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 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…characterized varieties； than between the fossil cranium of Liege
and that of one of those varieties selected as a term of comparison。〃
Geoffroy St。 Hilaire'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 3/10ths 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 rest 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 very accurate Camera
lucida drawings； by my friend Mr。 Busk； reduced to one…half 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
foramen； the mastoid process； and a considerable portion of the
squamous element of the temporal are well preserved （Fig。 22）。
The lines of fracture which remain between the coadjusted pieces of the
skull； and are faithfully displayed in Schmerling's figure； are readily
traceable in the cast。 The sutures are also discernible； but the
complex disposition of their serrations； shown in the figure； is not
obvious in the cast。 Though the ridges which give attachment to muscles
are not excessively prominent； they are well marked； and taken together
with the apparently well developed frontal sinuses； and the condition
of the sutures； leave no doubt on my mind that the skull is that of an
adult； if not middle…aged man。
The extreme length of the skull is 7。7 inches。 Its extreme breadth；
which corresponds very nearly with the interval between the parietal
protuberances； is not more than 5。4 inches。 The proportion of the
length to the breadth is therefore very nearly as 100 to 70。 If a line
be drawn from the point at which the brow curves in towards the root of
the nose； and which is called the 'glabella' （'a'） （Fig。 22）； to the
occipital protuberance （'b'）； and the distance to the highest point of
the arch of the skull be measured perpendicularly from this line； it
will be found to be 4。75 inches。 Viewed from above； Fig。 23； A； the
forehead presents an evenly rounded curve； and passes into the contour
of the sides and back of the skull； which describes a tolerably regular
elliptical curve。
The front view （Fig。 23； B） shows that the roof of the skull was very
regularly and elegantly arched in the transverse direction； and that
the transverse diameter was a little less below the parietal
protuberances； than above them。 The forehead cannot be called narrow in
relation to the rest of the skull； nor can it be called a retreating
forehead； on the contrary； the antero…posterior contour of the skull is
well arched； so that the distance along that contour； from the nasal
depression to the occipital protuberance； measures about 13。75 inches。
The transverse arc of the skull； measured from one auditory foramen to
the other； across the middle of the sagittal suture； is about 13
inches。 The sagittal suture itself is 5。5 inches long。
The supraciliary prominences or brow…ridges （on each side of 'a'； Fig。
22） are well； but not excessively； developed； and are separated by a
median depression。 Their principal elevation is disposed so obliquely
that I judge them to be due to large frontal sinuses。
If a line joining the glabella and the occipital protuberance （'a'； 'b'；
Fig。 22） be made horizontal； no part of the occipital region projects
more than 1/10th of an inch behind the posterior extremity of that
line； and the upper edge of the auditory foramen （'c'） is almost in
contact with a line drawn parallel with this upon the outer surface of
the skull。
A transverse line drawn from one auditory foramen to the other
traverses； as usual； the forepart of the occipital foramen。 The
capacity of the interior of this fragmentary skull has not been
ascertained。
The history of the Human remains from the cavern in the Neanderthal may
best be given in the words of their original describer； Dr
Schaaffhausen*； as translated by Mr。 Busk。
＇footnote＇ *ON THE CRANIA OF THE MOST ANCIENT RACES OF MAN。
By Professor D。 Schaaffhausen； of Bonn。 （From Muller's
'Archiv'。； 1858； pp。 453。） With Remarks； and original
Figures； taken from a Cast of the Neanderthal Cranium。 By
George Busk； F。R。S。； etc。 'Natural History Review'。 April；
1861。
〃In the early part of the year 1857； a human skeleton was discovered in
a limestone cave in the Neanderthal； near Hochdal； between Dusseldorf
and Elberfeld。 Of this； however； I was unable to procure more than a
plaster cast of the cranium； taken at Elberfeld； from which I drew up
an account of its remarkable conformation； which was； in the first
instance； read on the 4th of February； 1857； at the meeting of the
Lower Rhine Medical and Natural History Society； at Bonn。*
＇footnote＇ *'Verhandl。 d。 Naturhist。' Vereins der preuss。
Rheinlande und Westphalens。； xiv。 Bonn； 1857。
Subsequently Dr。 Fuhlrott； to whom science is indebted for the
preservation of these bones； which were not at first regarded as human；
and into whose possession they afterwards came； brought the cranium
from Elberfeld to Bonn； and entrusted it to me for more accurate
anatomical examination。 At the General Meeting of the Natural History
Society of Prussian Rhineland and Westphalia； at Bonn； on the 2nd of
June； 1857；* Dr Fuhlrott himself gave a full account of the locality；
and of the circumstances under which the discovery was made。
＇footnote＇ *'Ib。 Correspondenzblatt。 No。 2。
He was of opinion that the bones might be regarded as fossil； and in
coming to this conclusion； he laid especial stress upon the existence
of dendritic deposits； with which their surface was covered； and which
were first noticed upon them by Professor Meyer。 To this communication
I appended a brief report on the results of my anatomical examination of
the bones。 The conclusions at which I arrived were：1st。 That the
extraordinary form of the skull was due to a natural conformation
hitherto not known to exist； even in the most barbarous races。 2nd。
That these remarkable human remains belonged to a period antecedent to
the time of the Celts and Germans； and were in all probability derived
from one of the wild races of North…western Europe； spoken of by Latin
writers； and which were encountered as autochthones by the German
immigrants。 And 3rdly。 That it was beyond doubt that these human
relics were traceable to a period at which the latest animals of the
diluvium still existed； but that no proof of this assumption； nor
consequently of their so…termed 'fossil' condition； was afforded by the
circumstances under which the bones were discovered。
FIG。 23。The Engis skull viewed from above （A） and in front （B）。
〃As Dr。 Fuhlrott has not yet published his description of these
circumstances； I borrow the following account of them from one of his
letters。 'A small cave or grotto； high enough to admit a man； and
about 15 feet deep from the entrance； which is 7 or 8 feet wide； exists
in the southern wall of the gorge of the Neanderthal； as it is termed；
at a distance of about 100 feet from the Dussel； and about 60 feet
above the bottom of the valley。 In its earlier and uninjured
condition； this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying in front of
it； and from which the rocky wall descended almost perpendicularly into
the river。 It could be reached； though with difficulty； from above。
The uneven floor was covered to a thickness of 4 or 5 feet with a
deposit of mud； sparingly intermixed with rounded fragments of chert。
In the removing of this deposit； the bones were discovered。 The skull
was first noticed； placed nearest to the entrance of the cavern； and
further in； the other bones； lying in the same horizontal plane。 Of
this I was assured； in the most positive terms； by two labourers who
were employed to clear out the grotto； and who were questioned by me on
the spot。 At first no idea was entertained of the bones being human；
and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they were
recognised as such by me； and placed in security。 But； as the
importance of the discovery was not at the time perceived； the
labourers were very careless in the collecting； and secured chiefly
only the larger bones； and to this circumstance it may be attributed
that fragments merely of the probabl