6 J. V. HULTKEANTZ 



be dismissed. It is true that many authors regard the scaphocephalie 

 deformity as a sign of degeneracy and that a not inconsiderable pro- 

 portion of scaphocephalie individuals is found to be psychically de- 

 ficient. There are, however, several cases known, which prove that 

 even a pronounced deformity of this kind does not exclude a high 

 intellectual and moral development. But the supposition that Swe- 

 denboeg's head was scaphocephalie seems for various reasons not 

 very probable. A wig from the 17th century was certainly able to 

 conceal a considerable deformity of the brainpan, but as the death- 

 mask in Fig. 7 shows, the scaphocephalies of higher degree ordinarily 

 have a very characteristic facial type, which does not agree with the 

 portraits of Swedenboeg. 



But there are other reasons which prove with greater cer- 

 tainty that the scaphocephalie Wellclose Square skull cannot be 

 Swedenboeg's. In my above-cited account I have described and re- 

 produced a part of a lower jawbone which was found in the coffin of 

 Swedenboeg. Its position amongst the other skeletal remains and its 

 agreement with these as to the state of preservation made it most 

 probable that it was genuine.^ I showed also on page 57 how well 

 the condition of the teethrests in the jawbone agrees with the condi- 



^ I insist decidedly upon this statement in refutation of the insinuation expressed in 

 an article in »The East London Observer» for March 9th, 1912, that the whole skeleton in 

 the coffin of Swedenborg may have been a substitute. For anyone who has conscientiously 

 read the Proceedings at the examination of Swedenborg's coffin, Upsala, May 29th, 1908, and 

 the analysis of the facts in my above cited account, no doubts can persist that the coffin is 

 Swedenborg's and that the skeletal remains in its lower part still lying enveloped in the 

 shroud had never been removed from their original position. The contradiction in the state- 

 ments of HiNDMARSH aud Wåhi.in referred to is easy to understand when one considers that 

 only the upper part of the leaden coffin had been opened up to 1908. 



This article, as well as several others issued in the same newspaper for February 

 and March last, dealing with »The Mystery of the Skull», make zealous efforts to vindicate 

 the Wellclose Square skull's being Swedenborg's, and to that end render the conclusion of 

 the scientific Committee at Upsala a matter of suspicion. As they do not bring to light a 

 smgle new fact, but only a series of hypotheses without rear grounds, and moreover contain 

 several mistakes and perversions of facts, quite obvious to everyone acquainted with the 

 question, it seems unnecessary to enter into a detailed reply. It will be enough to state that 

 the reproach that the Committee has not used for comparison with the skull the portrait of 

 Swedenborg painted in 1785 by J. Hindmarsh, falls before the circumstance that this picture, 

 in spite of repeated inquiries, has not been recovered, and for the time being may be re- 

 garded as lost. For the rest I refer to my above-cited paper, which contains all facts 

 necessary to elucidate the quality of the articles in »The East London Observer». 



