OCR Text |
Show 124 tained in the breccia, of which we have spoken; it was found in the lower part above the cranium : add to this some metacarpal bones, found at very different distances, half-adozen metatarsals, three phalanges of the hand, and one of the foot. This is a brief enumeration of the remains of human bones collected in the cavern of Engis, which has preserved for us the remains of three individuals, surrounded by those of the Elephant, of the Rhinoceros, and of Carnivora of species u~known in the present creation." From the cave of Engihoul, opposite that of Engis, on the right bank of the Meuse, Schmerling obtained the remains of three other indjviduals of Man, among which were only two fragments of parietal bones, but many bones of the extremities. In one case, a broken fragment of an ulna was soldered to a like fragment of a radius by stalagmite, a condition frequently observed am\"'ng the bones of the Cave Bear ( Ursus spelceus), found in the Belgian caverns. It was in the cavern of Engis that Professor Schmerling found, incrusted with stalagmite and joined to a stone, the · pointed bone implement, which he has figured in fig. 7 of his Plate XXXVI, and worked flints were found by him in all those Belgian caves, which contained an abundance of fossil bones. A short letter from M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, published in the Comptes Rendus of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, for July 2nd, 1838, speaks of a visit (and apparently a very hasty one) paid to the collection of Professor 'Schermidt' (which is presumably a misprint for Schmerling) at Liege. The writer briefly criticises the drawings which illustrate Schmerling's work, and affirms that the "human cranium is a little longer than it is represented" in Schmerling's figure. The only other remark worth quoting is this:" The aspect of the human bones differs little from that of the cave bones, with which we are familiar, and of which 125 there is a considerable collection in the same place. With respect to their special forms, compared with those of the varieties of recent human crania, few certain conclusions can be put forward; for much greater differences exist between the different specimens of well.characterizcd varieties, than between the fossil cranium of Liege and that of one of those varieties selected as a term of comparison." Geoffroy St. I-Iilaire's remarks are, it will be observed, little but an echo of the philosophic doubts of the describer and discoverer of the remains. As to the critique upon Schmerling's figures, I find that the side view given by the latter is really about f0ths of an inch shorter than the original, and that the front view is diminished to about the same extent. Otherwise the representation is not, in any way, inaccurate, but corresponds very well with the cast which is in my possession. A piece of the occipital bone, which Schmerling seems to have missed, has since been fitted on to the re.st of the cranium by an accomplished anatomist, Dr. Spring of Liege, under whose direction an excellent plaster cast was made for Sir Charles Lyell. It is upon and from a duplicate of that cast that my own observations and the accompanying figures, the outlines of which are copied from ve.ry accurate Camera lucida drawings, by my friend Mr. Busk, reduced to onehalf of the natural size, are made. As Professor Schmerling observes, the base of the skull is destroyed, and the facial bones are entirely absent; but the roof of the cranium, consisting of the frontal, parietal, and the greater part of the occipital bones, as far as the middle of the occipital foramen, is entire or nearly so. The left temporal bone is wanting. Of the right temporal, the parts in the immediate neighbourhood of the auditory foram en, the mastoid process, and a considerable portion of the squamous element of the temporal are well preserved (Fig. 23.). The lines of fracture which remain between the coadjustcd pieces of the skull, and are faithfully displayed in Sohmer- |