OCR Text |
Show 204: THE CRANIAL CIIARACTERISTIOS I. "How much may tho o.no.tomiat sec in tho more skull of mo.n 1 !!ow much more the phyHiognomiijt I And how much tho most tho anatomist, who is o. phyRiognomist I I bluHh wbon I think how much I ought to know, and of how much I nm ignoro.nt, while writing on n po.rt of the body of mrm which is so superior to all tbnt soionoe ho.s yot discovered-to 1~11 belief, to o.ll concopt.ion I "I coHHider tho syslom of tho bonos o.s tho groat outline of mnn, o.nd the skull o.s tho prinoipo.l pnrt of tbo.t system." LAVATER, EuayB on Pli'!J8iognomy. A COMPRRTIENSIVE and carefully conducted inquiry into tho cranial characteristics of the races of men, constitutes a subject as unlimited in its extent and variety, as it is important in its results. Such an inqnir-y is essentially the zoological consideration of man, or, in otl1 r words, the consideration of man as a momboe of tho groat animal sori s, and the consequent application to him of those fundamental Jaws which concern tho subordination of parts, and tho establishment and COlT Jation of specific form . Th first stop in this inqniry, is the determination of tl10se differences by which we aro ona1)lcd to discriminate between tho human cranium and tl1at of tho lower orders of animals. LAWRENCE long ago indicated, in biH vahmlJlo Lectu1·es, tho importance of this pro duro. "As the monk y-mco," says he, "approach the nearest to man in structnro and actions, and their forms arc so much like tho ln1man, as to have procured for them the epithet, antlwopornorphous, we must compare them to man, in order to find out the sp ci fie charact rs of th latter; and we must institute this comp~ wison particularly with those called orang-outangs." 1 Such a comparison between tho crattium of a negro and that of a gorilla, has been admirably drawn by .Prof: Owcn.2 The second stop leads to a r cognition of the points of differ nco and rcsemblanco between ~~~ m~1ia ?f tho varions groups composing the human family. Now 1~1 clu·1.datmg these resemblances and diftorcnccs, wo lay tho foundatiOn o( anthropology, or man zoologically considered. But our cr:tnioscopy, to be propcely initiative or introductory to anthropolocry., must be comparativo,-not humanly comparative only, but ~o logteally. In other words, as nattll'alists-using that term in lt~> m st comprchcnHivc scHso-we must recognize tho commence- 1 I.octuros on Compnro.live An~tlomy, PhyAiology, 7.oology, and tho Natural History of Mnn. lly Wm. Lo.wronoe, J?.)t.S. London, 1848, p. 88. 2 DeRcriptiv() Cntnloguo of tho Ostoologioo.l Sorios oontnined in the Museum of tho Itoyo.l 'ollogo of Surgeons. 11. 78(). 1853. OF TilE H.ACES OF MEN. 20G mont of Cl'anioscopy in the lower series. If we first compare the crania of the lowest typ s of man with tlJc most antl1ropoid of those of tho monkey group, and then carcfnl ly observe th nature of tho relation between the so-called superior and inferior fo1·ms of ca •h group, resp cti vcly, and finally compare these relations together, we commcneo our studies properly. J!'or in so doing, we in reality study the extent, nature, and significance of tho wide gap which uppcars cfrcctually to separate man from Lhe bruLe creation. I say, appears- and I say it ~tdviscdly, inasmuch as in nature's plan thoro may be no gap at all; the intervening forms may have become extinct, they may, unk11own to us, be Jiving in some unexplored regions of the arth; Ot' th y mn.y yet app n.r, at some futuro period, to substantiate that harmonious and successional unity which seems to underlie the entire syf:!tcm of tho universe. In the accompanying table will bo found a series of :figures representing the juven il e, or immature, and adult skulls of tho anthropomol'phous monkeys, the aduH or 1 ermancnt forms of Lhc lower types both of men and monkeys, and, lastly, a well-known rcpr scntation of Lhc ]Jjo·hcst form of tllo "human head divine,"- all arranged in conformity wiLh what appears to be the indi ation of nature. Such an arrangement shows us, at a glauco, that among tbe difrcrcnt tribcH of monk ys, as among the various races of men, Lh ro aro numerous types or forms of skull ; that for ouch of these natural groups, thor is a gradation of cranial forms; that the greatest resemblances between tho two groups -resemblances indicating the existence of a transitiounry or connecting link as a part of nature's plan-arc to be sought £or in or bct'vvocn the lower tyr es of each, n.nd not boLwccn the lowest man and b ighcst monkey, as is generally supposed; that the undev lor cd crania of tho Chimpanzee, Orang, and other higher types of monkeys, more closely resemble the human form than when fully ovol vcd; tl1at for each of tho lower human types of skull, thoro app ars to exist among tho monkeys a rude roproscntativo, which seems remotely and imp rfectly to anticipate tho typical idea of the former, and to bear to it a certain ill-defined relation; and, lastly, that Lhe best formed human s1 ull stands immensely removed f1·om tho most perfectly elaborated monkey cranium. J!'rom tho comparative methods above rc£ n·cd to, we learn that the human head differs from that of tho brute creation in many important rospccts,-such as tho proportion between tho size and areas of the cranium and face, the relative situation of tho face, the direction and prominence of the maxillro, tho position and dire tion ofthe occipital foramen, the proportion of tho facial to tho cranialludf of the occipito-mcntal diameter, in tho absence of tho os intcr-maxillaro, I i |