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

(0 User reviews)   131
In Category - Anthropology
Huxley, Thomas Henry, 1825-1895 Project Gutenberg 2001 Not confirmed
Human beings; Apes; Ethnology Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 14,657
Reading time 64 min
Text sections 2

This digital edition of On Some Fossil Remains of Man — Story, Setting & Ideas is described by source-level measurements including 14,657 words, 1 hr 4 min estimated reading time, and 2 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 25.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Human beings,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Huxley's 1863 lecture examines two fossil human skulls from Engis and Neanderthal, using precise cranial measurements to compare them with modern humans and apes, while cautioning against overinterpreting limited evidence.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

Produced by Amy E. Zelmer

ON SOME FOSSIL REMAINS OF MAN

I HAVE endeavoured to show, in the preceding Essay, that the ANTHROPINI, or Man Family, form a very well defined group of the Primates, between which and the immediately following Family, the CATARHINI, there is, in the existing world, the same entire absence of any transitional form or connecting link, as between the CATARHINI and PLATYRHINI.

It is a commonly received doctrine, however, that the structural intervals between the various existing modifications of organic beings may be diminished, or even obliterated, if we take into account the long and varied succession of animals and plants which have preceded those now living and which are known to us only by their fossilized remains. How far this doctrine is well based, how far, on the other hand, as our knowledge at present stands, it is an overstatement of the real facts of the case, and an exaggeration of the conclusions fairly deducible from them, are points of grave importance, but into the discussion of which I do not, at present, propose to enter. It is enough that such a view of the relations of extinct to living beings has been propounded, to lead us to inquire, with anxiety, how far the recent discoveries of human remains in a fossil state bear out, or oppose, that view.

I shall confine myself, in discussing this question, to those fragmentary Human skulls from the caves of Engis in the valley of the Meuse, in Belgium, and of the Neanderthal near Dusseldorf, the geological relations of which have been examined with so much care by Sir Charles Lyell; upon whose high authority I shall take it for granted, that the Engis skull belonged to a contemporary of the Mammoth ('Elephas primigenius') and of the woolly Rhinoceros ('Rhinoceros tichorhinus'), with the bones of which it was found associated; and that the Neanderthal skull is of great, though uncertain, antiquity. Whatever be the geological age of the latter skull, I conceive it is quite safe (on the ordinary principles of paleontological reasoning) to assume that the former takes us to, at least, the further side of the vague biological limit, which separates the present geological epoch from that which immediately preceded it. And there can be no doubt that the physical geography of Europe has changed wonderfully, since the bones of Men and Mammoths, Hyaenas and Rhinoceroses were washed pell-mell into the cave of Engis.

The skull from the cave of Engis was originally discovered by Professor Schmerling, and was described by him, together with other human remains disinterred at the same time, in his valuable work, 'Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles decouverts dans les cavernes de la Province de Liege', published in 1833 (p. 59, 'et seq.'), from which the following paragraphs are extracted, the precise expressions of the author being, as far as possible, preserved.

"In the first place, I must remark that these human remains, which are in my possession, are characterized like thousands of bones which I have lately been disinterring, by the extent of the decomposition which they have undergone, which is precisely the same as that of the extinct species: all, with a few exceptions, are broken; some few are rounded, as is frequently found to be the case in fossil remains of other species. The fractures are vertical or oblique; none of them are eroded; their colour does not differ from that of other fossil bones, and varies from whitish yellow to blackish. All are lighter than recent bones, with the exception of those which have a calcareous incrustation, and the cavities of which are filled with such matter.

"The cranium which I have caused to be figured, Plate I., Figs. 1, 2, is that of an old person. The sutures are beginning to be effaced: all the facial bones are wanting, and of the temporal bones only a fragment of that of the right side is preserved.

"The face and the base of the cranium had been detached before the skull was deposited in the cave, for we were unable to find those parts, though the whole cavern was regularly searched. The cranium was met with at a depth of a metre and a half [five feet nearly], hidden under an osseous breccia, composed of the remains of small animals, and containing one rhinoceros tusk, with several teeth of horses and of ruminants. This breccia, which has been spoken of above (p. 30), was a metre [3 1/4 feet about] wide, and rose to the height of a metre and a half above the floor of the cavern, to the walls of which it adhered strongly.

"The earth which contained this human skull exhibited no trace of disturbance: teeth of rhinoceros, horse, hyaena, and bear, surrounded it on all sides.

Thomas H. Huxley opens his 1863 lecture by presenting two fossil human crania—the Engis skull from Belgium and the Neanderthal skull from Germany—as the central evidence for discussion. Rather than immediately arguing for or against human evolution, he first establishes a rigorous anatomical framework. The text is dense with specific measurements: the Engis skull's glabello-occipital line, the Neanderthal skull's supraciliary ridges and occipital protuberance, and comparative data from a Calmuck skull, a Negro skull, and various ape skulls. Huxley repeatedly emphasizes the need to understand normal human variation before drawing conclusions about fossils.

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.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

How did this book work for you?

Your answers remain private and are stored only in this browser.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

What is your current status with this title?

2

Did this book hold your interest?

3

Would you pass this book on to a friend?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks