4. CRANIA BRITANNICA. [CHAP. I.
and less in another*. The same distinguished anatomist further contends that the greatest
differences of form occur in one and the same race, so that the pure form of the race appears to
he entirely obliterated; and even that in one race forms may be met with here and there which
belong to other races; so that, as a general conclusion, there is no proper mark of a definite
race-form of the cranium so firmly attached that it may not be found in some other race. If
this doctrine is to be admitted without reserve, it will tend to carry back the whole subject into
a state of pristine confusion. The ethnic forms of the skull are the result of a certain combination
of peculiarities, wliich are more or less uniformly met with in the different races. Indi-
«dual skulls may occur in these races which deviate from the rule in some j^articulars; rarely
do they deviate in such an association of peculiarities as to carry them over strictly into the
form of a different race, yet at times their singularities are so isolated as to exclude them from
all laiown races. The four normal forms of Professor Weber are rather crude idealities than
faithful embodiments of beautiful nature, who may be said to be delicately diversified in her
uniformity. They rather resemble than agree with Blumenbach's Caucasian, Mongolian,
Ethiopian and American race-forms of the skull. And all that can be admitted is, that some
elements of these race-forms are occasionally met with as accidental deviations in the races to
which they do not properly belong. It may also be added, that the argument of Professor Weber
obtains a weight which does not belong to it, by presuming on an absolute truth and imiversality
in Blumenbach's arrangement, which we should hesitate in allowing to it. And, if we
grant nearly aU that Professor Weber contends for, it is still obvious that the great majority of
the skulls of any nation wiU conform to the rule characterizing the race to which they belong,
in a greater or less degree. At the same time, we shall be far from admitting that, notwithstanding
aU the playful diversity of nature, an enlarged and just discrimination will not be
able to fix the tj'pical features of the crania of different nations, although nearly aUied. Nay,
we have reason even to think that by judicious study we shall be prepared to decipher these
typical features, more or less plainly, in almost all the divergent skulls of the same people.
On the other hand, it has been frequently presumed that the different ethnical forms of the
skull are so sharply impressed and so constant, that there wiU be no difficulty in pointing out
the crania belonging to diverse races and nations iu any one given cemetery, without having
recourse to any other extrinsic source of informationf. Probably a competent judge might in
some cases perform this task, but certainly any one weU-versed in siich inquiries, would usually
have much more hesitation in arriving at a definite conclusion on such a question than is
compatible with this view. And, as may be expected, it is far other than such accomplished
discriminators generally who have pronounced with confidence in the circumstances to which we
aUude. A remarkable instance of the decisive and critical acumen of Morton is given in the
late Dr. Patterson's affectionate and graceful biographical, tribute to his memory. An ancient
skull arrived from abroad without mark or circumstance to denote its origin or history. " Day
* Die Lehre von den Ur- und Racen-Forraen der Schädel
und Becken des Menschen, S. 5, 1830.
+ As an example of tliis mode of judging, we may refer to
M. Serres, a name well known amongst anatomists of the brain.
In his note ' Sur la Paléontologie Humaine,' read before the
Académie des Sciences, he makes these observations :—"A'
Prescy-snr-Oise, en 1846, les travaux du chemin de fer mirent
il nu de vastes sépultures anciennes, parmi lesquelles je rencontrai
le type Gallo-Romain, le type Teuton, une variété du type
Mongol se rapprochant du type Kalmouk, que nous avons vu
à Paris en 1814, un type Goth et peut-être le type Slave."
I t is right to add that M. Serres regards this extraordinary
collection of nations as a conjecture, which he acknowledges is
scarcely justified by the physiognomy of the inhabitants of the
district.—Comptes Rendus de I'Acad. des Sci., Oct. 1853.
CLIAP. I. ] INTRODUCTION.
after day would Morton be found absorbed in its contemplation. At last he announced his
conclusion. He had never seen a Phoenician skull, and he had no idea where this one came
from, but it was what he conceived a Phoenician skull should be, and it could be no other,"
Six months afterwards a sHp of paper arrived from M. P. Presnel, a celebrated oriental scholar,
announcing that he had discovered the cranium in the exploration of a Phoenician tomb at
Malta*. In the hands of such an investigator, possessed of the visus eriiditus in so eminent a
degree, we might be safe ; but where hasty inferences have been formed from data far from
abundant, and with mu-eserved reUance upon this dogma of absolute diversity, which it is ill
able to sustain, it is much safer to hesitate and seek for further evidence. Such e^ddenoe may
in many cases be obtained, as will be seen in the subsequent progress of this volume, in the circumstances
under which the crania are brought to light, the position of the skeletons, the
construction of the places of their interment, the antiquities with which they are associated, and
other extrinsic data.
By regarding our inquiry as a branch of natui-al science, and taking the aid of those
principles of arrangement wliich have been fouud available in other investigations of the objects
of nature, we shaU after mature observation be able to attain aU the valuable ends that result
from methodical study. It will be weU, however, to use with caution the crania of very young
people and those of women ; for the human skuU, like that of other animals, tmdergoes great
modifications of form in its growth, and the attainment of its maturity. Speaking generaUy,—
for as Blumenbach has shown, in strongly contrasted races, the form pertaining to them is
developed even in infancy,—it is to its matm-e state that the ethnic featm-es appertain. And
the female skull, except in races equaUy distinguished by forms strikingly unpressed, does not
exhibit the gentiUtial characters eminently. With these two exceptions, we shall be safe mder
the exercise of a moderate discretion; acknowledging, however, that individual skuUs occur
amongst aU nations which show hi a large degree very opposite attributes of form, therefore
requii-ing the nicest observation to detect then- true character and relations. But this is in
strict correspondence with the wonderful fertility of nature in all other departments of her
realm. If she does not absolutely refuse to be restrained by our arbitrary rules, she submits
with a reluctance that evinces the hiherent dignity of her independence ; showing, in the
language of Prof. Owen, " that beautiful principle of variety in non-essentials which pei-vades
nature t".
It has been very generaUy assumed, and not merely by the phrenologist, that the form of the
head is a fluctuating element, that it changes not only with age, beyond even the period of
growth, but by the influence of education and other moral agencies, whether exerted upon the
individual, or in historical epochs, upon societies. The changes resulting from growth and
development, for which a provision has been made in the segregated bones of which the skull
consists in the foetal and infant periods, are weU known. These changes may continue in a
slighter degree till matui-e life, or even until the bones become consolidated into one by the
effacement of the sutures. And in extreme old age, after the skull has become a solid box with
uninterrupted walls, the cranial bones are acted upon by the absorbents so as to render them
thinner, and also to alter their form materially in accommodathig it to the shrunken brain they
* Types of Mankind, or Ethnological Researches, by J. C. volume of very great interest and instruction, especially in its
Nott, M.D. and George R. Gliddon ; containing a Memoir of earlier portions.
Morton, by Prof. II. S. Patterson, M.D., p. xl. 1854. A t On Parthenogenesis, p. 57, 1849.