148 THE HUMAN SKULL 



space lost by the retreating forehead and 

 flattened occiput. Perhaps, however, Schwalbe's 

 conspectus of the differences of opinion as to 

 this skull, published in his paper of 1901, will, 

 more eloquently than anything else, illustrate 

 the conflict of opinion which has raged round it. 

 And it may be added that other views as to this 

 skull might have found a place in this conspectus. 

 Here then is the list of opinions : 



I. It is no typical skull, but is a modified in- 

 dividual type. 



1. The modification has occurred through 

 too early union of the sutures which separate 

 the individual bones of the skull from one 

 another. Barnard Davis. 



2. The skull belonged to an idiot. Blake, 

 C. Vogt (at one time), Pruner-Bey (at one 

 time), Holder, Zittel. 



3. The skull shows so many pathological 

 changes, as indeed does the whole skeleton, 

 that it cannot be taken as the type of a race. 

 Virchow (1872), Ranke. 



II. The skull is one belonging to a still exist- 

 ing race. 



1. It is quite a recent Kossack skull. 

 Mayer. 



2. It belongs to a historic race. 



(a) Old Kelt or German. Pruner-Bey 



(at one time). 



(b) Old Dutch or Frisian. R. Wagner. 



(c) Frisian. Virchow (1876). 



