with, and to a certain extent represented in that of all other parts,50__
as the laws of the philosophico-transcendental anatomy seem firmly
to have established, —it will he evident that the cranium is the
index, so to speak, of the entire economy; for the relation between
the cranium on the one hand, and the face, thorax, and abdominal
organs, respectively, on the other, or, in other words, between the
cerebral or intellectual lobes of the brain, and the sensory ganglia,
and nerves, is the relation of mental powers to animal propensities,
and exactly upon this relation depends the nature and character of
the individual man, and the family group to which he naturally
belongs. Examples of this fact are everywhere to be found, alike in
the transitionary, as in the extreme specimens of the human series.
Thus it is a general and well-marked truth, that in those inferior
Races—the so-called prognathous — characterized by a narrow skull,
receding forehead, and enormous anterior development of the maxillae,
the mental is in entire abeyance to the animal; so that their
sensuality is only equalled by their stupidity, as one' might readily
infer from the ample accommodations for the organs of the senses.
The pyramidal type is another inferior form, singularly analogous to
the prognathous in certain respects, but differing from it in others
hereafter to be mentioned. Races possessing this form of cranium,
manifest corresponding peculiarities in intellectual power.
Undoubtedly, then, the human cranium recommends itself to our
earnest attention as the “ best epitome of man,”—the individual in
the concrete; or, as Zeune has beautifully expressed it, “ derBluthe
des ganzen organischen Leibes und Lebens;” and notwithstanding
the adaptation between it and the rest of the skeleton — an adaptation
declaring itself in relations of size, function, nutritive, and
developmental processes, &e.— we may study the cranium by and
for itself, with reasonable hopes of success.
As yet, the labors of the cranioscopist have given to anthropology
comparatively few fundamental and well established facts. Of these,
the most important, probably, as well as the best substantiated, is
that of the permanency and non-transmutability of cranial form and
characteristics. “ There is, on the whole,” says Lawrence, “ an undeniable,
nay, a very remarkable constancy of character in the crania
of different nations, contributing very essentially to national peculiarities
of form, and corresponding exactly to the features which
50 “ Tout être organisé forme un ensemble, un système unique et clos, dont les parties se
correspondent mutuellment, et concourent à la même action définitive par une réaction
réciproque. Aucune de ces parties ne peut changer sans que les autres ne changent aussi,
et par conséquent chacune d’elles prise séparément indique et donne toutes les autres.”
Cuviek. Discour» sur ha Révolutions du Globe; rédigés par le Dr. Iloefer. Paria, 1850, p. 62.
characterize such nations.” 5’ For does this fact stand alone. It is
associated with another which should never be lost sight of in all
our speculations upon the unity or diversity, geographical origin and
distribution, affiliation and antiquity of the races of men. I allude
to that insensible gradation which appears to be the law of cranial
forms, no less than of all the. objects in nature. From the isolation
and exclusive consideration of these facts, have resulted not a few
erroneous assertions, which have tended to embarrass' the science.
Ihus, it has been considered, in general, a matter of but little difficulty
to discriminate between the crania of different races But
those who are accustomed to this kind of examination, know that
tins statement is true only for the standard or typical forms of verv
diverse races, and that as soon as certain divergent forms of two
allied races or families are compared, the difficulties become verv
apparent. On the other hand, it has been affirmed, that in any
one nation it is easy to point out entirely dissimilar types of configuration.
Thus the distinguished anatomist, Prof. M. J. W e b e r
misled apparently by the restricted and artificial classification of
Biumenbagh, arrives at the general conclusion that “ there is no
I H M B l of a race-form of the cranium so firmly
attached that it may not be found in some other race.”® The
assumption of the universality of certain ethnical forms, though
eountenanced by more than one writer, does not rest upon sufficient
evidence, to warrant its acceptance. Another prevalent but equally
gratuitous notion is, that the more ancient the heads, the more they
tend to approximate one primitive form or type. What this primitive
model is like, has not, as far as I can learn, been indicated
Again, a confusion highly detrimental to the philosophical status
and scientific progress of Ethnology, has resulted from the unjustifiable
assumption, that resemblances in cranial form and characteristics
necessarily betoken, m a greater or less degree, congenital affilia-
lons. It by no means follows, as some appear to have thought that
because widely and persistently discrepant forms are unrelated ab
origme, — closely coincident forms are as exact indications of such
primary relation. To say that the Polar man, - the Eskimo of
America and the Samoyede of Asia, — should in all natural classification
be associated, or at least placed in juxtaposition with certain
. . . racfa of to® tropics, in consequence of well-marked cranial
familiarities, is a fact as singular as it is true; but to conclude from
these similarities alone, that they are affiliated and have one common
51 Lectures, &c., p. 225.
82 Crania Britannica, p. 4. — Die Lehre von den Ur- und Racen-Fonnen der Schädel und
Becken des Menschen, S. 5, 1830. ocnaaei nnq
11