646 GENERAL REMARKS 



either ancient or modern times ; that the Tasmanian skull could 

 scarcely be said to differ more from the modern European, nor 

 the Eskimo from the Andamanese, than some of the typically 

 elongated and wall-sided long- barrow skulls differ from the 

 broad and sub-spheroidal skulls of the bronze period. And (what- 

 ever may have been averred to the contrary) it might be said, 

 secondly, that though the Saxon series agreed with the long- 

 barrow series in being dolicho-cephalic, and though in a few 

 instances skulls from these two series were very closely like each 

 other, there was nevertheless no great difficulty in distinguishing 

 between these two series also, and even that in the individual cases 

 of similarity it was very rare not to be able to point, when all the 

 peculiarities of each skull were taken into account, some one or 

 more than one important point of difference either in the calvariae, 

 or in the facial bones, or in the lower jaws of the older and of the 

 more recent skull 1 . 



A third remark of equal generality and importance would be 

 suggested by this survey of these three sets of crania, to the effect 

 that though skulls very closely similar to the typical representatives 

 of either of the pre-historic series might be found upon living 

 shoulders amongst the present population of this country, the 

 elongated and fairly well-filled oval Anglo-Saxon cranium was 

 the prevalent form amongst us in England 2 at the present day. 



1 Many authorities may be cited for the proposition that the typical dolicho-cephalic 

 Scandinavian is not to be distinguished from the typical dolicho-cephalic Celtic skull. 

 Amongst these may be named Retzius and Sir William Wilde in Retzius' Ethnolo- 

 gische Schriften, p. 8, cit. Huxley in Prehistoric Remains of Caithness, p. 129 ; Nilsson, 

 Ancient Inhabitants of Scandinavia, ed. Lubbock, p. 117, and British Assoc. Report, 

 1847, p. 32 ; Omalius d'Halloy, cit. Virchow, Archiv fur Anthrop. vi. 1873, p. 114 ; Vir- 

 chow himself, Berlin Abhandlungen, 1876, p. 3 ; Ecker, Archiv f tir Anthrop. iii. 155 ; 

 Schaafhausen, Die Urform des Menschlichen Schadels, p. 5. Against all these 

 weighty authorities I have to set the fact that if I place a skull of one or other of 

 these two races before the skilful and very extensively experienced articulator and 

 restorer of prehistoric crania, Mr. W. Hine of the University Museum, without giving 

 him any hint of the archseological surroundings in which it was found, he will 

 ordinarily be right in his reference of the skull to one or other of these races. The 

 points of difference which thus guide to a right conclusion will appear in the descrip- 

 tion to be given in the text. 



2 In Germany anthropologists are not as yet at one as to whether the dolicho-cephalic 

 form of skull, which when combined with tall stature and light hair and complexion 

 has been usually considered to constitute ' Das Germanische Typus/ is at the present 

 day both outnumbered and qualitatively excelled by the brachy-cephalic type or 

 not. Ecker, in the Archiv f iir Anthrop. ix. 4, p. 259, 1877, expresses himself thus : 

 * Wissen wir doch z. B. dass die in unserem Lande einst so verbreitete Schadelform 

 der Reihen-Graber die wohl unzweifelhaft auch mit einer bestimmten Korperstatur 

 verbunden war, jetzt fast ganz einer anderen Form Platz gemacht hat, deren Trager 



