240 
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN 
the Tasmanian. The width in the two palates shown 
in fig. 83 is ahnost the same, 72 mm. ; and the length 
is nearly the same, 60 mm. in the La Chapelle and 
62 mm. in the Heidelberg palate. From the palate 
we infer that the Heidelberg man cannot have stood 
much lower in the human scale than Neanderthal man 
of the Mousterian period. 
If we confine our attention to the teeth, we have no 
hesitation in assigning the Heidelberg jaw to a primitive 
variety or race of Neanderthal man. From the very 
first, anatomists have been struck by the apparent 
Fig. 84. — Profile of the Heidelberg mandible compared with a corresponding 
view of the mandible of an Australian native. 
discrepancy between the "humanity" of the teeth and 
the massive power — almost bestiality — of the jaw 
itself. The impression we obtain from a close inspection 
is one of its great strength. This is even noticeable 
when a comparison is made such as is shown in fig. 84. 
In that figure the Heidelberg mandible is shown in 
profile, and placed beside a corresponding view of the 
mandible of an Australian native. The comparison 
brings out an extreme degree of divergence. This is 
particularly evident in the ascending branch or ramus to 
which the muscles of mastication are attached. The size 
or area of this branch may be taken as an index of the 
size and strength of the muscles of mastication. In 
