guinity to be sufficiently well demonstrated,172 and cites L eemitts,
Gn n n er u s , P orthan, I hre, B ask, and others as advocates of this
opinion. Opposed to this identity, however, are the well-marked
physical differences observed by nearly all the travellers who have
visited these people. Linnteus, long ago, pointed out, in the concise
terms of the naturalist, the most prominent of these differences.
“ Fennones corpore toroso, capillis flavis prolixis, oculorum iridibus
fuscis. Lappones corpore parvo, capillis nigris, brevibus, rectis;
oculorum iridibus nigrescentibus.” Very ingenious theories*have
been advanced to reconcile this assumed consanguinity with the
anatomical differentiae above indicated. Thus Von Buch ascribes
this difference to the fact, that of the two people, the Finns alone
use hot baths and warm clothing. Long separation and exposure to
different physical influences have also been deemed sufficient to
account for the discrepancy.
In consideration of the animated controversy which has been
carried on by the learned concerning the relationship of the Lapp
and the Finlander, it may be well to introduce here the carefully
drawn description of an Esthonian skull, originally published in
Latin by Dr. A. IIueck, of Dorpat.173 There are reasons for considering
the Finnic type to be preserved in its greatest purity among
the Esthonians. These people appear to be the indigence of Esthonia;
at least, “ no earlier population seems to have preceded them.”174
“ In the Esthonian race,” says Dr. H., “ the skull, though angular, is not very rohust.
A square form is most frequently observed, and even when it passes into an oval shape,
which is often the case, it presents a well-defined appearance of angularity. A pyramidal
or wedge-like figure (forma cuneata) is more rarely encountered, and it has never happened
to me to observe a round Esthonian skull.
“ At first sight, the calvaria, when compared with the facial skeleton, appears large;
and, if viewed from above or behind, square: for not only are the parietal bosses very
prominent, but the occiput, in the region of the superior linea semicircularis, is strongly
arched both posteriorly and towards the sides. The sinciput is a little less broad than the
occiput; the forehead is plane, less gibbous than usual and low. The frontal breadth is
only apparent, because the more projecting external orbitar process, with the equally
prominent malar bones below, is continuous with the smoother posterior part of the semicircular
line of the os frontis. The temporal fossa is capacious, though not very deep, and
is terminated anteriorly by the firm posterior margin of .the frontal process of the malar
bone, and externally by a sufficiently strong zygomatic arch, under which juts out in the
posterior side the articular tubercle or crest, by which the zygomatic arch is continued
above the external opening of the ear. Moreover, the condyloid processes of the occipital
bone appear to, me larger and more prominent than in the other skulls. On the other hand,
172 Researches, iii., 297.
113 We Craniis Estonum commentatio anthropologies qua viro illustrissimo Joanni Theo-
doro Busgh, doctoris dignitatem impetratam gratulatup Ordo. Med. Univers. Dorpatensis,
interprete Dr. Alexander Hueck, Dorpati Livonorum, 1838, 4to., pp. 7-10.
1,4 See Latham’s Native Races of the Russian Empire, p. 75.
the mastoid process, in all the (Esthonian) skulls which I have examined, is small and less
rough; the Russian crania, on the oontrary, exoel in long and thick mastoid processes.
Not more developed is the external oicipital protuberance; nor in genera] are the impressions
of the muscles very conspicuous on the occipital bone.
“ Upon comparing the base of the skull, I have found no differences of greater moment.
However, the internal occipital protuberance appears to me greater than usual; the crucial
lines are strongly characterized, and the transverse furrows deeper. While the ossa petrosa
project considerably into the cranial cavity, the os occipitale, where it forms the inferior
occipital fossa, is less convex; hence, from this conformation, the space occupied by the
cerebellum is manifestly narrowed. Nothing else is observable, except that the depressions
in the anterior part of the cranium .present a more angular form, and, finally, the jugular
foramina appear to me larger than in the skulls of other races of men.
“ The facial part, compared with the calvaria, is small, broad;' and low. The breadth
(of the face) is produced, not so much by the development of the malar bones, as in skulls
of the Mongohan variety, but rather by it greater prominence of the malar process of the
superior maxilla. On this account, the' inter-malar, compared with the frontal, diameter,
appears much greater than in ^Europeans in general. Hence, the external orbital margins
are flared out more, the distance between these margins is greater than the breadth of forehead,
and the orbits themselves are wider. Therefore, the malar process of the maxillary
bone, being thus rendered more prominent, the antrum Highmorianum becomes necessarily
more capacious. For a similar reason, the sphenoidal sinuses, also, are deeper than in
German heads. And even the ceils of the ethmoid are greater, and the paper-like lamina,
which is ordinarily vertical, is rather arched in the Esthonians, and projects towards the
orbit,^blending gradually with the orbital surface of the body of the superior r f . The
frontal sinuses are very large, which, in the external aspect, is indicated by a prominent
glabella and projecting superciliary arches. . . . .
“ The malar process of the upper maxilla is stronger than usual; on the other hand, the
frontal and alveolar processes of the same bone are shorter; hence, the whole face, from
the naso-frontal suture to the alveolar margin, is shortened in length. This broad and longitudinally
contracted form of the face especially affects the form of the orbits, and gives
to the skull of the Esthonians'its most characteristic type. For, in comparison with their
breadth, the orbits are low, and transversely oblong or almost square in shape. This appearance
depends upon the above-mentioned proportions of the superior maxilla, and is
the more noticeable, because the supra-orbital margin descends lower under a very convex
superciliary arch, and is less curved in shape, while, opposite to it, the infra-orbital margin
also makes a very prominent edge.™ . . . . Antero-posteriorly, the orbit is somewhat
deeper than m other skulls, and, on account of the contracted entrance (Immilcm introitum)
appears to be deeper than it really is.
“ The root of the nose, above which the glabella projects considerably, is compressed and
flat, and the nasal bones, but little arched, terminate in a pyriform aperture. The frontal
process of the upper maxillary bone being shorter, and the alveolar process lower, and, at
the same time, the body of the upper maxillary bone less broad than usual, the space surrounded
by the teeth is necessarily narrower. The incisor teeth of the upper jaw are
seldom perpendicular, but incline obliquely forwards, so that their alveolar edge, not formed
as in other crania, at the angle of the foramen incisivum, merges gradually into the hard
palate. The peculiar evolution of the organs inservient to mastication, gives rise to differences
even in the skull. For the whole surface of the temporal fossa is more exactly de-
1,5 The prominence of the malar bones, the narrowness'of the-orbits, and the squareness
of their margins, was also observed about Dorpat, by Isenflamm (Anatomische TJntersuch-
ungen. Erlangen, 1822, pp. 254-6). C. S e id i i t z appears to have been the first to describe
the form of the orbits accurately; he has attempted to show that this form gave rise to two
affections, common in this region — trichiasis and entropium. (Dissertatio Inaugurate de
Jrraidpuis Oculorum Morbis inter Esthonos obviis Dorpati Livonorum, 1821.)