the displacement will not exceed a magnitude of one, or, at most, three millimetres. With
this alone, we will, it is true, not yet explain that variety in the form of thé skull which not
only distinguishes one man from another, but has also been characterized as the type of
progeny and race. Notwithstanding its seeming insignificance, however, this muscular
action is a very important agent, and plays the principal part in the formation of thé skull,
although other circumstances of an auxiliary or restrictive nature must not be neglected—
circumstances which may increase, diminish, or modify this displacement.
“ The effect of this muscular action is considerably increased by superadded conditions.
The head rests upon the condyles of the occipital bone. Partly on account of muscular
action, and partly from the pressure of the brain, the basal bones of the skull are exposed
to a downward displacement : the condyloid portions of the occiput, alone, are not. This
impossibility to change their position parallel with the displacement of the other basal bones,
is equivalent to an upward pressure of the occipital condyles, and this must considerably
increase the downward traction of the stemo-cleido-mastoideus.
“ The occipital and temporal regions, then, are subjected to a downward traction, while
the condyles are pressed upward : moreover, the brain produces, upon all the basal bones
except the condyles, a downward pressure corresponding to its height ; at the partes condy-
loidea, this downward pressure is obviated by the resistance of the vertebral column.”
Notwithstanding the significance of the facts thus far adduced, it
has been boldly and unhesitatingly maintained that civilization—by
which is meant the aggregate intellectual and moral influences of
society — exerts a positive influence over the form and size of the
cranium, modifying not only its individual, but also its race-charac-
ters, to such an extent, indeed, as entirely to change the original
type of structure. This' doctrine finds its chief advocates among the
writers of the phrenological school, though it is not wholly confined
to them. Among its most recent supporters we find theBaron J. ~W.
d e M u l l e b , who, in a quarto pamphlet of 74 pages,87 devotes a section
to the consideration of the “ Action de Vintelligence sur les formes
de la tîte ;”
“ Nous espérons prouver,” says be, “ de même que les formes du crâne ont des rapports
intimes avec le degré de civilisation auquel un peuple est parvenu, et que par conséquent
elles non plus ne peuvent justifier une division en races des habitants de la terre, à moins
dé classer les hommes d’après leur plus ou moins d’intelligence, et de justifier ainsi, au nom
de la suprématie de la raison, non-seulment tous les abus de l’esclavage,mais encore toutes
les tyrannies individuelles.”
The subject-matter embodied in the above quotation, though professedly
obscure, is beginning to assume a more certain character in
consequence of the facts brought to light during the controversies
between the Unitarians and Diversitarians in Ethnology—facts which
intimately affect the great question of permanency of cranial types.
Confronted with the facts presently to be brought forward, it will be
seen that the doctrine of the mobility of cranial forms under the
87 Des Causes de la Coloration de la Peau et des différences dans les Formes du Crâne,
au point de vue de l’unité du genre humain. Par le Baron J. W de Muller. Stuttgart,
1853;
influence of education, &e., is by no means a settled fact, as many
of ite advocates appear to think. “ Speaking of the great races of
mankind very appropriately remarks D avis, “ whether it be in the
size of the brain, or whether in its, quality, or whether it be, as the
p renologists maintain, m the development of its particular parts
each race is endowed-with such special faculties of the mind, moral
and mtellectual as to impart to it a distinct and definite position
witinn which its powers and capabilities range. We know of no
valjd evidence that can be brought forward for thinking this definite
position can be varied in the mass. We may therefore take this
of skull ”™ questioning the assumed pliancy of the form
The indefatigable traveller and “Directeur du Jardin Royal de
Zoologie de Bruxelles,” has condensed in a few pages, at once the
best and most commonly used arguments to sustain the hypothesis
which constitutes the starting-point of the above-mentionefartici
has appeared to me not inappropriate to devote a few words in
is hasty sketch, to the' examination of the tenabilify of the two
most important examples adduced by Baron M., whose brochure I
subject to critical mquny, simply because it is one of the most concise
exponents of a generally-spread, but, as it appears to me, erroneous,
and therefore injurious view. And I am the more especially
urged to this, since the question of the permanency or non perma
tho 91 * r S °CCUpie8 the W^ e8t Philosophical position in
the entire field of Ethnographic inquiry. Its relations are, indeed
fundamental; _ for, -according as it is definitively settled in the affirmabranch
“ 'a ^ ^ ^ g r a p h y - e s p e c i a l l y the cranioscopical
g J and certainty of a science, or be de-
W m W S m M i ° l “ interesti^ merely speculative
the le i' S S I S1Z ain’ ’.says Mr- CoMBE> in allusion to
T*°rS ° a .°RT°?h,aS Polished in Crania Americana, “ and the
proportions of its different parts, be the index to natural national
skunsCofr’th APreSe-nt WOri ’ Which rePresents kulls of the American tribes, will be an authwenitthic grreecaotr dfi dinel iwtyh itchhe
mmeenotMal force ooff ^these gfafmeilSies yof» m»a nakpintid“. MIf" t^hpiso sditoicotnrisn,e a„bde
unfounded, these skulls are mere facts in Natural Histoiy presentppeXopllTe.
” PiI?f tthoelraer iben ftrhis aptie0rnm aanS ent0c y 1o11f6 cmraenniatal lf oqruma Iiitnie ’t8h eo gf rtehaet
but e^ 1 f P1Cal, 8t0cks- if’ in other words, Nature alters not
Idea T mV11? unchaugeably represents that primitive Divine
c a t io n ! ! t i I S iV 8 ^ M °bjective embodiment and indi- 16 n the labors of Blumenbach, Morton, Retzius, Nilsson,