DESCRIPTIONS OP CRANIA.
Illliinillii
1'
iiii;-!. lii
the other two skulls, the position of the condyles and of the foramen itself is decidedly further
back; especially in that from the cedar coffin, i^" which the anterior edge of the foramen is in a
Ime with that of the mastoids-making a diiferenoe from that of Theodorianus of half an inch
The tuberosity of the occipital in the latter is very protuberant and scabrous, much more so than
m the other two skulls. In the cii-cimistances of the great size of the mastoids, and of the
advanced position of the foramen magnum, the cranium of Theodorianus exhibits two important
human peculiarities, we mean in comparison with, and contra-distinction to, the anthropomorphous
apes, in an exalted degree. The latter lies at the foundation of man's most noble, and,
^^-ltl^ reference to aU other animals, imperial characteristic,-the "os homini sublime" of th^
Latin poet.
When we compare the base of the skull of Theodorianus with that of the Ancient Briton
from Ai-ras, so weU depicted in Plate 7, we are at once struck with the exalted position they
both hold m respect to theii- anthi'opoid features, so clearly pointed out by Professor Owen in
the human basis oranii when contrasted with that of the Chimpanzee and Orang Utan*. The
bases of both the sk-uUs here flgm-ed occupy a high position, in the relative degree of their departure
from the distinctive characters belonging to these most antlu-opomorphous of aU the quadrumana.
Both these bases crmiii rank very high even in the human series, for there are numerous
degrees of exaltation in the conformation of this part in the different races of man, as is rendered
apparent in the rude flgiu-es of the base of the skull given by Dr. Prichardf. The immense
mastoid process, and the very deep groove for the origin of the digastric muscle, both features
peculiar to man, are especially deserving of remark in this relation. The relative advancement
of the occipital foramen to the fore-part of the skaill, and the very forward position of the
anterior edge of the condyles at its sides, are ob^-ious proofs of this statement. Of the
differences between the two base views, we may caU attention to the broader, rounder outline of
that of Theodorianus, intimately connected with the platy-cephaKc conformation of the skull.
The robust zygomatic arches also are much wder; the articular sui-face for the condyle of the
lower jaw is more spacious; the palate is a Uttle longer, but at the same time likewise broader
and more arched; the lower jaw is wider and more massive. They are both to be regarded as
impressive proofs of that beautiful construction which distinguishes the divine workmanship
in aU anatomical forms, simple or complex, and which is especiaUy concentrated in the human
cranium.
There is conclusive evidence in this noble cranium of Theodorianus—" thought's glorious
palace"—the like of which we by no means anticipate meeting with in the further course of our
laboiu-s, that he was a fine Roman, of tall stature, over whose premature decease a tender mother
might natui-aUy grieve with a deep sorrow. His native country was near the imperial city
itself; his family without doubt of consequence; and his residence in Britain possibly connected
with the command of the Legion which garrisoned Ebm-aoum for so many yeai-s, although this
is not referred to in the inscription. The very cii-cumstance of his exalted position and celebrity
might have been supposed at the time to supersede the necessity for such reference. Besides, if
his remaining, probably only surviving parent's grief was too poignant to be expressly aUuded to
on his sai-cophagus, so also .might it equally prevent the commemoration of his military
commands. ^
* Transactions of t t e Zoological Society of London, toI. i. p. 347, &c. 1835. See also Descriptive Catalogi
Series contained in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. ii. p. 785, 1853.
t Physical Researches, vol. i.
19.
Ì of Osteological
(5)
li ;
.Ii«:
M
fi
. j l ! '
Ili .!
.UH'
1 «t!'
i f
I:«-