596 DESCRIPTION OF FIGURES OP SKULLS. 



than most even of the roughest hewn skulls of the Bronze Period 

 to justify the comparison which Dr. Thurnam 1 instituted between 

 them and the macrognathous Maori crania. This skull having been 

 much broken, most of its measurements, as reconstructed, have 

 to be taken with qualification ; its great weight however, 2 Ib. 4*9 oz. 

 av., the lower jaw included, but much loss of other bone having 

 been incurred, as against a weight for the much more nearly 

 perfect skull and lower jaw, here figured, of 1 Ib. 10 oz. 10 grs. av., 

 is unambiguously indicative as to its great size. Skulls differing 

 from these mainly in the comparatively unimportant particular 

 of a lesser frontal obliquity will be found figured in the ' Crania 

 Helvetica ' of His and Riitimeyer, t. ii. p. 130, and in V. Baer's 

 description of the crania and people of the Graubundten 2 . Even 

 more closely similar are the figures of the Borreby skull and of the 

 Ledbury skull given by Professor Huxley in Sir Charles Ly ell's 

 < Antiquity of Man/ p. 91, 4th ed. 1873, and in 'Prehistoric 

 Remains of Caithness,' 1866, p. 114. In none of these cases 

 however, with the single exception of the Borreby skull, have we 

 decisive proof of their having belonged to a Praemetallic Period. 

 No skulls resembling them in their distinctive characters have come 

 into my hands from any British burial-place belonging to the 

 Stone Age. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this variety 

 of the brachy-cephalic skull has survived and is represented 

 amongst us in modern days. Dr. Beddoe 3 , for example, and 

 Professor Virchow 4 , have both specially remarked upon the like- 

 ness borne by certain modern Danish heads to some of the ancient 

 Borreby crania ; and their characteristics are even exaggerated in 

 a presumably modern cranium figured by M. Topinard in his 

 L'Anthropologie, 1876, p. 298, fig. 37. 



A few references have been given above, pp. 572, 573 note, to memoirs bearing upon 

 the production of cranial deformities artificially though undesignedly. 



The bibliography of artificially and designedly produced deformities is very much 

 more extensive. The following list will be found to comprise the most important 

 notices of and memoirs upon the practice. 



Hippocrates, Ucpt aepow vSdrcav rowcav, ed. Littre, torn. ii. pp. 59, 60, 14; ed. Kuhn, 

 torn. i. p. 551 ; ed. Lind, i. 348, 349 ; ed. Ermerius, torn. i. 1859, p. 268. 'EiriSrjfuajv, 

 ed. Littre", torn. v. p. 80; ii. 8. Coray's note, p. 224, torn. ii. 1800, in his translation 

 of the former treatise is worth reading. 



Strabo, xi. 16. p. 520. 



1 Principal Forms of Ancient British and .Gaulish Skulls, 1865, pp. 31, 102. 



2 Bulletin de FAcad. Imp. des Sciences de Saint Pe"tersbourg, vol. i. 1860; or 

 Melanges biologiques tires du Bulletin, t. iii. 



3 Mem. Soc. Anth. London, vol. iii. p. 383. 



4 Archiv fiir Anthropolog-io, vol. iv. p. 71, 1860. 



