THE SO-CALLED { CELTIC ' CRANIUM. 157 



crania, obtained by me from Frilford, I have classed as aged ; it is 

 needless to say that this very high average of senility is as cha- 

 racteristic of a state of civilisation as the surroundings of the 

 tenants of long barrows are of barbarism ; secondly, the average 

 height of these individuals was 5 ft. 8-3 in., whereas the average 

 height of the dolichocephalic Britons from long barrows is <nven 

 as 5 ft. 6 in. Finally, the dolichocephalic Celt, whose distinctness 

 I am advocating, survives to the present day, and I am a little 

 doubtful whether as much can be said for his rougher dolicho- 

 cephalic representative. I am aware that there are points of 

 resemblance, as well as points of difference, between these two 

 types ; and I am also aware, and indeed would suggest, that the 

 points of difference may be referable to differences of culture. 

 But within the limits of any one species, whether vegetable or 

 animal, brute or human, differences produced by culture seem to 

 me as great as any other. It is in favour certainly of their kin- 

 ship, that they appear, both of them together, in the same cemetery, 

 as at Dinnington ; whereas neither of them has ever been found by 

 me so interred as to make it seem probable that their owners ever 

 occupied one area simultaneously and in peace with the brachy- 

 cephalic British Celt. There are several explanations for this fact, 

 if fact it be ; I leave them to what the Germans would call the 

 Willkuhr of the historian. I will just remark that anthropologists, 

 in whom the tendency I have just mentioned is little less marked, 

 have observed that a certain furrow or rainure, which Von Baer 

 has noted in the Aleutians (see ' Crania Selecta,' p. %6$ (25) ), and 

 I have seen in Eskimos, is, according to their Willkuhr, sometimes 

 characteristic and sometimes not (Pruner Bey, ' Bull. Soc. Anth.,' 

 'Of the Celt,' Paris, 1863, and M. Bonte, 'Bull. Soc. Anth.,' Paris, 

 1864, vol. v). I can only say that it sometimes is and sometimes 

 is not found in these crania, and that its presence or absence seems 

 to me to depend simply upon the necessity which the posterior 

 parts of the parietal bones may or not be under to accommodate 

 themselves to the requirements of a growing or not growing brain, 

 whilst under no circumstances are their apposed portions, under- 

 laid by the longitudinal sinus, under any obligation so to accom- 

 modate themselves. It is, I apprehend, in a somewhat similar 

 way that the presence of a transverse, wide, and shallow furrow, 

 a little way posteriorly to the coronal suture, is to be explained, as 



