On Some Fossil Remains of Man — Story, Setting & Ideas

Two Fossil Crania Under the Scalpel

Huxley devotes the opening pages to a meticulous description of the Engis and Neanderthal skulls, relying on measurements and anatomical landmarks rather than speculation. The Engis skull, he notes, has a glabello-occipital length of 12 inches and a horizontal circumference of 23 inches, but the large supraciliary ridges give the forehead a more retreating appearance than its internal contour would warrant. The Neanderthal skull is even more striking: its occipital protuberance occupies the extreme posterior end, and the lambdoidal suture sits well upon the upper surface of the cranium. Huxley quotes Dr. Fuhlrott's description of the occipital bone's ridges and depressions, and he points out that the posterior cerebral lobes must have projected considerably beyond the cerebellum—a feature that resembles certain Australian skulls. These observations are not presented as proof of a missing link, but as anatomical facts that need interpretation.

The Range of Human Variation

Before addressing whether these fossils bridge the gap between man and apes, Huxley insists on surveying the normal variation in human anatomy. He states bluntly that “there is not a single organ of the human body the structure of which does not vary, to a greater or less extent, in different individuals.” The skeleton varies in proportions and connections; muscles vary in attachments; arteries are classified by their shiftings; and the brain varies immensely in form, size, and convolution richness. Most tellingly, he identifies the most changeable structures in the human brain as exactly those on which some have tried to base humanity's distinctive characters—the posterior cornu. This passage serves as a methodological warning: any claim about fossil remains must be tested against the known range of modern human diversity.

Comparative Cranial Measurements

Huxley presents a series of diagrams and numerical comparisons that starkly illustrate the cranial differences between apes and humans. In one example, he compares the cerebral length relative to the basicranial axis: in a beaver it is 70 to 100, in a lemur 119 to 100, in a baboon 144 to 100, in an adult male gorilla 170 to 100, in a Negro 236 to 100, and in a Constantinople skull 266 to 100. He remarks that “the cranial difference between the highest ape's skull and the lowest man's is therefore very strikingly brought out by these measurements.” Yet he does not claim that the fossil skulls fall into an intermediate position; instead, he uses these ratios to establish the scale of the gap. The reader is left to wonder whether the Engis and Neanderthal specimens will narrow that gap or remain within the range of modern human variation.

Cautious Inference from Imperfect Evidence

Throughout the excerpts, Huxley repeatedly hedges his conclusions. He notes that the Neanderthal skull's transverse arc “cannot be exactly ascertained, in consequence of the absence of the temporal bones.” He acknowledges that his sketch of human variation is “very imperfect” because the subject has been “but imperfectly studied.” When he points out similarities between the Neanderthal cranium and Australian skulls, he does so tentatively, as one among several points of resemblance. The lecture's central question—whether these fossils diminish the structural interval between man and apes—remains open at the end of the provided text. Huxley's approach is that of a comparative anatomist who values precise description over premature synthesis, and he expects his reader to weigh the evidence without rushing to judgment.

Huxley's lecture rewards readers who attend to the details of cranial anatomy and the logic of comparative measurement. The excerpts do not resolve whether the Engis and Neanderthal skulls are simply variants of modern humans or something more transitional; Huxley deliberately withholds a firm conclusion until he has laid out the full range of human variation. A first reading is best approached as a lesson in scientific method: observe the measurements, note the cautions, and resist the urge to treat the fossils as definitive proof of evolution. The text itself is a model of how to handle fragmentary evidence with intellectual honesty.

I remember Huxley’s caution over those brittle skulls, how he measured them so gently, knowing bones keep their secrets. There is a similar patience in the Maya reports, a folder of voices and carvings waiting. Both books ask us to sit quietly with incomplete things. Sometimes, Reports on the Maya Indians of Yucatan — Reading Companion feels like a whispered answer to that old lecture’s open question.