle of the occipital to the superior semicircular lines,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
51 (60) = 1⋅9" − 2⋅4".
  1. Thickness of the bone at the parietal protuberance,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
8.
  1. at the angle of the occipital,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
9.
  1. at the superior semicircular line of the occipital,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10 = 0⋅3".

Besides the cranium, the following bones have been secured:—

1. Both thigh-bones, perfect. These, like the skull, and all the other bones, are characterized by their unusual thickness, and the great development of all the elevations and depressions for the attachment of muscles. In the Anatomical Museum at Bonn, under the designation of "Giant's-bones," are some recent thigh-bones, with which in thickness the foregoing pretty nearly correspond, although they are shorter.

Giant's bones. Fossil bones.
mm. mm.
  1. Length,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
542 = 21⋅4" . 438 = 17⋅4".
  1. Diameter of head of femur,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
54 = 2⋅14" . 53 = 2⋅0".
  1. of lower articular end,
    from one condyle to the other,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
89 = 3⋅5" . 87 = 3⋅4".
  1. of femur in the middle,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
33 = 1⋅2" . 30 = 1⋅1".

2. A perfect right humerus, whose size shows that it belongs to the thigh-bones.

mm.
  1. Length,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
312 = 12⋅3".
  1. Thickness in the middle,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
26 = 1⋅0".
  1. Diameter of head,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
49 = 1⋅9".

Also a perfect right radius of corresponding dimensions, and the upper-third of a right ulna corresponding to the humerus and radius.

3. A left humerus, of which the upper-third is wanting, and which is so much slenderer than the right as apparently to belong to a distinct individual; a left ulna, which, though complete, is pathologically deformed, the coronoid process being so much enlarged by bony growth, that flexure of the elbow beyond a right angle must have been impossible; the anterior fossa of the humerus for the reception of the coronoid process being also filled up with a similar bony growth. At the same time, the olecranon is curved strongly downwards. As the bone presents no sign of rachitic degeneration, it may be supposed that an injury sustained during life was the cause of the anchylosis. When the left ulna is compared with the right radius, it might at first sight be concluded that the bones respectively belonged to different individuals, the ulna being more than half an inch too short for articulation with a corresponding radius. But it is clear that this shortening, as well as the attenuation of the left humerus, are both consequent upon the pathological condition above described.

4. A left ilium, almost perfect, and belonging to the femur; a fragment of the right scapula; the anterior extremity of a rib of the right side; and the same part of a rib of the left side; the hinder part of a rib of the right side; and, lastly, two short hinder portions and one middle portion of ribs, which, from their unusually rounded shape, and abrupt curvature, more resemble the ribs of a carnivorous animal than those of a man. Dr. H. v. Meyer, however, to whose judgment I defer, will not venture to declare them to be ribs of any animal; and it only remains to suppose that this abnormal condition has arisen from an unusually powerful development of the thoracic muscles.

The bones adhere strongly to the tongue, although, as proved by the use of hydrochloric acid, the greater part of the cartilage is still retained in them, which appears, however, to have undergone that transformation into gelatine which has been observed by v. Bibra in fossil bones. The surface of all the bones is in many spots covered with minute black specks, which, more especially under a lens, are seen to be formed of very delicate dendrites. These deposits, which were first observed on the bones by Dr. Mayer, are most distinct on the inner surface of the cranial bones. They consist of a ferruginous compound, and, from their black colour, may be supposed to contain manganese. Similar dendritic formations also occur, not unfrequently, on laminated rocks, and are usually found in minute fissures and cracks. At the meeting of the Lower Rhine Society at Bonn, on the 1st April, 1857, Prof. Mayer stated that he had noticed in the museum of Poppelsdorf similar dendritic crystallizations on several fossil bones of animals, and particularly on those of Ursus spelæus, but still more abundantly and beautifully displayed on the fossil bones and teeth of Equus adamiticus, Elephas primigenius, &c, from the caves of Bolve and Sundwig. Faint indications of similar dendrites were visible in a Roman skull from Siegburg; whilst other ancient skulls which had lain for centuries in the earth presented no trace of them.[5] I am indebted to H. v. Meyer for the following remarks on this subject:—

"The incipient formation of dendritic deposits, which were formerly regarded as a sign of a truly fossil condition, is interesting. It has even been supposed that in diluvial deposits the presence of dendrites might be regarded as affording a certain mark of distinction between bones mixed with the diluvium at a somewhat later period and the true diluvial relics, to which alone it was supposed that these deposits were confined. But I have long been convinced that neither can the absence of dendrites be regarded as indicative of recent age, nor their presence as sufficient to establish the great antiquity of the objects upon which they occur. I have myself noticed upon paper, which could scarcely be more than a year old, dendritic deposits, which could not be distinguished from those on fossil bones. Thus I possess a dog's skull from the Roman colony of the neighbouring Heddersheim, Castrum Hadrianum, which is in no way distinguishable from the fossil bones from the Frankish caves; it presents the same colour, and adheres to the tongue just as they do; so that this character also, which, at a former meeting of German naturalists at Bonn, gave rise to amusing scenes between Buckland and Schmerling, is no longer of any value. In disputed cases, therefore, the condition of the bone can scarcely afford the means for determining with certainty whether it be fossil, that is to say, whether it belong to geological antiquity, or to the historical period."

As we cannot now look upon the primitive world as representing a wholly different condition of things, from which no transition exists to the organic life of the present time, the designation of fossil, as applied to a bone, has no longer the sense it conveyed in the time of Cuvier. Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption that man coexisted with the animals found in the diluvium; and many a barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared, together with the animals of the ancient world, whilst the races whose organization is improved have continued the genus. The bones which form the subject of this Paper present characters which, although not decisive as regards a geological epoch, are, nevertheless, such as indicate a very high antiquity. It may also be remarked that, common as is the occurrence of diluvial animal bones in the muddy deposits of caverns, such remains have not hitherto been met with in the caves of the Neanderthal; and that the bones, which were covered by a deposit of mud not more than four or five feet thick, and without any protective covering of stalagmite, have retained the greatest part of their organic substance.

These circumstances might be adduced against the probability of a geological antiquity. Nor should we be justified in regarding the cranial conformation as perhaps representing the most savage primitive type of the human race, since crania exist among living savages, which, though not exhibiting such a remarkable conformation of the forehead, which gives the skull somewhat the aspect of that of the large apes, still in other respects, as for instance in the greater depth of the temporal fossse, the crest-like, prominent temporal ridges, and a generally less capacious cranial cavity, exhibit an equally low stage of development. There is no reason for supposing that the deep frontal hollow is due to any artificial flattening, such as is practised in various modes by barbarous nations in the Old and New World. The skull is quite symmetrical, and shows no indication of counter-pressure at the occiput, whilst, according to Morton, in the Flat-heads of the Columbia, the frontal and parietal bones are always unsymmetrical. Its conformation exhibits the sparing development of the anterior part of the head which has been so often observed in very ancient crania, and affords one of the most striking proofs of the influence of culture and civilization on the form of the human skull. The Abbé Frère,[6] whose collection of crania belonging to the different centuries of our epoch is now placed in the Anthropological Museum of the Jardin des Plantes in Paris, came to the conclusion that, in the most ancient crania, the occipital was the most, and the frontal region the least developed; and that the increase in the elevation of the latter marked the transition from barbarous to civilized man. Blumenbach, also, met with an old Danish skull, whose facial angle was no greater than it is in the Negro. In the sepulchral mounds near Ambery in the Upper Palatinate, at Witterswyl in Switzerland, and in other places in Germany, crania have been found exhibiting a surprisingly slight development of the frontal region.[7] Hyrtl describes a Celtic skull found at Hallstadt as dolichocephalic and orthognathic, with the incisor and molar teeth entirely worn down, and the frontal bone much inclined backwards.[8] The crania found in Lower Austria, near Grafenegg, and afterwards at Atzgersdorf, with depressed foreheads, were regarded as those of Avares; but their very abnormal form, resembling that of the Peruvian skulls, and which may also be traced in the fragments of cranial bones from the Crimea, described by v. Rathke and K. Meyer,[9] has been produced by artificial means.[10] In many instances, also, in which human bones, taken as the oldest traces of the existence of our race on the earth, have been found intermixed with those of extinct animals, they have exhibited an undeveloped primitive form of the cranium. Among the crania collected by Schlotheim in the gypsum caves near Köstritz, Link found one with a remarkably flattened forehead. In a bone-cavern in Brazil, Lund discovered human crania mixed with the bones of extinct animals, in which the forehead receded on a level with the face—a formation which is also represented in ancient Mexican pictures. In the rocky caverns of the Peruvian Andes, Castelnau discovered, under the same conditions, human crania of a similar strongly retrocedent, elongated form. A cranium found, together with fossil bones of animals, in the cavern of Engis, near Lüttich, is described by Schmerling as being elongated, with a slightly elevated and narrow frontal bone, and a form of the orbits more approaching that of the Negro than of the European. In the cavern of Chauvaux, near Namur, among numerous fragments of human bones, the half of a cranium was found, in which the forehead was so retrocedent, and the alveolar arches so prominent, that the facial angle was not more than 70°. Rasoumovsky's statements respecting the supposed fossil skulls of the Mount Calvary, near Baden, which have been compared sometimes with that of the Negro, sometimes with the Caribbean skull, have been corrected by Fitzinger, who agrees with Hyrtl in regarding the crania, according to Retzius' description of the Czechen-skull, as Sclavonic.[11]

In a report of the meeting of German naturalists and physicians, held at Tübingen, in 1853, published in the German and foreign periodicals, Fraas is reported to have exhibited a petrified human skull from the Swabian Alps, of an elongated form, with prominent jaw, worn teeth, retrocedent forehead, large frontal sinuses, and strongly developed muscular processes.[12] This report, however, was erroneous, and arose in a mistake. On the occasion in question, some ancient skulls from the Celtic graves of Sigmaringen were exhibited, after which the discussion fell upon the supposed fossil human teeth, from the iron mines of Melchingen, in the Swabian Alps.

There is no reason whatever for regarding the unusual development of the frontal sinuses in the remarkable skull from the Neanderthal as an individual or pathological deformity; it is unquestionably a typical race-character, and is physiologically connected with the uncommon thickness of the other bones of the skeleton, which exceeds by about one-half the usual proportions. This expansion of the frontal sinuses, which are appendages of the air-passages, also indicates an unusual force and power of endurance in the movements of the body, as may be concluded from the size of all the ridges and processes for the attachment of the muscles or bones. That this conclusion may be drawn from the existence of large frontal sinuses, and a prominence of the lower frontal region, is confirmed in many ways by other observations. By the same characters, according to Pallas, the wild horse is distinguished from the domesticated, and according to Cuvier, the fossil cave-bear from every recent species of bear; whilst according to Roulin, the pig, which has become wild in America, and regained a resemblance to the wild boar, is thus distinguished from the same animal in the domesticated state, as is the chamois from the goat; and, lastly, the bulldog, which, is characterised by its large bones and strongly developed muscles from every other kind of dog. The estimation of the facial angle, the determination of which, according to Professor Owen, is also difficult in the great apes, owing to the very prominent supra-orbital ridges, in the present is case rendered still more difficult from the absence both of the auditory opening and of the nasal spine. But if the proper horizontal position of the skull be taken from the remaining portions of the orbital plates, and the ascending line made to touch the surface of the frontal bone behind the prominent supra-orbital ridges, the facial angle is not found to exceed 56°.[13] Unfortunately, no portions of the facial bones, whose conformation is so decisive as regards the form and expression of the head, have been preserved. The cranial capacity, compared with the uncommon strength of the corporeal frame, would seem to indicate a small cerebral development. The skull as it is holds about 31 ounces of millet-seed; and as, from the proportionate size of the wanting bones, the whole cranial cavity should have about 6 ounces more added, the contents, were it perfect, may be taken at 37 ounces. Tiedemann assigns as the cranial contents in the Negro 40, 38, and 35 ounces. The cranium holds rather more than 36 ounces of water, which corresponds to a capacity of 1033.24 cubic centimetres. Huschke estimates the cranial contents of a Negress at 1127 cubic centimetres, of an old Negro at 1146 cubic centimetres. The capacity of Malay skulls estimated by water equalled 36, 33 ounces, whilst in the diminutive Hindoos it falls to as little as 27 ounces.

It is, of course, a matter of the greatest interest to inquire whether a similar conformation has been before noticed; whether it is probable that it exists only in skulls to which a high antiquity must be assigned; and whether in any instance of the kind observations may not have been made tending to supply what is wanting in the results of the investigation above detailed, and to confirm or to contradict the conclusions drawn therefrom. Large frontal sinuses, it is admitted, are occasionally noticed in skulls; but these instances afford only faint indications of the remarkable conformation which gives the cranium we are considering its brutal expression. In the museums of the College of Surgeons in London, the Jardin des Plantes at Paris, of the Universities of Gottingen, Berlin, and Eonn, there is nothing which can be compared with it. Neither do the ancient northern crania, described by Retzius, Eschricht, &c, show any conformation of the kind. But it is remarkable, and important in the explanation of this form, that a prominence, though in much less degree, of the supra-orbital ridges has been observed chiefly in the crania of savage races, as well as in those of great antiquity. Thus Sandifort[14] figures the skull of a North American from an ancient burial-place on New Norfolk Sound, as cranium Schitgagani, with a similar though far less considerable projection of the supraorbital ridges. In Morton's works[15] an unusual development of the same part may be seen in the Peruvian (tab. 6), the Mexican (tab. 16, 17, 18), the Seminole (tab. 24), and in the skulls of other races (tab. 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 52, 57, 63, and 66), some of which were taken from ancient burial-places. Lucæ[16] gives a figure of a very brutal Papu skull in the Senkenbergian collection, having strong, coalescent superciliary arches. Even Bory St. Vincent assigned as characters of the Celtic race an elongated form of the skull, a forehead somewhat depressed towards the temples, a deep depression between the forehead and nose, strongly developed supra-orbital ridges, and worn teeth. Eschricht examined the skulls from the Hünengräbern (Giants' Graves) of the Island of Moen;[17] they are remarkably diminutive, especially in the facial part, the occiput very short, the orbits un- usually small, whilst the supra-orbital ridges, on the contrary, are very large; the nasal bones project strongly in front, and a depression exists between the supra-orbital arches and the nasal bones, deep enough to receive the forefinger of an adult; the attachments of the facial muscles are strongly marked, the alveolar margins projecting, and the teeth worn off obliquely. Subsequently Eschricht obtained from the same locality skulls of an entirely different form, of considerable length, flat, and compressed, with a projecting occiput, and small facial development.

One cranium of this kind, from the Danish Island Työr, presents on the occiput a bony spine; the thigh-bones belonging to the same subject, 203/4 inches long, indicate a height of 6 feet 3 inches. Prichard has figured a round skull, with prominent supraorbital ridges, in the museum of the College of Surgeons, as a Cimbric cranium.[18] A skull found in an ancient grave at Nogent les Vierges, Oise, exhibits, as does a similar cranium from Auduze, an elongated form, the forehead depressed towards the temples, strong supraorbital ridges, and worn teeth.[19] The ancient British brachycephalic skull from Ballidon Moor, described by Davis,[20] has large frontal sinuses, prominent supraorbital ridges, and well-developed muscular impressions on the facial bones. The prominence of the orbital border is less considerable in the ancient British skull, which is also brachycephalic, described by Retzius. An ancient rounded Irish skull also exhibits large supraorbital ridges projecting in front of the frontal bone, and meeting in the middle, and a depressed forehead.[21]

As, in speaking of the aboriginal inhabitants of Scandinavia, Nilsson describes a more ancient brachycephalic, and a more recent dolichocephalic type of cranial conformation, from the circumstance that the long oval skulls of the one type have been found in graves containing metallic implements, whilst the others have occurred in ancient burial-places, together with implements of stone and bone, so D. Wilson asserts the existence of two races in Scotland antecedent to the Celts; the Fifeshire skull described by him as elongated and narrow, corresponding with the dolichocephalic Scandinavian type, whilst that from Montrose is round, with a better frontal development, both exhibiting large frontal sinuses.[22] The skulls, two of which were sent to me by the kindness of Dr. Veiel, disinterred some years since in Cannstadt, near the Uffkirche, and which were found in Germanic graves, together with earthenware vessels, weapons, and ornaments, none of which articles presented any trace of Roman art, are orthognathic, of an elongated form, with a much projecting occiput, large orbits, particularly from above downwards, the supraorbital ridges prominent, and the root of the nose hollowed. Five ancient Germanic skulls, from Selsen, preserved in the Romano-Teutonic Museum at Mayence, two of which are prognathic, present similar prominent supraorbital ridges; as is the case also with a very ancient cranium in the same collection, found at Oberingelheim, deep in the earth, and unaccompanied by any weapons; and also with a skull of Germanic origin, recently found near Engers on the Rhine, in an ancient burial-place long well known. In the Museum at Poppelsdorf is a cranium, on which, in the handwriting of Goldfuss, are the words "from volcanic Tufa," nothing further, however, being noticed with respect to its derivation. It is of the considerable length of 198mm. (7.8") from the glabella to the projecting occiput; the forehead is short, and somewhat retreating, the supraorbital ridges large and continuous, the orbits very wide, the upper jaw prognathous, the muscular attachments on the facial-bones strongly marked; of the sutures, only the sagittal is ossified; the bones are thin, partially calcined, and adhere strongly to the tongue; the lower jaw is wanting. It is also to be noticed that several Germanic skulls found near Sigmaringen, belonging to the Prince's collection, and which have been placed in my hands by Dr. Fuhlrott have strongly developed supraorbital ridges; but, together with this,, they possess a greater or less frontal development, and a good facial angle. The Sinsheim skulls contained in the Stuttgart collection, also, present a noble Caucasian form. It is certain that even in ancient times the various Germanic stocks, according as they retained their purity of race, or became blended with the remains of a primitive population, or even with Roman blood, and in proportion as they led a savage or more civilized mode of life, differed in corporeal constitution, as well as in the formation of the face and head.

The difference as regards the cranium is most marked in the greater or less development of the anterior part of the head, and in the position of the muzzle, which is occasionally rather prominent, as is the case even at the present time in some of the German races, as, for instance, in Hesse and the Westerwald. Huschke[23] describes a skull found, together with several others of the same peculiar form, under the Stadtkirche at Jena, as Cimbric; it resembles that of the Negro, except that the jaws and forehead are vertical; the supraorbital region projects but slightly, the semicircular temporal line ascends to within an inch of the sagittal suture. The length of the cranium is 196 mm, (7⋅7"). Retzius[24] describes some skulls taken from very ancient Scandinavian graves, dating to a period of a thousand years back, as of a long-oval form, with much elongated occiput, good forehead, upright teeth, and corresponding in almost all respects with Swedish crania of the present day. An ancient Norwegian and an Icelandic skull had the same form. Subsequently,[25] Retzius described the small rounded skulls from very ancient burial-places containing stone implements as those of Iberians. With these he places the skulls found by Eschricht and Nilsson in ancient sepulchral barrows; and also the supposed fossil Irish cranium figured by Wilde, which occurred in the neighbourhood of Dublin, as well as two others found in the same locality. To the same category he also refers the skulls disinterred, together with stone implements, near Meudon and Marly, in the year 1845, by M. Serres. Retzius, also, in his memoir on the form of the cranium of the northern populations, states that the supraorbital eminences are strongly developed in the existing Swedes, Slaves, and Finns; Huech says the same with respect to the Esthonians. In the Lapps this prominence is absent, or very slightly marked, as is the case also with the natives of Greenland. In the latest catalogue of the collection formerly belonging to Dr. Morton,[26] the following skulls are enumerated as presenting a remarkably developed supraorbital region:—No. 21, that of an English soldier of Celtic type; No. 1200, of a Norwegian; and No. 1537, of a Finn, both from casts by Hetzius; lastly, No. 1512, the skull of an aboriginal American, found by Davis and Squier in the valley of Scioto, Ohio, in a rude stone sepulchre; this cranium is of a rounded form, with high vertex;[27] No. 1533, the skull of a Calmuc; and No. 1558, that of an Esquimaux.

Now, when it is found from these numerous examples, that a marked prominence of the supraorbital region, traces of which can be perceived even at the present time, occurs most frequently in the crania of barbarous, and especially of northern races, to some of which a high antiquity must be assigned, it may fairly be supposed that a conformation of this kind represents the faint vestiges of a primitive type, which is manifested in the most remarkable manner in the Neanderthal cranium, and which must have given the human visage an unusually savage aspect. This aspect might be termed brutal, inasmuch as the prominent supraorbital border is also characteristic of the facial conformation of the large apes, although in these animals the prominence in question is not caused by any expansion of the frontal sinuses. These sinuses have been found by Owen to be wholly wanting, as well in the Gorilla, as in two Tasmanian and an Australian skull,[28] a circumstance which is in accordance with the weak bodily constitutions of these savages.

The reports which have reached us from Latin and Greek writers respecting the bodily constitution and manners of the barbarous populations of ancient Europe, receive an unexpected light from the discovery of crania of this kind. Even of the Germans, Cæsar remarks that the Roman soldiers were unable to withstand their aspect and the flashing of their eyes, and that a sudden panic seized his army.[29] Of the Gauls, also, Ammianus Marcellinus says: "They are frightful from the wildness of their eyes." But the ancient Britons and Irish, the Belgians, Fins, and Scythians are described as of far more savage aspect. According to Strabo, the Irish were voracious cannibals, and considered it praise-worthy to eat the bodies of their parents; and they are noticed in similar terms by Diodorus. St. Hieronymus states that, even in Gaul, the Scoti had been seen eating human flesh. Tacitus relates with respect to the Fins, that they live in a state of astonishing savageness, their food being wild herbs, their clothing skins, their arrow-heads made of bone, and that the children and old people had no other protection from the weather than wattled huts. Adam of Bremen relates that, so late as in the eleventh century, the so-termed Jotuni, the most ancient population of Scandinavia, dwelt in the mountains and forests, clad in the skins of animals, and uttering sounds more like the cries of wild beasts than human speech. Their conquest and extermination are celebrated in the poems of the Skalds.[30] Isigonus of Nicæa, quoted by Pliny,[31] says that a Scythian people dwelling ten days' journey northwards from the Dnieper was addicted to cannibalism, drank out of human skulls, and carried the hairy scalps of the slain on their breast. As in the German traditions and tales, many traces of the mode of life of our ancestors have come down to us from heathen times, so also may the tradition respecting cannibalism, which, from Grimm's researches, though it appears as early as Homer in the history of Polyphemus, is also widely diffused in the legends of the Fins, Tartars, and Germans, have originated in the actual remembrance of that abominable practice.[32]

The considerations which have led us to compare the Neanderthal cranium with those of the most ancient races are still farther confirmed

by the discovery, about to be related, of skulls exhibiting a yet closer correspondence with it than do those already mentioned.

At the meeting of the Lower Rhine Society, on the 9th July, 1857, Herr Nöggerath stated that, in the Transactions of the Imperial Russian Mineralogical Society of St. Petersburgh, of the year 1842, an account was given by Dr. S. Kutorga, of two human skulls from the Government of Minsk, and that one of the skulls there figured presented a great similarity with that found in the Neanderthal. Both these skulls were discovered near Bobruysk. One was found in the sandy bottom of a hollow, apparently an ancient river-bed, in a locality where numerous human bones had been occasionally met with for a very long period; and tradition said that a town formerly stood there, which was destroyed by an inundation. Of this cranium only the frontal and two parietal bones remain. The frontal is strongly depressed, the supraorbital ridges, including the border of the orbit, form prominent elevations; the two halves of the frontal bone are unequal, and the sagittal suture manifestly flattened. Dr. Kutorga considers it very probable that this conformation was brought about by artificial compression; but the figure which he gives does not convey the decided characters of an artificial deformity. The other skull, taken from an ancient sepulchral mound in the same region, exhibits a well-developed forehead; but both the frontal and parietal bones are still more unsymmetrical than in the former skull. On the right side is a very well developed tuber frontale, which is wholly wanting on the left; the left parietal bone, also, is smaller than the right.

Shortly afterwards, in September, 1857, my attention was directed by Herr L. Lindenschmit to the cast of a frontal bone having exactly the same conformation, in the Romano-Teutonic Central Museum, at Mayence. This cast had been taken from a skull found near Plau, in Mecklenburg. At the meeting of the Association of German Naturalists and Physicians, at Bonn, in the same month, these peculiar cranial forms were exhibited in plaster casts, the difference between them and the crania of other lower races pointed out, and the opinion again expressed that this hitherto unknown form of skull probably belonged to a primitive race, settled in North Europe before the Germanic immigration. Having made application on the subject to Dr. Lisch, Keeper of the Archives in Schwerin, where the crania are preserved in the Grand Duke's collection, I was furnished with precise information respecting the discovery of the remains at Plau; and the portions of the skulls, together with similar relics found in Schwaan and other places in Mecklenburgh, were most readily sent to me. Thus were afforded the materials for a brief report upon the subject, which was read at the sitting of the Lower Rhine Society, held on the 3rd February, 1858.[33] The particulars are as follows:—A human skeleton in a squatting, or almost kneeling posture, together with implements made of bone, a battle-axe of stag's-horn, two boar's-tusks, which had been cut off, and three incisor-teeth of a stag perforated at the root, was found near Plau,[34] in siliceous sand, six feet below the surface. A very high antiquity was assigned to this grave, as it was wholly unprotected by any masonry, and afforded no trace of cremation having been practised, nor any implements of stone, clay, or metal. Dr. Lisch, who had been struck with the unusual prominence of the supraorbital border, the wide root of the nose, and the strongly retrocedent frontal, accompanied the account of the finding with this remark:—"The formation of the skull indicates a very remotely distant period, at which man presented a much lower degree of development. Probably this grave belongs to the autocthonous population." I succeeded, with some trouble, in putting together the skull, which, as well as the skeleton, had been broken to pieces by the labourers, from the twenty-two fragments transmitted to me. Notwithstanding the great similarity in the form of the forehead between this skull and that from the Neanderthal, the prominence of the supraorbital ridges in the latter is more marked, and they are completely continuous with the orbital-margin, which is not the case in the former. But the skulls are essentially distinguished by their general form, which in the one is long-elliptical, and in the other rounded. In the skull from Plau, a portion of the upper jaw with the teeth, and the entire lower jaw, have been preserved; it is orthognathous. The bones are thick, but very light, and adhere strongly to the tongue. The muscular impressions on the occiput above the mastoid process are very strongly developed; the sutures are wholly unossified; the last upper molar on the right side has not yet come through the alveolus; the teeth are worn away, the entire crown in some of the molars having disappeared; the lower canine teeth are far larger than the incisors, and project in front of the row of teeth; the foramen incisivum in the upper jaw is very large, exceeding 4mm in width. The wide and short ascending ramus of the lower jaw rises at a right angle. The muscular impressions on the lower jaw are also well marked. On the right parietal bone is an elongated indentation, apparently caused by a blow. The dimensions are as follows:—

mm.
  1. Circumference over the supraorbital ridges and the superior semicircular lines of the occiput,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
445 (17.7")
  1. From the root of the nose over the vertex to the superior semicircular lines,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
320 (12.7")
  1. From the root of the nose over the vertex to the foramen magnum,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
380 (15")
  1. Length from the glabella to the occiput,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
168 (6.5")
  1. Breadth of frontal,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
107 (4.1")
  1. Height from a line connecting the squamous borders of the parietals to the middle of the sagittal suture,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
80 (3.2")
mm.
  1. From the foramen magnum to the same point,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
122 (4.8")
  1. Width of occiput from one parietal protuberance to the other,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
138 (5.5")
  1. Width of base from one mastoid process to the other,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
155 (6.25")
  1. Thickness of the frontal and of the parietal bones in the middle of each,
    ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
9

The cranial contents, estimated in millet-seed, amount to 36 ounces, 31/2 drachms, Prussian apothecaries' weight.

Another instance of a similar cranial form has occurred in Mecklenburg; and the circumstance under which the skull was found again point to a high antiquity. In the year 1852, a human skeleton, with a bronze sword, was found in a sepulchral mound, termed "the Herberg," under a stone cairn, covered with an earthern mound. The skull presented a regular Caucasian form. Beneath a stone foundation, upon which the body lay extended, were found eight skulls lying in the same direction, the faces looking towards the west; beneath these were innumerable bones lying one upon another, the arm-bones appearing above the thigh-bones, as if in this spot eight bodies had been placed side by side in the ground in a crouching or squatting posture. The bones were so rotten, that only a few of them could be preserved. A frontal bone, which was also sent to me by Dr. Lisch, presented in the great prominence of the supraorbital ridges, the low retreating forehead, and the broad root of the nose, a great similarity with the Plau cranium; but the projection was far less considerable; and the thin bone with the ossified coronal suture appeared to belong to a young or female cranium; it adhered to the tongue, like the Plau cranium. The assumption that the eight bodies placed in the foundation belonged to a more ancient period than the principal corpse, is not justified by the more decayed condition of their bones, which obviously depends upon the way in which they were buried; it is far more probable that these eight bodies were those of slaves, sacrificed at the interment of the warrior. That the Germani, when they immigrated into Germany, met with an indigenous population, is indubitable from historical and linguistic indications. The position in a crouching or squatting posture is not Germanic, it indicates a higher antiquity; but the custom may have maintained itself even into the time of the Germani, together with the remnants of the aboriginal population. As among the Esquimaux and Greenlanders, and several American tribes, the dead are placed in the graves in a sitting posture, so, according to Nilsson,[35] human skeletons in a squatting posture occur only in the more ancient graves in Scandinavia, as, for instance, in the Axevalla-Haide. These primitive graves are covered with great stones, and they never contain any objects of metal, nor any indication of cremation having been practised, affording only implements made of bone and stone. The skulls of these bodies are said to be divided by the coronal suture into two equal parts, of which the posterior is broader than the anterior. They are remarkably small, globular, and almost round; the upper jaw and the nasal bones project considerably in front. They are chiefly distinguished from the skulls of other races by the low and much depressed forehead. Eschricht, as stated before, describes the skull from the Hünengräbern of Denmark in similar terms. A. G. Masch refers to a skull of this character, found in an ancient grave in the Island of Moen, which is figured in the "Dag," a Danish newspaper of the 15th September, 1835, as well as to a skull found near Fehrbellin,[36] which would appear to possess all the characters of that from Plau, and had probably been used as a drinking vessel. J. Ritter[37] also gives an account of a large barrow near Plau, in which the skull lay a foot higher than the rest of the skeleton, and it appeared as if the body had been placed in the sitting posture. The forehead of this cranium is described as remarkably flat. Human skeletons in the squatting posture have been found in ancient graves in France and Germany, as well as in Scandinavia. Tschudi, it is well known, brought mummies of this kind from Peru; and Trogon observed the same thing in the most ancient burial-places in the Canton Wallis. The skulls from Plau and the frontal bone from Schwaan, which present a conformation resembling that of the Neanderthal cranium, bear, however, but a distant resemblance to the two frontal bones from Pisede, also preserved in the Grand Duke's collection at Schwerin. One of these frontal bones is thick, with protuberant supraorbital ridges, a low retreating forehead, and the temporal ridge rises very high, reaching the sagittal suture; in the second frontal bone, the supraorbital ridges are level, but the glalella is remarkably prominent, and the forehead rather more arched. An ancient cranium in the same collection, found at some depth in the moor of Sülz, and of which I have been furnished with a plaster cast by Dr. Lisch, is of an abnormal and very peculiar form; it is small and elongated, and, when viewed laterally, remarkably round; the forehead is narrow, but well arched, the supraorbital ridges small, but protuberant; the sutures open, and the line of the sagittal suture raised into a sort of keel, as in the so-termed "boat-shaped" skulls; the occiput is very projecting, with a long pointed spine.

In conclusion, the following propositions may be regarded as the result of the foregoing researches:—

The fragments of crania from Schwaan and Plau, on account both of their anatomical conformation and of the circumstances under which they were found, may probably be assigned to a barbarous, aboriginal people, which inhabited the North of Europe before the Germani; and, as is proved by the discovery of similar remains at Minsk in Russia, and in the Neanderthal near Elberfeld, mnst have been extensively spread—being allied, as may be presumed from the form of the skull, with the aboriginal populations of Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia. Whilst at Schwaan the bones were deposited in a Germanic grave of stone, and consequently are brought into relation with the historical period, the bones from Plau, on the contrary, were merely laid in the sand, together with implements of bone of the rudest kind. The Minsk skull, in like manner, was found in the sand of an ancient river-bed. But the human bones and cranium from the Neanderthal exceed all the rest in those peculiarities of conformation which lead to the conclusion of their belonging to a barbarous and savage race. Whether the cavern in which they were found, unaccompanied with any trace of human art, were the place of their interment, or whether, like the bones of extinct animals elsewhere, they had been washed into it, they may still be regarded as the most ancient memorial of the early inhabitants of Europe.

 

 

Remarks.

The fact of the geological antiquity of Man, or, to use other words, of his having been cotemporary with extinct animals whose remains are universally regarded by geologists as "fossil," has apparently been fully established, though rather, perhaps, from the discovery of his works than of his actual remains, under certain geological conditions. It has become a matter, therefore, among others, of extreme interest to determine how far it may be possible, from the scanty remains of his bones as yet discovered, to ascertain whether, and in what respects, the priscan race or races may have differed from those which at present inhabit the earth.

Although the materials as yet in our possession are far too scanty to allow of any satisfactory solution of this difficult question, they are sufficient, perhaps, to allow of its being entered upon. It is with this view that we reproduce the interesting paper by Professor Schaaffhausen, which incidentally treats upon the question at large, and contains a considerable amount of information respecting it.

The human remains there described were discovered under circumstances which, though not altogether demonstrative of their real geological position, leave no doubt of their enormous antiquity, and of the probability of their having belonged to what has been termed the quaternary period. The conformation of the cranium, moreover, in this instance is so remarkable, as justly to excite the utmost interest, approaching as it does in one respect that of some of the higher apes. It remains, consequently, a subject of the deepest importance for future discoveries to determine whether the conformation in question be merely an individual peculiarity, or a typical character. The peculiarity consists in a remarkable prominence or projection of the superciliary region of the forehead; for the enlargement in this part is so great, that it can hardly be described as limited to the superciliary ridges. Dr. Schaaffhausen appears to regard this extraordinary conformation as due to an expansion of the frontal sinuses. In this we are not disposed altogether to agree with him; but as we have had an opportunity, through the kindness of Sir Charles Lyell, of examining only a plaster cast of the cranium, in which the interior is not shown, we, of course, are able to speak but doubtfully on the subject. A main reason for our disagreement with Professor Schaaffhausen arises from the circumstance that a considerable elevation of the same part is often observed in recent crania, more especially, as he states, in those belonging to savage and barbarous races, in which no extraordinary expansion of the sinuses is found to exist;[38] and, secondly, because the frontal sinuses rarely, we believe, extend beyond half the length of the supraorbital border; whilst in many cases—and this is particularly evident in the Neanderthal cranium—the elevation is continued to the outer angular process of the frontal bone, which, in that cranium, is very remarkably thickened.

The lateral extent of the frontal sinus, in cases where the superciliary borders are much elevated, is usually imperfectly indicated by an opening or depression, through which the frontal nerve passes; and this depression is very manifest, especially on the right side, in the fossil cranium, in which it is regarded by Professor Schaaffhausen, we believe erroneously, as indicative of an injury received during life. In the mature Chimpanzee and Gorilla, the supraorbital ridges are, as is well known, remarkably developed: in the former case, we are not aware that the enlargement is accompanied with any expansion of the frontal sinuses, which in fact do not exist in that ape, but it is due simply to a projection of the margin of the orbit, which, cavity is larger in proportion to the skull behind it, than it is in the human subject, and is thus in accordance with the greater development of the face generally. In the old Gorilla, on the other hand, although the bone itself is enormously thickened in the monstrous projection above the orbit, there are very large frontal sinuses.[39] However this may be, the protuberance in question must be regarded as showing a very savage type; and, in the extent to which it exists in the Neanderthal cranium, it affords a character in which that skull approaches that of the Gorilla and Chimpanzee.

Dr. Schaaffhausen appears to have taken considerable pains to inquire whether a similar conformation, or one approaching it, has been observed in other instances of ancient or modern skulls, but without success. He describes and figures a brachycephalic cranium from Plau (Pl. V., fig. 8), in which there is a considerable protuberance of the supra-orbital ridges, but not to anything like the extent of that presented in the Neanderthal skull. We have added figures taken from the cranium of a Red Indian, which was procured from an ancient burial-place in Tennessee, and in which, of all the crania in our possession, the supraorbital prominence is most marked (Pl. V., figs. 1 and 2). This skull also affords a striking instance of the existence of irregular depressions of the same nature as those which are seen, more especially on the right side, in the Neanderthal cranium.

To these figures we have also added others of some very ancient fossilized crania from different localities, with the view, simply, of showing that considerable diversities of form existed among even the earliest races of mankind inhabiting the West of Europe. These are: 1.[40] The figure of a cranium discovered in a submarine, or rather subterranean peat bog or forest, 30 feet below the present level of the sea, at Sennen, near the Land's End, Cornwall, for which we are indebted to Mr. Jonathan Couch, through the kindness of Prof. Wariugton Smyth. This cranium, it may be remarked, bears some resemblance to the Engis cranium of Dr. Schmerling.[41]

2. A cranium, probably of a female, found, together with less perfect skulls and numerous other bones belonging to six or seven individuals of different ages, from 60 or 70 down to 3 or 4 years, in a narrow fissure in a limestone quarry at Mewslade in Glamorganshire, and not improbably of the same period as the bones of animals, &c, found in the neighbouring caverns in Gower, which have been described by Dr. Falconer and others. This cranium is obviously of a wholly distinct type from that of the others, though still in some respects peculiar. In the Museum of the College of Surgeons are several crania taken from an ancient (British?) burial-place in Anglesea, in which the same conformation exists. And it also resembles very closely a cranium found deep in an ancient peat-bed in Northamptonshire, which has been placed in our hands by Mr. Prestwich, who regards it as belonging to a very remote period.

3. A small portion of another cranium,[42] found in a limestone quarry near Plymouth, at a depth of about six feet below the present turf, exhibits a different form; it is chiefly remarkable for the retreating forehead and the projection, without much thickening, of the supra- orbital ridges, the margin of the orbit being very acute.

4. In the human skull discovered by Dr. Schmerling in the Cavern of Engis, and which, we believe, is regarded by Sir Charles Lyell as undoubtedly cotemporary with the cave Elephant, Rhinoceros, and Carnivora, there is some reason, from the drawing of the longitudinalnal outline, for surmising that the superciliary ridges may have been prominent. But as we have had no opportunity of inspecting either the skull itself, which is in a very shattered condition, or a cast of it, and. as the drawing given of the front view does not support the surmise, we must be content with simply throwing it out,—leaving the point to be determined by future examination. As the Engis cranium, from its undoubted geological antiquity, is of particular interest, and perhaps the most interesting relic of ancient humanity in existence, we give reduced copies of Dr. Schmerling's figures,[43] which may be the more acceptable, as his work is not very generally accessible in this country.

With respect to the relationship between the prisca gens to which these cave-bones belong, and any of those which, since their time, have inhabited Western Europe or are anywhere found living, no satisfactory opinion can at present be offered. Dr. Schmerlrng, it is true, fancied that he perceived some resemblance between his cranium and that of the Negro, but it must be confessed that his figures or measurements give no support to this notion. Dr. Schaaffhausen, enters pretty fully into the question of this relationship; and we have, therefore, little need to say more upon such an obscure and difficult matter. At the same time, we cannot avoid insisting upon one important point, viz.: that none of the crania above noticed, unless it be, perhaps, that from Plau, belong to the brachycephalic type; that is to say, the breadth in all is less than 8/10ths of the length; they cannot, consequently, be referred to the short-headed race or races, which there is much reason to believe constituted the earliest of the existing European stocks.

Description of Plates.

plate iv.

Fig. 1 . Various views of the Neanderthal cranium (taken from a plaster cast in the possession of Sir Charles Lyell), one-half size of nature).

2. Side view of the cranium of a young Chimpanzee (one-ninth less than nature).

plate v.

Fig. 1 . Side view of the cranium of a Red Indian.

2. Front view of the same.

3. Side view of the Engis craniun (reduced one-half from Dr. Schmerling's figure).

4. Front view of the same.

5. Longitudinal view of the Mewslade cranium.

6. 7. Cranium from limestone quarry near Plymouth.

8. Outline of Dr. Schaaffhausen's figure of the cranium from Plau.

9. Side view of the cranium from a submarine forest at Sennen, near the Land's End.

[The figures, with the exception of the Chimpanzee skull, are all reduced to the same scale, or to half the natural size. They are all, excepting the front view of the Engis cranium, placed as nearly as possible in the same position, so that they admit of direct comparison. The position selected is that in which a line drawn from the junction of the sagittal and coronal sutures to the middle of the external auditory openings would be vertical.]

2
1
3
6
4
5

Vol 1. Plate V

3
4
1
7
5
6
9
2
8
  1. Verhandl. d Naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinlande und Westphalens., xiv, Bonn, 1857.
  2. Ib. Correspondenzb. No. 2.
  3. A remark with respect to this depression will be found in the Remarks.
  4. The numbers in brackets are those which I should assign to the different measures, as taken from the plaster cast.—G. B.
  5. Verh. des Naturhist. Vereins in Bonn, xiv., 1857.
  6. Serres. Gaz. Méd de Paris, 1852, No. 31.
  7. Jahresber. d. Sinsheim. Gesellsch. z. Erforsch. d. vaterl. Denkmale d. Vorzeit von K. Wilhelmi, 1831–46.
  8. Jahrb. d. K. K. Geologischen Reichanstalt. Wien, 1850. I., p. 352.
  9. Müll. Arch., 1850, p. 513., taf. xiv. and xv. [Vid. also, on the subject of these macrocephalic skulls, a recent, learned memoir by K. E. v. Baer: "Die Makrokephalen im Boden der Krym und Osterreichs," &c. (In Mém. de l'Acad. de St. Petersbourg, tome ii. No. 6. 1860.)]
  10. Fitzinger, Sitzungsb. d. K. Ak. d. Wissensch. Math. Naturer, Kl. vii., B. 1851., p. 271.
  11. Denkschr. d. k. Akad. d. Wissensch. Wien, 1853. V.
  12. Vid. the figure given in the Leipsic Illust. Journ. of Nov. 26, 1853.
  13. Estimating the facial angle in the way suggested, on the cast I should place it at 64° to 67°.—G. B.
  14. Tabulæ craniorum, Lugd. Bat., 1838.
  15. Crania Americana. London, 1839.
  16. Zur Organischen Formenlehre. Frankf., 1844. Taf. xi.
  17. Bericht üb. d. 22te Versamm. deutsch. Naturf. u. Aerzt. in Bremen, 1844.
  18. The Nat. Hist. of Man. Lond., 1845, p. 206. Pl. VIII.
  19. V. Leonh. und Bronn, Jahrb. für Mineralogie, &c, 1853, p. 370.
  20. Maury, Indig. Races of the Earth. London, 1857, pp. 297.
  21. Retzius, Kroniologisches, in Müll. Arch.. 1849, pp. 554 and 571.
  22. Maury, op. c, p. 294.
  23. E. Huschke, Schädel, Hirn und Seele des Menschen und der Thiere. Jena, 1854.
  24. Müller's Archiv., 1845, p. 84.
  25. Ib., 1847, p. 499.
  26. Aitken Meigs, Catalogue of Human Crania in the Collection of the Acad. of Nat. Sc. of Philadelphia. 1857.
  27. [The cranium of a Red Indian figured by us. Pl. V., figs. 1 and 2, appears to belong to the same type.]
  28. In the Gorilla the frontal sinuses are of large size, although they do not altogether constitute the large supraorbital eminences.
  29. Cæsar, in the passage cited, does not say that his troops were actually frightened by the aspect of the Germani. All that he states is that, while delayed for a few days at Vesontio, on his march against Ariovistus, reports were spread by the Roman inhabitants of the country, and by the Gauls and traders, of the "incredible valour, expertness in arms, and gigantic stature of the Germani;" and that these reports (which were, probably, not altogether unintentionally made) caused a sudden panic, chiefly, however, among the volunteers who had followed him, and the inexperienced soldiers. He seems to have had little difficulty in quelling the commotion, and in removing some of the dread instilled into his troops, by reminding them that the Germani had been often beaten without difficulty by the Helvetii.
  30. J. C. Prichard, Natural History of Man.
  31. Plinii, Sec. Hist. Nat., vii 2.
  32. [To these references might be added, perhaps, some lines of Sidonis Apollinaris in describing the Huns, quoted by V. Baer (Die Makrokephalen, &c, p. 36:)—

    "Gens animis membrisque minax: ita vultibus ipsis
    Infantum suus horror inest. Consurgit in arcem
    Massa rotunda caput: geminis sub froute cavernis
    Visus adest oculis absentibus: arcta cerebri
    In cameram vix ad refugos lux pervenit orbes,
    Non tamen et clausos: nam fornix non spatiosa,
    Magna vident spatia, et majoris luminis usum
    Perspicua in puteis compensant puncta profundis."]

  33. Verhandl. des naturh. Vereins des preuss. Rheinl. u. Westphal., 1858. xv.
  34. Jahr. d. Vereins für Mecklenburg. Geschichte und Alterthumskunde, herausg. von G. S. F. Lisch, Schwerin, 1847, xii., p. 400.
  35. Jahrbuch. der Vereins f. Mecklenb. Gesch. u. Alterthumskunde. 1849, xiv., p. 301.
  36. Jahrb. d. Vereins f. Mecklenb. Gesckichte, &c, 1844, ix., p. 361.
  37. Ib., 1846, xi.
  38. It may be observed also that a considerable development of the sinuses may coexist with only a moderate elevation of the superciliary region. This is the case in the fragment of a cranium represented in Pl. V., fig. 6.
  39. In order to render the apparent resemblance between the Neanderthal cranium and that of the higher apes the more evident, we have given the outline of a corresponding portion of the skull of a Chimpanzee, in which the third molars are just appearing, and which will serve to show the remarkable similarity in contour, at any rate, between the two. The human cranium, it is hardly necessary to say, is represented half the size of nature, whilst that of the Chimpanzee is but slightly reduced, so as to bring it to the same comparative scale.
  40. Pl. V., fig. 9.
  41. Pl. V., figs. 3, 4.
  42. Pl. V., fig. 6 and 7.
  43. Pl. V., figs 3, 4.