ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The Engis skull was supposed by Dr. Schmerling to have Æthiopian characters, but in reality it very much resembles in form those of many modern Europeans. "There is no mark of degradation about any part of its structure. It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a Philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage."*

The Neanderthal skull has been already described in these pages,† and there can be no doubt that it is "the most pithecoid of human crania yet discovered." Nor is there any reason for supposing that it might have belonged to an idiot. Though the shape of the skull is so remarkable, the brain appears to have been of considerable size, and, indeed, is estimated by Professor Huxley at about 75 cubic inches, which is the average capacity of the Polynesian and Hottentot skulls. It must, however, be admitted that, as regards this specimen, the antiquity is far from being well established, and, indeed, Professor Mayer has even gone so far as to suggest, though without sufficient reason, that it may have belonged to a Russian Cossack, and be no older than the commencement of the present century! But even if the Neanderthal skull was as ancient as it is undoubtedly peculiar, we should not feel justified in drawing any definite conclusions from one solitary specimen.

On the whole then, though we cannot as yet determine what variety or varieties of men then existed, we find in the bone-caves sufficient evidence that man was coeval in Europe with the great group of quaternary mammalia. We see, indeed, that the presence of human remains in bone caves, associated with those of extinct mammalia, is no rare or exceptional phenomenon. Nor if we look at the question from a scientific point of view, is there any thing in this that ought to excite our astonishment. Since the period at which these caves were filled up the changes which have taken place have resulted rather in extinction than in the creation of species. All our existing forms of Mammalia, the Stag, Ox, Horse, Boar, Dog, and many others, were already in existence, and there would have been more just cause for surprise if Man alone had been unrepresented.

* Huxley-Man's place in Nature, p. 156.
† Nat. Hist. Rev., 1861, p. 155.

429

LVI.-FURTHER REMARKS UPON THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE NEANDERTHAL. By Thomas H. Huxley, F.R.S.

SINCE the remarkable skull, discovered in a cave of the valley of the Düssel was introduced to the special notice of the English scientific world in the pages of this Journal,* it has become the subject of many discussions, and even of not a few special commentaries, for one or two of which I am myself responsible. Partly on this ground, partly by reason of the inherent interest of the subject, I propose now to give some account of, and to remark upon, the four essays on the Neanderthal skull which appear to me to be of most importance; viz. that by Professor King,† that by Professor Mayer, that by Professor Schaafhausen, § and that by Mr. Turner.

1. Professor King considers the differences between the Neanderthal skull and all other human crania to be so considerable, that he is not only quite certain of its belonging to at least a distinct species-Homo Neanderthalensis-but, at the end of his communication, even feels "strongly inclined to believe that it is not only specifically but generically distinct from Man," considering that he has satisfactorily shown "that not only in its general but equally so in its particular characters, has the fossil under consideration the closest affinity to the apes. Only a few points of proximate resemblance have been made out between it and the human skull, and these are strictly peculiar to the latter in the fatal state."

The whole purport of my essay on this subject, having been to prove a proposition exactly opposite to Professor King's, viz. that among recent human skulls it is possible to select a series which shall lead by insensible gradations from the Neanderthal skull up to the most ordinary forms, I must refer to the arguments used therein, contenting myself with assuring Professor King that I have not in the slightest degree, "assumed a resemblance closer than exists" between certain Australian crania, and the Neanderthal skull;

Natural History Review, 1861.

+ The reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. The Quarterly Journal of Science. No 1. Jan. 1864.

Ueber die fossilen Ueberreste eines Menschlichen Schädels und Skeletes in einer Felsenhöhle des Düssel - oder Neander-thales. Müller's Archiv. 1864, No. 1. § Sur le crâne de Neanderthal. Bull. de la Societé d'Anthropologie, 1863-1864. The Fossil Skull Controversy. On human crania allied in anatomical characters to the Engis and Neanderthal skulls. The Quarterly Journal of Science. No 2, April, 1864.

Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, 1863. N.H.R.-1864.

2 F

on the contrary, I shall endeavour to show by additional evidence at the end of the present notice, that a cast of the interior of the skull, representing the brain of the Neanderthal man, presents an even closer resemblance in form to a cast of the interior of a particular Australian skull than does the exterior of his skull.

2. Professor King, as we have just seen, regards the Neanderthal man as a new species at least, perhaps as the type of a new genus. Geheime-Rath Professor Mayer of Bonn goes to the other end of the scale of opinion, and propounds the hypothesis that the debateable skull was, after all, only that of a ricketty "Mongolian Cossack," belonging to one of the hordes driven by Russia, through Germany, into France in 1814.

I had written that Professor Mayer gravely propounds this hypothesis, but I have erased the italicised word; for, in truth, the work is not gravely done, but is laden with numerous jocosities of small size, but great ponderosity, directed against Mr. Darwin and his doctrines. Such recalcitrations will not greatly affect that sick lion, but it must be confessed they do not lead one to feel much tenderness towards his assailant. And yet, as I shall proceed to show, the learned Professor can hardly afford to throw stones with so much vehemence and so little discrimination.

The opening passage of his essay, for example, contains as many errors as paragraphs.

"The discovery of these fossil fragments of a human skeleton, or rather of a skull only, has lately excited so much attention among the naturalists of England, and they have based such far-reaching conclusions [weitgreifende Folgerungen] upon it, although acquainted with nothing more than the figure of the calvaria on a small scale, given by Professor Schaafhausen in Müller's Archiv for 1858 ('), that I am instigated to publish my own investigations on these fossil remains, which their possessor, Professor Fuhlrott of Elberfeld, permitted me to examine soon after their discovery.

Professor Huxley namely affirms that the fossil skull of the cave in the valley of the Düssel, is, among all skulls, admittedly belonging to an epoch anterior* to the present, the most ape-like (2). Along with, and in demonstration of this proposition, he speaks of a short sagittal suture, which, however, is no longer present, either externally or internally, and considering the dolichocephalic form of the skull must at a previous period certainly have been long (3); and further of a want of

"Unter allen bis jetzt als vorweltlich erkannten Schädeln am ähnlichsten sci." I am acquainted with no exact English equivalent for "Vorweltlich "— "Antediluvian" and "Preadamite" used to serve that purpose; but recent discussions render it inexpedient to make unguarded implications respecting either Adam or the Deluge.

space for the posterior lobes of the cerebrum, although the calvaria exhibits a not inconsiderable arching of the upper part of the squama occipitis. (4) According to this, a homo pithecöides formerly dwelt in this rock cavern (known as the lesser "Feldhofgrotte") as a Troglodytes (5) ! ?

"But I leave these conclusions aside, &c."-pp. 1 and 2.

I propose to comment upon the passages I have numbered seriatim :

(1.)-It is by no means true that the English naturalists have based their statements upon Professor Schaafhausen's figures; for, as I have on two occasions publicly stated, Dr. Fuhlrott has been good enough to furnish us with both photographs and casts of the skull. (See "Lyell's Antiquity of Man," p. 82. "Man's Place in Nature," p. 141.)

(2.) I have given no opinion, nor to the best of my knowledge has any English anatomist, respecting the geological age of the Neanderthal skull, or any other, but have assumed the justice of Sir Charles Lyell's conclusions on that head. What I have affirmed, and still affirm, is, that the skull is the most ape-like human cranium I have ever seen, irrespective of any question as to its age.

(3.)-Seeing that, according to Professor Mayer's own statements, both the coronal and lambdoidal sutures are present, it is not a matter of the smallest importance, in estimating the length of the sagittal suture, whether it is now discernible or not; since that suture could not be longer or shorter than the distance between the median portion of the coronal, and that of the lambdoidal suture, which, as I have already said, is only 4 inches. But, if the original skull really exhibits no remains of the sagittal suture, all I can say is that Dr. Fuhlrott's cast, which lies before me, is very deceptive; as it shows what are, to all appearance, very distinct traces of that suture; though it is not so plain as the coronal, and far less obvious than the lambdoidal suture.

(4.)-I must ask, what has arching of the calvaria in the supraoccipital region to do with the "want of space" for the posterior lobes of the cerebrum? Surely a local bulging does not interfere with the flatness of the skull as a whole? And I have been careful to point out that "notwithstanding the flattened condition of the occiput, the posterior cerebral lobes must have projected considerably beyond the cerebellum."-" Man's Place, &c." p. 143.

(5.) As to the last paragraph (if it refers to any supposed opinion of mine) I can only account for it by supposing that Pro

fessor Mayer has not done me the honour to read what I have published on this subject. At least, it is inconceivable to me that he should have so written with the two paragraphs before him, which I will venture to quote :

"In no sense then can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between men and apes."-(" Man's Place in Nature,” p. 157).

"In conclusion, I may say that the fossil remains of Man hitherto discovered, do not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by the modification of which he has, probably, become what he is.”—(ibid. p. 159).

After the somewhat infelicitous introductory remarks, which I have just ventured to criticise, Professor Mayer proceeds to communicate the results of his own observations upon the skull. These I give at length, in order that the judicious reader may have the means, by comparison with what is already extant, of forming his own judgment upon the value of Professor Mayer's additions to our extant information:

"The calvaria in question is dolichocephalic, the longitudinal measurement of it, from the supraciliary arch to the occipital spine amounting to 7" 9"". The contour of its circumference is of such a kind that a depression succeeds to the very considerable projection of the supraciliary arches, after which the frontal region slightly rises again, then sinks a little, and next slightly ascending, forms a flat parietal arch; this, descending backwards, sinks again, and then descends as a considerable convexity from the summit of the squama occipitis (the lambdoid suture of which is visible externally and internally, though but faintly), occupying almost the whole of the occipital squama.

"The beautiful arching of the occipital bone is remarkable from the circumstance that its crest and spine project but little, shewing a slight development of the muscles of the neck, and leading one to ascribe, not the wildness of a supposed contemporary [vorgeblichen Zeitgenossen] of the Gorilla, but rather an oppressed slavishness, to the Düsseldorf Troglodyte."

But I have elsewhere (Man's Place in Nature, p. 142) quoted Dr. Fuhlrott to the effect that the superior semicircular line forms "a very strong ridge" in the Neanderthal skull; and I find this statement of the possessor of the cranium to be fully borne out by the cast. In these points, as in many others, the Neanderthal skull has a curiously Australian aspect: though I do not venture, on that ground, to infer any special affinity between the man to whom it belonged and the Australian race.

I should not feel myself on very safe ground if I endeavoured to follow Professor Mayer in his diagnosis of psychical peculiarities

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »