The two heads figured in the great French work, are both decidedly Egyptian, but the second and smaller one is the most strongly marked.[[8]]

Internal Capacity of the Cranium.[[9]]—As this measurement gives the size of the brain, I have obtained it in all the crania above sixteen years of age, unless prevented by fractures or the presence of bitumen within the skull; and this investigation has confirmed the proverbial fact of the general smallness of the Egyptian head, at least as observed in the catacombs south of Memphis. Thus, the Pelasgic crania from the latter city, give an average internal capacity of eighty-nine cubic inches; those of the same group from Thebes give eighty-six. This result is somewhat below the average of the existing Caucasian nations of the Pelasgic, Germanic, and Celtic families, in which I find the brain to be about ninety-three cubic inches in bulk. It is also interesting to observe that the Pelasgic brain is much larger than the Egyptian, which last gives an average of but eighty cubic inches; thus, as we shall hereafter see, approximating to that of the Indo-Arabian nations.

The largest head in the series measures ninety-seven cubic inches; this occurs three times, and always in the Pelasgic group. The smallest cranium gives but sixty-eight cubic inches, and this is three times repeated in the Egyptian heads from Thebes. This last is the smallest brain I have met with in any nation, with three exceptions,—a Hindoo, a Peruvian, and a Negro.

The Negroid heads, it will be observed, measure, on an average, eighty cubic inches, which is below the Negro mean; while the solitary Negro head (that of a person advanced in years,) measures but seventy-three cubic inches.[[10]]

As this, however, is a question of much interest and some novelty, it may, perhaps, be better illustrated in a tabular form:—

Ethnographic
Division.
Locality.		No. of
Crania.		Largest
Brain.		Smallest
Brain.
Mean		Mean
C. I.

Pelasgic Form.		Memphis. Abydos. Thebes. Philæ.14
1
5
1		97
89
92
74		79
89
82
74		89
89
86
74
88

Semitic Form.		Memphis. Abydos. Thebes.1
1
3		88
69
85		88
69
79		88
69
79
82

Egyptian Form.		Memphis. Abydos. Thebes. Ombos. Debod.7
2
25
2
3		83
96
95
77
82		73
85
68
68
70		79
90
80
73
75
80
Negroid Form.Maabdeh. Thebes.1
5		71
88		71
71		71
71
79
Negro.Philæ.173737373

Facial Angle.—I have carefully measured the facial angle in all those adult skulls which are sufficiently denuded for that purpose, and have obtained the following results:—

Ethnographic Division.No.
Measured.
Largest.
Smallest.
Mean.
Pelasgic form,1683°73°80°
Egyptian form,2083°76°78°
Semitic form,277°74°75°
Negroid form,677°73°75°

It is stated by M. Virey, that the numerous mummies which have been brought to Europe present the full facial angle of the Caucasian race.

The Structure of the Cranial Bones is as thin and delicate as in the European, and a ponderous skull is of unfrequent occurrence. I make this remark with the more satisfaction because it enables me to contest one of the observations of Herodotus; who tells us, that on visiting the field of battle whereon the Egyptians had fought with the Persians, he saw the bones of the latter lying on one side, and those of their enemies on the other. He then adds, that “the skulls of the former were so extremely soft as to yield to the slightest impression, even of a pebble; those of the Egyptians, on the contrary, were so firm that the blow of a large stone would hardly break them.” The historian then explains the reason of this difference, by stating that the Egyptians have thicker skulls, because their heads are frequently shaved and more exposed to the weather: while the Persians have soft skulls, owing to the habitual use of caps which protect their heads from the sun.