But from the state of the spine and crista of the occipital bone. surely, to deduce a man's "oppressed slavishness," from the condition of the muscular ridges on his occiput savours more of that spirit of drawing "weitgreifende Folgerungen," of which Professor Mayer accuses English naturalists, than anything that has been said on this side of the Channel. But let us hear Professor Mayer further: "In correspondence with this there is, of course, no question of a sagittal crest, or its projection; the place of the sagittal suture being, on the contrary, depressed. I might say shew me a fossil human skull with a sagittal crest like that of the Orang-utan (the male-the female possesses it but slightly-see Mayer in Troschel's Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 1845), and I will grant you your descent from an ancestral Pithecus." But is it really necessary to wear a sagittal crest in order to make out a title to a pithecoid pedigree? Does not Professor Mayer believe that the Chimpanzees have descended from an ancestral Pithecus'? Yet they lack the credentials upon which he insists— never a one yet having been able to show " a sagittal crest like that of an Orang-utan." And Professor Mayer does not seem to be aware of a circumstance which makes his argument still more frivolous, viz., that certain male orangs are devoid of the sagittal crest. Professor Mayer continues: "Further, the linea semicircularis of the temples is also but slightly marked, which indicates but weak temporal muscles. "The calvaria, indeed, possesses a solid consistence, and the hardness and smoothness peculiar to fossil bones, as well as a brownish colour, but exhibits no hyperossification; but two lamella with diploë increasing posteriorly, so that on the lateral wall it is 2 lines thick, on the occiput 3 lines. The inner surface of the calvaria also indicates but moderate osseous development, the falx frontalis projecting but little; the falx sagittalis being entirely absent; the falx cerebelli ossea being but slightly developed, and the impressions of the central gyri, viz., two depressions on the inner lamella, corresponding to the superciliary arches and smaller impressions in the lateral wall, being still visible. The superior occipital fossa for the posterior lobe of the brain is, on the left side, deep but narrower, on the right side, broader, but flat. The groove for the arteria meningea media is still present below, but disappears above. The fosse for the Pacchionian glands are tolerably large, especially on the right side, near the place of the sagittal suture. I may add that the fossa for the lachrymal gland on the malar process of the frontal bones of both sides is remarkably deep. Thus there is no particularly strong bony development of the skull; the disappearance of the sagittal suture externally as internally; that of the coronary suture almost wholly internally; the weakness of the lambdoid suture, further demonstrate this deficiency of bony growth. Thus far then, the characters of the fragment of the skull under discussion are not at all apelike. Is this, however, not true of the large and broad projections of the supraciliary arches, to which so much weight is attached by Professors Schaafhausen and Huxley? "In the superciliary arches a distinction must be carefully drawn between the tuberositas or crista superciliaris and the arching of the frontal sinuses behind them. Each may exist independently of the other. The crista superciliaris is in the apes, in the Gorilla especially, strong, and gives the face its ferocious expression, whilst at the same time the frontal sinuses are entirely absent! In our Neanderthal skull, on the other hand, there is no crista superciliaris such as is frequently met with in human skulls with exostosis of the diploë, where the frontal sinuses are absent, and the two, strongly osseous, laminae of the os frontis are closely applied together. Consequently the projection of the superciliary arches in this cranial fragment constitutes no approximation to the type of the Ape or Gorilla.”—pp. 2-4. I must confess myself greatly perplexed to discover the relevancy of some of the arguments which Professor Mayer brings forward. In which of the higher apes-Gorilla, Chimpanzee, or Orang-has he found an osseous 'falx sagittalis,' or 'falx cerebelli' ? And if they are not found in the apes, what has their absence in the Neanderthal skull to do with the question? Again, in the higher apes, the sutures, with age, disappear very completely; how then is their asserted absence in the Neanderthal skull evidence against its ape-like character ? Still more difficult do I find it to understand how the closure and disappearance of the sutures is to be regarded as arising from a want of bony matter. If the argument were worth anything, I should have thought it told the other way, seeing that more bony matter must be required to close a suture than to leave it open. Thus the former part of the passage just quoted appears to me to be irrelevant; the latter part, on the contrary, is relevant enough, but, unfortunately, it is incorrect. To the sentence-"The crista superciliaris is in the apes, in the Gorilla, especially, strong and gives the face its ferocious expression, whilst, at the same time, the frontal sinuses are entirely absent."Professor Mayer has affixed a note of admiration in the original. And he has done well, for it expresses with great accuracy the feelings of the reader who happens to be aware that both in the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee the frontal sinuses may exist, and sometimes attain far greater absolute and relative dimensions than in man. There are to be seen, at the present moment, in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, two bisected skulls, one of a Gorilla and one of a Chimpanzee, in which the frontal sinuses are enormous, their walls being no thicker, in proportion, than in man. So much for Professor Mayer's facts and reasonings concerning the Neanderthal skull; I come next in order to his remarks on the accompanying bones appertaining to the rest of the skeleton. "The (left) innominata is represented only by a part of the os ilium, which is injured superiorly. The anterior superior spine and the crest are strong; the iliac fossa is deep; the linea innominata projecting the os pubis is for the most part wanting, the acetabulum is spacious, the greater ischiatic notch large but narrow, the lesser notch and the ischiatic spine are wanting; the tuberosity of the ischium is singularly turned upwards, forwards, and inwards, and moderately strong. The two thigh bones are similarly formed, about 17 inches in length, and therefore moderately long; strong, thick and heavy. They are both convex forwards, and somewhat twisted inwards below. This flexure is not normal, and is observable, like the inward flexure of the tuberosities of the ischial bones, in those who have been riders from their youth up. "The angle of the femur [Winkel des femur] is 110°, its condyle and the trochanters are strong, the crista glutæorum is sharp, the internal condyle projecting, and both tubera of the condyles strong. The right humerus is 11 in. 9 lines long, somewhat curved in its upper half; it is solid and heavy, but normal, the greater and lesser tuberosities and the linea aspera project strongly, also the condyles and the trochlea downwards: the fossa ant. major and minor, as well as especially the fossa posterior at the lower articular end are deep. Of the right ulna merely the upper part remains. It is convex backwards. Humerus and coronoid process are normal, as are the sigmoid and semilunar fossa. If the radius (sic) were entire, it would measure 10 inches. The bones of the left arm are in a remarkable condition. Of the left humerus unfortunately only the middle and lower thirds exist. It is thinner than the corresponding part of the right humerus, the linea aspera is strong; while, on the other hand, the internal and external condyles are weaker. The trochlea is tuberculated (knorrig), and enlarged forwards, posteriorly sharp edged, the processus capitatus small, but also rough and tuberculated. "The fovea anterior humeri major is broad and large. The fovea minor is almost flat. The fovea posterior especially deep and broad. The left radius is wanting, but it can only have been 8 inches 4 lines long. The entire ulna, in fact, is only 9 inches long, or shortened by 14 inches, seeing that if normal it would have been 10 inches long. The olecranon is very large, thick and tuberculated, its four articular impressions are unequal, and the coronoid process projects strongly. The fovea semilunaris for the head of the radius is only indistinct. The whole ulna is twisted longitudinally, so that the forearm was fixed in a prone position, the radius standing forwards, the ulna outwards. The carpal extremity of the ulna shewed nothing irregular." Professor Mayer's conclusion from these malformations (of which *The context seems to show that by radius' Professor Mayer here means ❝ulna." Prof. Schaafhausen speaks of the right radius as "perfect," but does not give its length. it must be remembered Professor Schaafhausen had already given a sufficient account), is, that the Neanderthal Man had been a ricketty child*-which might account for the peculiarities of the limbs, but not, so far I can see, for those of the skull. However, Professor Mayer would get over this difficulty with ease, for he says (1. c. p. 5): : "The prominence of the superciliary arches is in part, like the projection of the crista, occasioned by the corrugator superciliorum muscle, but this need but be weak if it has only to lift the already raised outer lamella of the frontal bone." A severe critic might, perhaps, find something over-mechanical in Professor Mayer's physiology: but, granting the premises, the conclusion is obvious. Given a ricketty child with a bad habit of frowning (say from the internal flatulent disturbances to which such children are especially liable), and the result will be a Neanderthal man! Truly a "weitgreifende Folgerung!" The man being accounted for, the next difficulty is to get him into the cave, and bury him in the loam covering its floor. Professor Mayer admits that the bones were covered by at least two feet of loam, and were in undisturbed relation to one another, (1. c. p. 19, 20.) He is quite clear that they were not drifted by floods into the cave (p. 20), or buried there in ancient, say preceltic, times, because the bones of other corpses, and the general attributes of old graves are absent (p. 21); and he concludes that the Neanderthal man must have crawled into the hole to die. The obvious inquiry follows, how did this singular person contrive to get buried under, at least, two feet of loam, after he had died there? And as the cave had an opening of only two feet in height, sixty feet up a vertical cliff, with only a very narrow plateau in front of it, it will be observed that the problem is not devoid of difficulties. Professor Mayer admits them, but meets them thus: : "Streams of water, therefore, could only have reached the grotto from the precipitous heights which rise above it to the south, and since the opening of the cave lies to the north, they could only have got into it, carrying the loam with them, by rebounding." [durch Widerschlag] (1. c. p. 20.) And now, having fairly got the man into the cave and covered him up by the rebounding' of cataracts of muddy water, who was he? A Mongolian Cossack' of Tchernitcheff's corps d'armée is * Prof. Schaafhausen, on the contrary, is careful to remark that the ulna "shows no trace of rhachitic discase"! Müller's Archiv. 1858, p. 458. Professor Mayer's suggestion; - based upon three reasons: the first (p. 20) that the thigh bones are curved like those of people who spend their lives on horseback; the second (p. 21), that any guess is better than the admission that the skeleton may possibly be thousands of years old; the third, (p. 21-2) that, after all, the skull is more like that of a Mongol than that of an ape, or a Gorilla, or a New Zealander. Thus the hypothesis which is held up to us by Professor Mayer as an example of scientific sobriety comes to this: that the Neanderthal man was nothing but a ricketty, bow-legged, frowning, Cossack, who, having carefully divested himself of his arms, accoutrements, and clothes (no traces of which were found), crept into a cave to die, and has been covered up with loam two feet thick by the 'rebound' of the muddy cataracts which (hypothetically,) have rushed over the mouth of his cave. Professor Mayer must, indeed, have a firm belief that anything is better than admitting the antiquity of the Neanderthal skull! 3. Professor Mayer has no reason to complain if I defend the views he has attacked with the weapons he has thought fit to select. It is much pleasanter, however, to argue scientific questions in another way; and although Professor Schaafhausen has impugned the accuracy of some of my own statements and conclusions in a much more formidable manner than Professor Mayer, I should err greatly if I treated with other than respect, the views of the careful and thoughtful observer to whom we are indebted for first bringing the now famous skull under the notice of anatomists. Professor Schaafhausen has communicated to the "Societé d'Anthropologie" an abstract of a memoir which he had recently read before the Natural History Society of the Rhine and Westphalia on the Neanderthal skull.* In this the following passage occurs :— "The assertion of Mr. Huxley that the posterior part of the cranium is still more anomalous than the anterior, is without foundation. According to this author, the upward and forward direction of the squama occipitis, the shortening of the sagittal suture, the straight edge of the temporo-parietal suture, and, in general, the flattened form of the cranium, which hardly permits one to understand the possibility of lodging the posterior lobes of a human brain therein, would approximate this cranium to that of an ape, still more than the conformation of the anterior frontal region. But Mr. Huxley has forgotten that all these peculiarities are equally met with in the crania of the lower races: the only character which belongs ex Sur le Crâne de Neanderthal, par M. Schaaffhausen. Bulletin de la Societe d'Anthropologie. Tome iv. p. 364. |