[503] CHAPTER XXVII

The reader may naturally break in with the question: How long ago is that? The facts which will yield an estimate of geological time certainly exist, and in the opinion of men like Rutot, Sollas, and Penck are sufficient to afford an approximate estimate–the first step towards accurate figures. We shall take the estimate of Professor Sollas 1 first. He regards the deposits which were laid down during the Pleistocene period as forming, when superimposed, a thickness or depth of 4000 feet (see frontispiece). He estimates that the formation has proceeded at the rate of a foot per century, and that therefore the collective deposits of the Pleistocene period probably have taken about four hundred thousand years to form. The estimate given by Professor Rutot is much less–one hundred and forty thousand years. Short as it is, that estimate deserves our serious consideration, for it is founded on a prolonged study of the Pleistocene formations found along the river valleys of Belgium. There is a third estimate which must also weigh with us in coming to a conclusion as regards the duration of the Pleistocene period–that of Professor Penck. 2 He has studied the changes produced by Alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene cycles of extreme cold. He is of opinion that such changes indicate for the Pleistocene [505] period a duration of at least half a million years– perhaps they may have occupied as much as a million and a half. These figures are mere provisional estimates, subject to modification as our knowledge increases. The numerous changes in climate, of elevation and depression of the land, the transformation of our animals, the elaboration of human culture, the evolution and distribution of human races, all bespeak an enormously long period of time.

Having thus attempted to give Sir A. Smith Woodward's opinion of the antiquity of the Piltdown remains m terms of years, we must again return to the meeting of geologists and take up the narrative there. The discoverer of the remains, Mr Charles Dawson, 3 said "he was quite prepared, from an anthropological point of view, to accept an earlier date for the origin of the human remains, and Dr Woodward and he had perhaps erred on the side of caution in placing the date as early Pleistocene." In Mr Dawson's opinion, then, it is possible that the Piltdown race may belong to the period preceding the Pleistocene–the Pliocene. Sir William Boyd Dawkins said "he agreed with the authors of the paper that the deposit containing the human remains belonged to the [506] Pleistocene age, and that the Pliocene mammalia in it– Mastodon arverensis and the rest–had been derived from a Pliocene stratum formerly existing in that area." This opinion, coming from one who has the right to speak with authority, must evoke surprise. When he found the remains of the same species of Mastodon in the Doveholes cave in Derbyshire in 1903, unaccompanied by human remains, Sir William unhesitatingly assigned the contents of that cave to the Pliocene period; but when the same remains are found in Sussex, accompanied by human remains, the deposit, in his opinion, should be referred to a much later date. In Sir William's opinion man is an evolutionary product of the Pleistocene period, and first reached Britain about the middle of this epoch. Much more guarded opinions were given by Mr Clement Reid and by Mr A. S. Kennard, who have made a special study of the later deposits in the south of England. "It was impossible," said Mr Reid, "to speak with confidence, but the whole evidence suggested that the Piltdown deposit and the plateau on which it rests are not preglacial or even early Pleistocene; they belong to a period long after the first cold period had passed away, but they occur at the very base of the great implement-bearing succession of Palæolithic deposits in the south-east of England." Mr Kennard regarded the Piltdown gravel as being of the same age as the 100-foot terrace of the Thames valley, which, as we have already seen, is made up of strata belonging to various stages of the Pleistocene epoch. Mr Kennard's opinion is of the greatest interest, because it was from the 100-foot terrace of the valley of the lower Thames, at a depth of 8 feet, in 1888, that a human skeleton was found at Galley Hill. If Mr Kennard is right, the Galley Hill man, who was of the same type as modern man, must have been almost contemporaneous with the very primitive human being which Sir A. Smith Woodward had reconstructed from the Piltdown fragments. Mr E. T. Newton, who, in 1896, brought the Galley Hill discovery before the same [507] Society as now discussed the Piltdown find, was also present. It must have puzzled him to explain why the audience, which in 1896 refused to accept the Galley Hill discovery, because the remains were those of a being framed much as we moderns are, should extend so ready an acceptance to the very simian form of man which had been raised from the Piltdown fragments. Here we are concerned only with the opinion Mr Newton formed of the antiquity of the Piltdown remains. To him, "the highly mineralised condition of the specimens seemed to point to their being of Pliocene age rather than Pleistocene."

We must also note the opinion of the leading authority of France–Professor Marcellin Boule. He agrees with Mr Kennard in regarding the Piltdown gravels as of the same age as the 100-foot terrace, and while in his text he assigns Piltdown man to the time of Chellean culture, yet in the table, where the succession of Pleistocene men is shown, Piltdown man is placed later than Heidelberg man, being made to coincide with the earliest age of Acheulean culture. 4

The writer is a student of the human body, and is therefore not in a position to offer any conclusive evidence which will help to settle whether the Piltdown man was Pleistocene or Pliocene. Yet there is one point which must weigh with those who seek to place this newly discovered human form in its proper place in the scale of time. The lower jaw, especially in the region of the chin, is marked by certain characters which separate it sharply from the corresponding part of all human mandibles and link it closely with the jaw of apes. Even in the Heidelberg mandible, which belongs to the early Pleistocene age, the essential features of humanity are already evident. In the Piltdown mandible the conformation is that of the ape; a simian stage is still preserved. The Heidelberg mandible shows that the human contour of the chin had already appeared at the beginning of the Pleistocene, but a change of this kind has not become [508] manifest in the Piltdown mandible. This feature suggests that Piltdown man represents, as the animal remains accompanying him suggest, a Pliocene form. I am of opinion that future discoveries will prove that the remains found at Piltdown represent the first trace yet found in Europe of Pliocene man.

The reader may feel by the time he has reached this point that enough has been said about the time at which the Piltdown man lived. Probably he is already wearied with the clash of expert opinion. Yet the differences are perhaps not so great as they appear. It will be remembered that Mr Lewis Abbott, who has given as much time as anyone to master the later geological history of the Weald, expressed the decisive opinion that in the Piltdown gravel two ages are represented. The lower or bottom stratum, which contained the Pliocene remains and human bones, is, in Mr Abbott's opinion, Pliocene in date; the upper levels, in which the rude Palæolithic implements lay, have been disturbed at a later time, and are to be regarded as Pleistocene in age. If Mr Abbott is right and a survey of the full evidence favours his inference, then the divergence of opinion is explicable: those who maintain that the Piltdown gravel is Pleistocene are right, and so are those who regard it as Pliocene. Indeed, in a subsequent communication Mr Dawson wrote of the "dark" or Eoanthropus stratum as follows: 5 "We cannot resist the conclusion that the third or 'dark' bed is, in the main, composed of Pliocene drift, probably reconstructed in the Pleistocene epoch. . . . Putting aside the human remains and those of the beaver, the mammalian remains all point to a characteristic fauna of Pliocene age; and, though all are portions of hard teeth, they are rolled and broken. The human remains, on the other hand, although of much softer material, are not rolled, and the remains of the beaver are in a similar condition."

No one suspected, until Mr Dawson made the discovery, that deposits of a Pliocene or early Pleistocene date occurred in the Weald of Sussex. It is not likely that Piltdown is the only site at which such deposits occur in the region of the English Channel. If one looks at a map representing the bounds of England during the great land elevation in late Pliocene times–the date at which Piltdown man or his ancestors may have lived–it will be seen (fig. 171) that in place of the English Channel there is a great river which is joined by all the streams issuing from the southern area of the Weald. It will be seen, too, that the Somme and the Seine also lie within the watershed of the great channel river. Now on a tributary of the Seine is situated St Prest, [511] near which there is, as M. Rutot has indicated, a deposit very similar in nature and in age to that at Piltdown. We have already seen that the deeper strata of gravel at St Prest contain remains of Pliocene animals and have always been regarded as of a Pliocene age (see fig. 114, p. 317). Over the Pliocene beds are others of a later or Pleistocene age, just as at Piltdown. So long ago as 1863, M. Desnoyers 6 recognised that many of the fossil bones of animals existing in the Pliocene period, and found in the deepest and oldest deposits of St Prest, showed definite evidence of having been worked by man. More striking still, the land on which these deposits occur is 80 feet above the adjoining tributary of the Seine, the Eure–the same height as the Piltdown deposits lie above the Ouse. The Pliocene age of the St Prest deposits has never been called in question.

There is a further striking similarity between the deeper deposits at St Prest and the dark bed at Piltdown. Mention has been made of the eoliths which occurred with the human remains in the dark bed. Shaped flints of a corresponding type also occur in the Pliocene beds at St Prest. They were discovered and described by a geologist, M. Bourgeois, 7 in 1867, four years after M. Desnoyers recognised the human markings on the fossil bones. In M. Rutot's opinion the St Prest implements are of a later and more highly evolved type than the Kentish eoliths. The discoveries made at St Prest fifty years ago have a very direct bearing on the problem of the age of the Piltdown remains.

The evidence of another Pliocene deposit may be cited here. In the south of England, about one hundred miles to the west of Piltdown, but still within the watershed of the old Channel river, there occurs another trace of the Pliocene period which is of the greatest importance to the student of man's evolution. This trace occurs at Dewlish, a small village in the chalky [512] uplands of Dorset (fig. 171). Near the village of Dewlish the chalk plateau, about 300 feet above sea-level, ends in a sharp bank or escarpment, about 100 feet in height, similar to the chalk brim of the Weald. On this plateau, near Dewlish, there was discovered by accident a deep fissure in the chalk which was filled with layers of sand and gravel. This fissure or trench was investigated by the Rev. O. Fisher, and has been described by him in two communications to the Geological Society of London. 8 It was found to be over 100 feet in length, with one end open on the free face of the escarpment. Its depth was found to be over 12 feet. It was narrow and filled in with sand and gravel, which do not now occur on the surface of the plateau at Dewlish. In the gravel were found remains of elephants of the ancient kind found at St Prest and at Cromer–Elephas meridionalis–which is accepted as a true representative of the Pliocene period. In the gravel also occurred certain flints which were regarded by Mr Grist 9 as similar to the eoliths of the Kentish plateau. Mr Clement Reid inspected the trench –the only one of the kind known–and formed the opinion that it did not represent any cleft or fault produced by natural agencies. No stream could have produced such a trench; there is no stream now on the plateau. Mr Fisher could only account for it on the supposition that it was dug by the hands of man, and was designed, like similar trenches at the present day, as an elephant trap. If Mr Fisher's inference is right, and no other satisfactory explanation has been offered, we have the startling revelation that in the Pliocene period mankind had already reached an advanced stage in his evolution. And those opinions were formed and expressed years before Mr Dawson had found a bone implement at Piltdown, apparently worked from the thigh bone of [513] the kind of elephant whose fossil remains occur in the trench at Dewlish.

We have already mentioned the sub-Crag implements discovered by Mr Reid Moir (p. 308). They indicate the existence of human beings towards the middle of the Pliocene period. The Kentish eoliths are more ancient than the sub-Crag implements.10 When, therefore, we take into consideration these facts, and the similarity between the Piltdown and St Prest deposits, we are persuaded that Mr Dawson and Sir A. Smith Woodward were ultra-cautious in assigning a Pleistocene date to the human remains found at Piltdown. All the evidence seems to point to a Pliocene age–to an age at least as old as the Cromer forest bed. Hence the importance of their discovery, for although the handiwork of Pliocene man has been recognised for a considerable number of years, the man himself was unknown until Mr Dawson brought the Piltdown type into the light of day.

[514] CHAPTER XXVIII

Having thus settled, so far as the evidence will permit, the approximate position of the Piltdown man in the scale of time–and beyond question he represents the earliest specimen of true humanity yet discovered–we now proceed to see what sort of being he was. The truth is that we have to discover his characters from fragments of the skull, for no other part was found. The form of his limbs and body are matters of inference. The reader will quickly realise the number and size of the actual parts of the skull which were found, by examining fig. 172; the missing parts are indicated by stippled lines. The bone which forms the forehead–the frontal bone–is only partly present. Fortunately, the region which forms the upper margin of the left orbit has been preserved in its outer part, so that we can form a definite opinion as regards the supra-orbital ridges. These are not formed as they are in the chimpanzee, gorilla, Rhodesian and Neanderthal man, but are more like the conformation seen in modern human races. A great part of the left side of the frontal bone has been recovered; the right side is wholly missing, but we know that the right and left sides of the frontal bone are nearly symmetrical, so we can reconstruct the greater part of the forehead with some degree of assurance–all except the middle part lying over the root of the nose. This initial blank in our knowledge was also made good, for the fragment of the frontal bone, found by Mr Dawson in 1915, gave us the contour of parts above the root of the [515] nose and showed that in the modelling of his forehead Piltdown man resembled living man.

Coming now to the hinder or occipital end of the skull, we find the bone of this region represented by a considerable fragment. The part of the occipital bone is best seen in a hinder view of the skull such as is shown in fig. 174. To the lower part of the occipital bone the neck is fixed; part of the region for the fixation of the neck is represented in the fragment found (fig. 172). At the lower end of the fragment is seen the hinder margin of the foremen magnum, by which the spinal cord makes its exit from the brain cavity to enter the spinal column. The tabular part of the occipital bone, which rises up from the neck to form the projecting hinder [517] part of the head, has also an important representation. By great good fortune, Sir A. Smith Woodward recovered a most essential fragment of the right half–the fragment which gives us an indication of the width of the occipital bone, almost up to its articulation or point of contact with the right parietal bone (see figs. I72 and 174, O'). On the occipital bone the ridge which marks the middle line of the head and of the neck is preserved (fig. 174). We therefore know the width of the right half of the occipital bone, and we may be certain the left half was almost exactly of the same size. Hence in the drawing (fig 172) of the recovered fragments the right half of the occipital bone is represented as if it were on the left side, in place of the right.

All of these fragments of the Piltdown skull are, at first sight, very similar to the same parts of a modern human skull except as regards their thickness. The Piltdown bones are surprisingly thick. The farm-labourer who first saw the skull described it as a coco-nut. In most modern heads the thickness of the bones forming the brain chamber varies from 4 to 6 mm. (1/6 to 1/4 of an inch); in native African races, and occasionally in Europeans, the thickness may amount to 8 or even 10 mm., but in no normal modern skull are all the bones so uniformly thick as in this recently discovered specimen. As already pointed out, the ancient skulls found at Galley Hill, Clichy, and Olmo are thick, but not to the extent seen in the Piltdown fragments. Thickness is also characteristic of most Neanderthal skulls. In the Piltdown cranium the frontal, parietal, occipital, and temporal bones vary in thickness from 8 to 12 mm., the average all over being about 7, of an inch. The bone is naturally formed; there can be no question of disease. The late Professor Shattock definitely settled this point. l There can be no doubt that sufficient of the skull has been recovered to provide us with the means of reaching a just and certain conclusion as regards the size [519] and shape of the part which contains the brain. Very few ancient skulls are so well represented as that of Piltdown

The discovery of almost a complete half–the right–of the lower jaw or mandible by Mr Dawson is a most fortunate circumstance (fig. 175). It lay in the iron-stained cemented stratum with unworn eoliths and a fragment of the tooth of an early Pliocene form of elephant. The importance of the mandible is at once apparent; it provides us with the skeletal outline of the face of this ancient form of man. Each half of a human mandible consists of two distinct parts: (1) a horizontal part or body (fig. 175), which carries the teeth and forms the lower part of the outline of the face–from the angle of the jaw below the ear to the chin; (2) a vertical part, which ascends from the angle to terminate in an articular knob or condyle. The socket–the glenoid cavity–for the articular knob is situated on that part of the base of the skull which is formed by the temporal bone immediately in front of [520] the ear. We have already seen that the temporal bone of the left side was recovered, revealing the characters of the articular cavity, which is shaped exactly as in modern races, and in this respect quite unlike the same joint in an ape's skull. In the Piltdown skull we have thus the greater part of one-half of the mandible of the right side; on the left side the articular socket for the jaw is present; by transposing or reversing the right half of the mandible to take the place of the left half it will be seen that we obtain a representation of the skeletal outline of one-half of the Piltdown head (see fig. 252, p. 69I)

When a section is made so as to separate the lower jaw and the tongue into right and left halves, it is seen that the jaw in the region of the symphysis–the line of fusion of the right and left halves of the jaw–is composed of two parts, an upper part to bear the incisor teeth, and a lower part which is for the attachment of muscles. It is the lower or muscular part which principally concerns us. There is no projection of the anterior surface at the lower border of the symphysis to represent a chin in the chimpanzee; the anterior or labial surface of the jaw slopes downwards and backwards to a chinless lower border. On the hinder surface of the symphyseal region–the surface directed towards the tongue–there is seen a deep pit, almost large enough to take the tip of the little [522] finger. From the interior of the genial pit arise the two chief muscles of the tongue–the genio-glossus muscles. The lower margin of the pit is formed by a plate of bone–the simian plate–which unites the lower borders of the right and left halves of the jaw (fig. 177). It is a strengthening plate. From the posterior margin of the plate two pairs of muscles take their origin–the genio-hyoid muscle, which draws the larynx forward during the act of swallowing, and the digastric muscle, which depresses the front part of the jaw, and thus assists in opening the mouth. Such is the conformation of the symphyseal or chin region of the lower jaw in apes (see fig. 177).

It will thus be seen that the simian and human mandibles differ markedly in the region of the symphysis or chin. The meaning of this difference will be discussed in a later chapter (p. 659). As to the type to which the Piltdown jaw belongs there can be no doubt; both the genial pit and the simian plate are present. These are ape-like [523] features. Sir A. Smith Woodward recognised them as such, and in his work of reconstructing the original form of the skull the presence of these simian features exercised a dominating influence. Hence, when he came to replace the missing parts of the jaws and the incisor and canine teeth, he followed simian rather than human lines. The teeth of man form a uniform series; there is no break nor diastema in front of, or behind, the canine teeth; the canine tooth does not project prominently beyond its fellows.

As will be seen from figs. 178 and 179, Sir A. Smith Woodward made the muzzle and front teeth of Eoanthropus wider and more massive than in the chimpanzee. He made the region of the chin and symphysis–the anterior line of fusion of the two halves of the mandible particularly strong (fig. 180). The symphyseal areas of union or fusion between the two sides of the mandible are stippled in figs. 180 and 181. In the Piltdown man[525]dible this area, as restored by Sir A. Smith Woodward, is even greater than in the chimpanzee. While the teeth implanted in the front part of the mandible and the symphyseal region are truly simian, the hinder part of the mandible, the molar teeth, and also the ascending branch or ramus, are, to my eye, entirely human. We have thus in this newly discovered form of man a remarkable mixture of simian and human characters.

One other feature may be pointed out here. It will be observed in fig. I75 that the greater part of the last molar or wisdom tooth lies behind the anterior margin of the ascending ramus of the jaw, being thus hid from view. In the Australian jaw (shown in the same figure), as is usually the case in man and apes, this tooth lies wholly in front of the ramus and is freely exposed. The Piltdown ascending ramus is remarkably wide (44 mm.), and its width is evidently due to a forward extension of its anterior border. On the anterior border is inserted the temporal muscle, the chief agent in biting or in suddenly shutting the lower jaw. Such a forward extension of the ramus must give the temporal muscles greater power [526] and purchase over the front part of the jaws and canine.

It is necessary to examine in more detail the original reconstruction of the apparatus of mastication in the Piltdown man. Our estimate of the position of any newly discovered form of human being turns largely on the relationship between his alimentary and cerebral systems. It seems fairly certain that the tendency in human evolution is to increase the work of the brain and diminish the work of the stomach. An increase of brain power has made the task of our digestive system easier– at least those parts which are concerned in mastication. We therefore need some means of indicating–even if the method adopted be but a rough approximation to the truth–the relative development of cerebral and alimentary powers in any newly discovered form of human being. We may take a concrete example. In fig. 182 is represented the palate of a female chimpanzee; the teeth are set round the circumference of the palate. Within the semicircle of teeth lies the tongue, but the whole area of the palate, all that lies inside the outer margins of the teeth, is directly concerned in mastication, and the total area of the palate may therefore be accepted as the degree to which the apparatus of mastication has been developed. We suppose that a large palate means a crude and not a richly nutritious diet. Now, in this female chimpanzee the area of the palate is 36.5 cm.2; [527] the brain measured 320 c.c.; there was 1 cm.2 of palate to 8.7 c.c. of brain; this represents a common palato-cerebral ratio amongst man's nearest allies–the anthropoid apes. In modern Englishmen–my estimate is founded on an accurate investigation of twenty-two medical students–the average palatal area is 26.6 cm.2; the cerebral development, 1500 c.c.; the palato-cerebral ratio was therefore 1: 56.3, in place of 1: 8.7 as in anthropoids. 2 We therefore turn with some interest to see what ratio may hold in this newly discovered form of man. Sir A. Smith Woodward has reconstructed the palate. Accurate indications as to its shape were available as soon as he had obtained the form of the lower jaw and teeth, for the upper and lower jaws must fit and the teeth correspond in all higher animals, according to certain definite laws. Now the area of the palate thus reconstructed (see fig. 182, B) is 53.20 cm.2–larger than in the female chimpanzee; it is the size of palate seen in the adult male chimpanzee. In the male adult orang and gorilla the palatal area may reach 70 cm.2. Sir A. Smith Woodward at first estimated that the brain capacity of Eoanthropus was about 1070 c.c. In this new form of man the palato-cerebral ratio is therefore about 1:20. This ratio holds an intermediate position between that of the chimpanzee (1:8) and that of modern Englishmen (1:56). We appear, therefore, to be dealing with a very primitive form of man–one which, so far as concerns its development of palate and of brain, supplies us with a stage half-way between ape and man. In modern native races the palato-cerebral ratio may be as low as 1:36.7. In the Gibraltar skull, as we have seen, 3 the ratio is 1:38. In Rhodesian man this ratio is 1:31.7; in La Chapelle man, 1:41.8.

We have already noted that the front teeth of this new form of man and the region of the chin are essentially [528] ape-like–quite different from those of any known form of human being. The humanity of this being, however, becomes more and more apparent as the mandible is followed backwards and upwards to its socket at the base of the skull. The socket is robust and massive, but its conformation is absolutely that seen in the more primitive of modern human races. When Sir A. Smith Woodward came to fit the fragments of the skull together, he found that the parts were human in form and must be fitted together as in modern human skulls. The shape which the reconstructed head of Eoanthropus took in his hands is shown in a series of figures (figs. 183, 185, and 188). Students of anatomy will at once recognise the peculiar features of this newly discovered type of man; but in order that those who have not made a special study of man's body may also have a standard for comparison, corresponding drawings of the skull of a modern Englishman are reproduced for comparison. The Englishman chosen has a brain capacity of 1425 c.c.–60 less than the average amount. The walls of his brain case have an average thickness of 6 mm., whereas in Eoanthropus the thickness is quite 10 mm. along the vault. Both skulls have been poised on the same horizontal plane–one which approximately indicates the lower limits of the cerebrum. The higher or cerebral part of the brain lies above the line on which the skulls are oriented.4 In the modern head (fig. 189) the roof of the skull almost reaches the 100-mm. line; in Eoanthropus it passes slightly above the 90-mm. line. When we allow for the great thickness of the skull, it is plain that the brain of Eoanthropus will fall–as regards height–about 15 mm. (2/5 inch) short of the modern English brain. As regards the total length of the skull, the ancient and modern man are much alike–the maximum length in each case being about 190 mm.

As the mastoid is one of the structures by means of which the muscles of the neck move and balance the head, we must infer, from the fact that this process is present in its modern shape in Eoanthropus, that the head in that ancient type of man was carried and balanced just as it now is in us. The eye-socket of Eoanthropus will be seen to be set obliquely; when the skull is viewed in true profile, more of the orbit is then to be seen than in modern human races, and much [530] more than in anthropoid apes. Above the outer angle of the orbit it will be seen that the temporal line or crest–from which a muscle of mastication arises–ascends steeply on the frontal bone, whereas in all modern human skulls the curvature is less acute and its backward trend more marked (see figs. 183, 184). The muscles of mastication evidently did not work exactly as in modern man, or why this difference in the conformation of the temporal crest?

When a full-face drawing of the skull of Eoanthropus is compared with that of a modern skull (figs. 185, 186) a number of differences become apparent. In width, both at the base of the skull and across the cheek bones, Eoanthropus is considerably the greater. The usual width [531] of the modern skull at its base is 132 mm.; in Eoanthropus the width here measures 150 mm. The chief difference, however, lies in the filling of the brain case. In the modern skull the sides are nearly vertical, with a slight outward bulge half- way to the vertex; in Eoanthropus the cranial cavity is so imperfectly filled that the sides lean inwards and gradually fade into a contracted crown or roof.

To complete this cursory review of the skull of Eoanthropus as it originally left the hands of its reconstructor, I add two further figures. In fig. 187 the modern skull is viewed from above; in fig. 188 the same view is reproduced of the skull of Eoanthropus. In the modern skull the arrangement of bones is simple. The frontal bone, forming the forehead, is joined behind to the [533] right and left parietal bones at the coronal suture. At the posterior end of the vertical view only the upper part of the occipital bone is seen; it becomes joined to the parietal bones at the lambdoid suture (fig. 187). Along the middle line, between the right and left parietals, passes the sagittal suture. At some distance to either side of the sagittal suture is seen the upper limit of attachment of the temporal muscles–the temporal lines (fig. 187).