UPON THE SERIES OF PREHISTORIC CRANIA. 243 



roidal;' and finally of 'massive and powerful' in an eminently 

 emphatic manner. 



When a considerable number of skulls from any one barrow of 

 the stone and bone period, such as those spoken of at pp. 539-541 

 of ' British Barrows/ are arranged in a single line upon a long table 

 along another line of the surface of which a corresponding number of 

 the brachycephalic crania of the bronze period, and along a third a 

 corresponding number of Anglo-Saxon crania are similarly arranged, 

 the following remarks suggest themselves to the craniographer. 

 It might be said, firstly, that the two sets of pre-Saxon skulls were 

 well nigh as distinct and as sharply contrasted as any other sets 

 of skulls which it is possible to put alongside of each other from 

 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 dolichocephalic, 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 out, 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 . 



1 Many authorities may be cited for the proposition that the typical dolichocephalic 

 Scandinavian is not to be distinguished from the typical dolichocephalic Celtic skull. 

 Amongst these may be named Eetzius 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. 1 17, and ' British Assoc. Report,' 

 1847, P- 3 2 J Omalius d'Halloy, cit. Virchow, « Archiv fur Anthrop.' vi. 1873, p. 114; 

 Virchow himself, « Berliner Abhandlungen,' 1876, p. 3 • Ecker, 'Archiv fiir 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 archaeological 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 



R a 





