close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Anthropometric nomenclature II. The indices of head height

код для вставкиСкачать
ANTHROPOMETRIC NOMENCLATURE :
11. THE INDICES O F H E A D HEIGllT
T. D. STEWART
Division, of Physical dnthropology, United States National M ~ L S B U ~ L ,
Waskington, District of Columbia
I n part I of this series, dealing with the length-breadth or
cephalic index, the reasons for reviewing the literature on this
general subject are stated and need not be repeated here. The
present part of this review is limited to the indices of height
based on measurement of height from basion; and since
basion cannot be used as a landmark on the living, it is further
limited largely to the indices that apply to the skull. This
restriction seems desirable because the auricular heights have
not been extensively used, except of course in the living, and
little effort has been expended upon the classification of the
indices based thereon. Classifications of these latter indices
are given by Martin ('28).
Considering that the height indices attempt to express a
single characteristic, that is, the relative height of the head,
they are as a whole perhaps even more confused as regards
basic measurements and classifkations than the cephalic index.
Being not one, but at least three indices, with separate classifications for each, the array of names and figures is indeed
bewildering. It is hoped that an understanding of the history
of these classifications will aid in clearing up this confusion.
As in the case of the cephalic index I shall review the
history of the height indices chronologically and give a fairly
full docixmentation. Because these indices have not been as
fully discussed in the past as the cephalic index, there are
fewer leads in the literature and a brief search cannot hope
to uncover all the references to this subject. For this reason
23
24
T. D. STEWART
I do not regard this review as being comprehensive, although
I feel that it includes tbe main contributions.
THE INDlCES O F THE SKULL
2P52. Anders Retzius, the originator of the terms dolichocephaly and brachycephaly, which today distinguish the major
classes of the cephalic index, had a much broader conception
of these terms than we do now. Tn a letter to Duvernoy dated
1852 (published 1864) Retzius defines his terminology by listing tlie most distinctive characteristics of the “ gentes dolichocephalae” and “gentes brachycephalae.” The fifth item in
each list refers to height (pp. 118-119) : I n dolichocephaly
“the height of the skull is ordinarily low ;” in brachycephalp
“the height of the skull, compared with the length, is considerable.” Although thus manifesting an interest in skull
height (measured incidentally from the anterior border of
the foramen magnum to the highest part of the vault), Retzius
does not seem to have stated definite ratios.
2859. Baer, who was greatly influenced by Retzius, and who
published a remarkably modern-seeming anthropometric study
of selected crania in 1859, was probably the first to express
a length-height ratio (p. 248) :
With the average skull of all human kind the simplest way
to express this proportion is:
Length to height, to breadth, as
1
‘I
p
‘ I
5
or1000 “ 750 ‘‘ €400, . . . .*
Baer measured height from the plane of the foramen magnum
to the vertex of the skull.
186‘3-1864. The English anthropologist Thurnam used the
same method of measuring height as Baer and was probably
one of the first to apply a terminology to the length-height inCiim erailium medium totius generjs huinani simplici hac proportione expriini
pousit :
Loiigitudo ad altitudincm, ad latitudinem, ut
1
I‘
4
”
i!
vel1OOO “
750
‘ I
SOO,.. ....
25
THE IXDICES OF HEAD HEIGHT
clex. Thus in describing his tables of measurements he says
(1863-1864, p. 460) :
The two remaining colunins, A and B, give the relative proportiosz of the breadth and height to the length, in which the latter
is reduced to the coinmon module of 1.00. The first of these
proportions, A, is the important one, called the “Cephalic
Igtdes” by M. Broca; . . . . The other, B, in like manner,
expresses in numbers the tendency to the depressed or platycephalic, or to the elevated or acrocephalic form. In the two
columns, the low figures point to dolichocephalism and to platycephalism, the high figures to brachycephalism and to acrocephalism respectively ; whilst those of ineciium value
represent a more regularly ovoid and more equally developed
form of skull, both as respects length, breath and height, which
may be defined as orthocephalism.
The terms platycephaly and acrocephaly had been used prior
to this in connection with pathological and artificially deformed skulls ; the term orthocephaly had been suggested by
Welcker in 1862 to distinguish the midpart of the range of
the cephalic index (see part I, p. 104).
1866. A new trend was initiated in 1866 when Davis pointed
out in a review of van der Hoeven’s work on the skulls of
Caroline Islanders that the series from this region
stands out pretty distinctly from the rest of the skulls of
human races hitherto known and described . . . . They are
unusually long, unusually narrow, and, at the same time, very
high, or tall . . . . to which we have applied the distinctive
term high-narrow skulls, or hypsi-stenocephalic . . . (p. 55).
We do not pretend to define what ought to be the exact
value of hypsi-stenocephalic skulls in an^ arrangement of
human crania, but have no hesitation in saying that they
deserve a distinct place apart from all others (p. 57).
.
Welcker (1866) immediately seized upon this idea and
amplified it. He called attention to the fact that the combination of dolichocephaly and high-headedness was contrary to
Retzius’ pronouncement (see above) ;that apparently Retzius
had considered only the relationship of length and height
(lateral profile), whereas ‘a long skull could be high relative
26
T. D. STEWART
to breadth (frontal and occipital profiles)2. In one table he
listed the length-breadth and length-height indices of all available series from the most dolichocephalic to the most bracliycephalic, and thus showed the parallel increase in the lengthheight index3; in another table he reassembled these data
geographically and ethnologically, from which he deduced the
following five morphological types :
Hypsistenocephaly - high and iiarrow
Hypsibrachycephaly - high and broad
Orthocephaly - medium high and medium broad
Platystenocephaly - low and narroa
Platyhrachj-cephaly - low and broad
1873. Although Welcker placed no boundaries to his groups,
this deficiency was soon corrected by von Ihering (1873). Instead of using the length-height index, however, von Ihering
substituted the breadth-height index, characterizing those inand those of 100 or inore
dices below 100 as “platy~ephalic”~
*Aber welche Schadel iiennen wir hoeh’! Die von Davis als Paradigmen seiner
Hypsistenocephalen abgebildeten Kopf e erscheiiien im Profilbilde (da j a auch c?ie
Langsdurchmesser sehr gross sind) , wenn aucli nicht flach, doch keineswegs
auffallend hoch. Wohl aber ist letzteres in der Frontal- und Occipitalansicht der
Fall, und ich stimme Davis vollstandig bei, menii er jene Kopfe “Hochschadel ’ ’
nennt. Retzius beurtheilte die Srhadelhohe, \vie ich hierbei erinnern zu mussen
glaube, nach dem Eindrucke, welchen die Schadel in der Profilbetrachtung machen,
also naeh dem Langshohenindex, er naniite diejeiiigen Schadel hoch, deren Hohenindex gross ist. So richtig dies an sich scheint, so wird man zugeben miissen, dasv
es mindestens eben so richtig ist, die Hohe iiach der Froiital- oder Occipitalansicht,
also nach dem Breitenhohenindex (oder dem Verhaltniss des Breiten- zum Hohenindex) zu beurtheilen. Da, wie ich nachmeiseii werde, zwisclien Liings- und
Hohendurchmesser ein weit constanteres Verhaltiiiss besteht, als zwischen Breiteiiund Hohendurchmesser, so zeigen sich die Hohenunterschiede in der Frontaloder Occipitalansicht i n einem vie1 ausgiebigeren Spiele, als in der Seitenansicht.
Ieh ziehe darum den letzterwahnten Modus der Hohenbestiinmung entschieden vor
und freue mich, hierin mit meinein verehrten Freuiide Davis zusammen zu treff ell.
leh nenne mithiii in Nachfolgendem eineii Schadel hoeh, wenn der Hohendurchmesser, flach weiin der Breiteiidurcliiiiesser das grosseste Hauptmaass des Schadels
nachst dem L5ngsdurchmesser ist (pp. 152-133).
Shown also by Gaussin in 1865.
’Welcker had hesitated t o use this term because Vircliow had already applied
it to a pathological deformity, but von Ihering ignores this. In 1874 Virchow suggested that the term “chainaecephalic” be substituted, since it would thus avoid
this eoiinotation.
27
THE INDICES O F HEAD HEIGHT
as “hypsicephalic.” I n this way he arrived at the followiiig
classification (p. 162) :
LT.-BR IXDEX
UXDER 72
Br.-ht. index
under 100
Br.-ht. index
100 and over
Platpdolichocephaly
Hypsidolichocephaly
I
LT.;BR. INDEX
d2-79.9
Piatymesocephaly
HFpsimesocephaly
I
LT.-BB. IXDEX
80 AND Ot‘Eli
Platybrachycephaly
Hypsibrachycephaly
At this time several methods of measuring height were in
vogue and were reviewed by von Ihering (pp. 158-161), but
it is not clear to me which one he used as a basis f o r his classification of the breadth-height index5.
Martin (’28, p. 650) attributes to Davis and Welcker a
classification of the breadth-height index combining and expanding the terminology given above :
Ultrabrrtchystenocephaly [sic] .........
Hyperbrachystenocephsly [sic] . . . . . . . . .
Brachystenocephaly [sic] ..............
Orthostenocephaly ....................
Hypsisteiiccephaly ....................
Hyperhypsistenocephal y ...............
Ultrahypsistenoeephaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89.9 and below
90.0- 94.9
95.0- 99.9
100.0-104.9
105.0-109.9
110.0-114.9
115.0 and above
I have been unable to locate the references for this statement.
Since Davis and Welcker did not use the breadth-height iiiclcs
in their classification (see above) and since they were interested primarily in the relationship of the length-breadth and
length-height indices, I have doubts as to the correctness of
this attribution. Moreover, .the prefixes ultra and hyper were
not introduced even f o r the cephalic index until 1885 (cf. part
I, p. 120 et seq.) and Welcker’s publication of this date (Davis
died in 1881) still deals with the length-height index.
This about ends the efforts to relate the cephalic and height
indices, although Flower stated in 1879 that
The index of height [len@h-height] is not usually divided into
special groups, as its chief interest lies in its relation to the
breadth index [cephalic index], especially as to whether it is
Slanouvrier (1885, p. 679) s a y thnt ton Ihering took n~asiiniim height froin
the lowest point on the base.
28
T. D. STEWART
greater or less. In the former case it may be called hypsicephalic, in the latter tapeinocephalic, though these terms are
generally reserved for extreme variations in these’ directions
(Ed. of 1907, pp. 419-420).
Since Flower says that the terms hypsicephalic and tapeinocephalic are “generally reserved” for extreme cases, I infer
that he means for pathologically deformed skulls. As far as
I can discover he is the first to apply the name “tapeinocephalic” to one of the height index groups.
2875. In 1875 Broca proposed a general nomenclature for
all indices except the cephalic and nasal (pp. 175-176) :
The Fenera1 nomenclature can be reduced to three terms expressing the idea of a large, medium or small index. The root
seme (from ohpa, s i p or index) is common to the three terms,
and on combining it with the three adjectives pLyac, large,
pkcoc, intermediate, and pix&
small, one obtains the three
words megaseme, mesoseme, microseme, applicable to the
classification of all the indices6.
His classification of the length-height and breadth-height indices, based upon basion-bregma height, is as follows (p. 179) :
LENGTH-HEIGHT INDEX
Microseme
Mesosemc
Megaseme
............
............
............
71.99 and below
73
-74.99
-r
4o
and above
BRDADTH-HEIGHT INDEX
91.99 and below
93
-97.99
98 andabove
In establishing the limits of each of these groups Broca followed two principles (p. 176) :
I n the first place, one ought to conside\r that these divisions
are made in order to facilitate the study and the comparison
of races rather than individuals. It is not a question therefore
of classifying the individual indices but the mean indices of
rarious series. Consequently, when one proposes to classify
tlie,de%reesof an index, it is necessary to determine the mean
of this index in all races ; one finds that it attains its maximum,
11, in one particular race, and that it reaches its minimum,
T,a nomenclature gBnBrale peut se rkduire B trois terines exprimant l’idCc
d’un indice grand, moyen ou petit. Le radical sPtite (de u+a, signe ou indice)
est coinmun aux trois terines, et en le combinant :ITW les adjectifs p’ynu, grand,
plrni,
intermGdiaire, et ,IU +. petit, on ohticnt les trois mots wiPgnsdme, me‘sos8mr.
nt irroni me, applicablrs 8. In classification de tons les indices.
THE INDICES O F HEAD HEIGHT
29
m, in another race. It is between these two figures that it is
a question of determining three groups, by means of two
divisions which will limit the intermediate group.
I n the second place, as f a r as possible the differences expressed by the titles of three groups ought to be of nearly
equal value. To obtain that one divides the difference 31-ni
into three nearly equal parts. A division into three absolutely
equal parts would almost necessarily cause the breaks to fall
on fractional numbers, which would be very troublesome for
the ineniory; there is therefore an advantage in breaking the
series at whole numbers. The figures M and in being nearly
always fractional numbers, one replaces them with the nearest
whole numbers and thus their difference becomes a whole
number. This difference is not always divisible by three; if
it is not, one of the groups ought to be more restricted than
the others, and preferably one will diminish the mesoseme
group, because this group is usually that which includes the
greatest number of races. Now, it is desirable, for the ease
of descriptions, that the divisions of an index should serve
a s often as possible to distinguish two races.’
‘En premier lieu, on doit songer que ces divisions sont faites pour fnciliter
I’btude et la comparaison des races bien plut6t que des individus. Ce lie sont donc
pas les indices individuels qu ’il s ’agit de classer, mais les indices moyens des
diverses series. P a r consequent, lorsqu’on ae propose de classer les degres d’un
indice, il f a u t commencer par dbterminer la inoyenue de cet indice dans toutes lee
r:ices; on trouve qu’elle atteint son maximum, M, dans une certaine race, et
qu’elle descend B son minimum, m, dans une autre race. C’est entre ces deuv
chiffres qu’il s’agit de determiner trois groupes, 5i l’aide de denx coupures qui
limiteroiit le groupe intermediaire.
En second lieu, il faut autant que possible que les differences expriinees par
1es titres de trois groupes soieitt a peu pr&s d’egale valeur. Pour cela, on divise
la difference M-m en trois parties ?
peu
i prhs Cgales. Une division en trois parties
absolument Bgales ferait toniber presque n6cessairement les coupures sur cles
uoinbres fractionnaires, tr8s-ghants pour la memoire; il y a donc avantage i les
fixer sur des iiombres entiers. Les chiffres M et ?it &ant presque toujours deu
nonihres frsctionnaires, on les remplace par des nombres entiers les plus rapproeh6s et leur diffCrence devient ainsi un iiombre entier. Cette diffBreiice a ’est
pas toujours divisible par trois; s i elle ne l ’ e ~ tpas, i l faut que l’un des groupes
soit plus restreint que les autres, et on resserrera de prefBrence le groupe ni6so&me, parce que ce groupe est ordinairemelit celui qui coniprend le plus grand
nombre de races. Or, il est desirable, pour la commodite des descriptions, que
les coupures d ’un indice puissent servir le plus souvent possible 5 distiiiguer
deux races.
30
T. D. STEWART
Broca gives the ranges of the means of the length-height and
breadth-height indices as 69-78 and 86-104, respectively. Applying the above principles to these figures it is quite apparent
how Broca arrived at his classification.
1883. Broca's general nomenclature for these indices apparently was not, widely accepted, for within 10 years the
Frankfort Agreement (Ranke, 1883) set forth a classification
of the length-height index that combines the names suggested
by Davis, Welcker and Virchow:
Chamaecephaly (flat skulls) ......... 70.0 and below
Orthocephaly ......................
Hypsicephaly (high skulls) ..........
70.1
-75.0
75.1 and above
The Agreement specifies two methods of measuring height
froin basion (vertical to the eye-ear plane or to bregma) but
fails to state which applies to the index of this classification,
although obviously attaching more importance to vertical
height.
The year after the Frankfort Agreement was published
(1884) Turner provided still another classifleation of the
length-height index based on basion-bregma height* :
Tapeinocephaly .......... below 72 [71.9 and below]
Metriocephaly ........... between 72 and 77 [72-771
Akrocephaly ............. above 77 [77.1 and above]'
It will be recognized that this terminology combines names
previously suggested by Thurman and Flower. The term
metriocephalic is preferred
. . . . because it expresses like the well known terms mesaticephalic and mesocephalic, a form intermediate between two
extremes (~LTPIOC,moderate), whilst the word 6p8oc has no
special relation to this intermediate index. Besides the term
orthocephalic had previously been used by Prof. Welcher to
express the breadth index [cephalic index] of a group of skulls
intermediate between the dolichocephalic and brachycephalic
(Footnote p. 5 ) .
Duckworth repeats this in his textbook of 1904 (p. 261).
Martin ( '38, p. 649) gives a different interpretation:
X-71.9
72.0-76.9
77.0-x
T H E INDICES O F HEAD H E I G H T
31
Topinard repeated Broca's classification lo in his
famous textbook of 1885, but added the following interesting
remarks (p. 682) :
1885.
From the first in my Amtlzropology, I have manifested the
little confidence that I have in these two indices [length-height,
breadth-height]. Being given the approximate volume of the
skull to which it is predestined by heredity, and aside from
accidental influences during birth, the general form of the
skull obeys a system of compensation. When its antero-posterior diameter increases, its vertical and transverse diameters
tend to shrink, both at the same time o r one at a time. If
there is antagonism between the great axis of the cranial ovoid
and the two other axes that are perpendicular to it, there is
antagonism then between the latter; when one yields, the
other resists, all things being equal, although finally both
yield. Such is the cause which prevents the vertical indices
from expressing what one would wish. In the first index the
exclusion of the transverse diameter from the comparison
causes uneasiness; in the second, it is the [longitudinal diameter]. I have thought therefore that the mean between the
two indices would give a better result than the one or the
other separately, and I have given it the name of mixed index
of height. The endeavor has responded only mQderately to
my expectation.
The means of the mixed index range from 77.7 to 89.111.
lo It should be noted that Martin ( '28, p. 649) gives this classification with
the Frankfort terminology.
l' DBs l'abord, dans mon Anthropologie, j 'avais manifest6 le peu de confiance
que m'inspiraient ces deus indices. La forme gBn6rale du criine, &ant donne
le volume approsiinatif auquel ellc est pr6destin6e par hCr6dit6, en laissant de
cGt6 Ies influences accidentelles sur 1'individu pendant la crossance, oMit L un
systBme de compensation. Lorsque son diamBtre antCro-post6rieur s 'allonge, scs
diamhtres vertical et transverse tendent B se r6tr6cir, les deus en m&me temps
ou un seul B la fois. S 'il y a antagonisme entre le grand axe de 1'oroi'de criinien
et 1es deus autres ases qui h i sont perpendiculaires, il y a antagonisme ensuite
cntre eeux-ri ; lorsqu 'un cBde, 1'autre resiste, toutes choses Bgales, bien qu 'il arrive
que tous les deux &dent. Telle est la cause qui emp6che les indices verticaux
d 'exprimer ee qu'on roudrait. 1)ans lc premier indice, le diani?-tre transversc
csclu de la compnraisoi~ g h e ; dam le second, c'est le diametre transverse
[ant6ro-post&rieur?]. J 'avais donc pens6 que 1s moyenne entre les deus indices
donnerait un meilleur resultat que l'un OLI l'autre s6parenient, et j e Itti avais
donn6 le nom d 'indicc mizte d c hazitezir. L 'essai n 'a que m6diocrement r6pondu
a nion attente.
Les variations de I'indice mixte ont rlans les inoyennes de 77.7 A 89.1.
32
T. D. STEWABT
1890. A cursory search tlirough the subsequent literature
reveals a few variations in these classifications : In 1890 Mies
used a classification of the length-height index based on height
taken from basion vertical to the eye-ear plane:
Chamaeeephaly ............. 71.7 and below
-76.7
Orthocephaly .............. 71.8
Hypsicephaly .............. 76.8 and above
1895. An entirely new terminology with different class
ranges was used by von Torok in 1895 in classifying the
breadth-height index (footnote, p. 286) :
Eurycrany ................. 95.0 and below
Mesoeurycrany ............. 95.1-100.0
Stenocrany ................ 100.1 and above’*
I have not discovered what measurement of height is involved
jn the index as here classified, although Martin (’28, p. 650)
iiicludes this classification under the index formed from
basion-bregma height. However, it would seem more likely
that the vertical height was intended.
1914. The following classificatioiis of the length-height and
breadth-height indices were given by Martiii in 1914 (repeated
in the 1928 edition) without comment other than indicating
that they are based on basion-bregma height (pp. 649-650) :
LENGTH-HEXGHT IXDEX
Chainnecephnly (better ehamaecrany) ........
Orthocephaly (better orthocrany) ............
Hypsicephaly (better hypsicrany) ............
69.9 and below
70.0-74.9
75.0 and above
BREADTH-HEIGHT INDEX
Tapeinocephaly (better tapeinocrany) ........ 91.9 and below
Metriocephaly (better metriocrany) ........... 92.0-97.9
Acrocephaly (better acrocrany) .............. 98.0 and above
This classification of the breadth-height index is clearly a
combination of Broca’s figures and Turner’s nonienclature.
Martin ( ’28, p. 630) gives the class iange for stenocranp as 101.0-s.
THE INDICES O F HEAD HEIGHT
33
Hooton ( ’30, pp. 46,48) has slightly altered the above class
ranges of both indices for no apparent reason:
LENQTH-HEIQRT INDEX
Chaniaecephalp ............. 69.5 and below
Orthocephaly .............. 69.6-74.5
Hypsicephaly .............. 74.6 and above
BEFADTH-HEIIGHT INDEX
............
91.5 and below
Tapeinocephaly
Metriocephaly ............. 91.6-97.5
Acrocephaly ............... 97.6 and above
2916. Finally, we may note that Hrdlicka (1916), like
Manouvrier, has expressed dissatisfaction with the lengthheight and breadth-height indices as used separately :
. . . . none of these [indices] are very satisfactory for showing the true value of this dimension [height], which on the
one hand is proportionate to the size of the skull, and on the
other stands in a more o r less compensatory relation with both
the length and breadth of the vault. It has long been felt by
the writer that some expression of the real relative value of
the height measurement was required, and this need led him
ultimately to compare it not with the very variable length or
breadth of the skull, but with the mean of these two measurements. The resultant index, which may be called siniply the
height index of the vault, gives us a new means of comparison
and classification of the skull and promises to prove much
more satisfactory than the two older indexes (p. 116).
In another publication the same year ( ’16 a ) , dealing with the
living, HrdliEka called this ratio the “mean height index,’’
which name he has used ever since. As will be shown later,
he has not made a classification of this index13. It will be
recognized, however, that HrdliEka ’s “mean height index”
and Manouvrier ’s “mixed index’’ are essentially the same.
Suminary. After an early period of trying to relate the
length-height index to the cephalic (cranial) index in a special
classification of racial groups, attention turned to the classification of the individual height indices. I n general there may
be said to be three of these indices, the length-height, the
The writer (Sten-art, ’40) has used the following subdivisions merely for
purposes of analysis. s-80.4, 80.5-83.4, 83.5-x.
34
T. D. STEWABT
breadth-height, and the mean height or mixed. Each of these
indices in turn depends upon the definitions of the measurements entering into its formation. I n the classifications given
above there are probably no variations in the measurement
of length and breadth. Of the measurements of height from
basion represented in these classifications there are at least
two: to bregma, and vertical to the eye-ear plane. Although
most of the authors do not explain their classifications, it may
be assumed from the history of the cephalic index (see pt. I)
that they have based them on the midpoint of the range for
humanity. The variations listed above are summarized in
table 1.
TABLE 1
Comparison of classifications.
INDEX BASED ON
BAS:BREG. HT.
-4Ut.hOr
CLASS N A M E
Length-height index:
Chamaeerany
(Microseme)
I Broca
and Turner
i Martin
i Hooton
1
Orthocrany
( Mesoseme)
Broca
Turner
Martin
Hooton
I Broca
Hypsicrany
(Megaseme)
INDEX BASED ON
VERT. HT. FIWM BASION
Class ranse
Author
Class range
x-71.9
s-69.9
X-69.5
Ranke *
Mies
x-70.0
x-71.7
72.0-74.9
72 .O-7 7 .O
70.0-74.9
69.6-74.5
and Martin 75.0-x
74.6-x
77.1-x
i Hooton
i Turner
Ranke
Mies
70.1-75.0
71.8-76.7
Ranke
Mies
75.1-r
76.8-r
Breadth-height index :
I Eroca and
Hooton
i
Tapeinocrang
(Mieroseme,
eurycrany )
<
Metriocrany
(Mesoseme,
mesoeurycrany )
Acrocrany
(Megaseme,
stenocranvl
_
I
and
i Eroca
Hooton
i
I
and
i Broea
Hooton
I
i
Martin
x-91.9
X-91.5
Torok
Martin 92.0-97.9
91.6-97.5
Torok
Martin 98.0-s
97.6-x
ToGk
x-95.0
95.1-100.0
100.1-x
These class names a r e now most generally used, but the names now used for
the breadth-height index were originally suggested by Turner f o r the lengthheight index (see p. 30).
Frankfort Agreement.
T H E INDICES O F HEAD HEIGHT
33
T H E INDICES O F T H E HEAD
Owing to the fact that there is no measure of height on the
head comparable to basion-bregnia height on the skull, the
indices of head height naturally are not comparable to those
of skull height that we have been considering. I n this connection Martin ('28, p. 199) has pointed out the incorrect
practice of those authors who use the classifications of the
length-height index as designed for the skull for analyzing
the index obtained from the head. Aside from the classifications given by Martin, based upon auricular height in the living, there does not appear to have been other efforts in this
direction.
In view of the general interest in HrdliEka's mean height
index as applied to the skull, and in spite of the fact that it
is not strictly comparable to that on the living head, it is
desirable to present here his fuller views on this subject as
expressed in his writings on the Old Americans ('25, pp.
170-171) :
The reason for adopting this ratio [mean height index]
rather than using the old height-length and height-breadth
indices, should be obvious enough after what has been seen
concerning the behavior of head length and breadth with
changing cephalic index. As this index rises the length of the
head decreases and the breadth increases in a closely compensatory manner, while the height remains but little affected.
As a result we obtain a low or high height-length or heightbreadth index not as as indication of the relative height of
the head, which is the point to be ascertained, but as a measure
of the changing head length or breadth. The height-length
and height-breadth indices of the head or skull are therefore
unsuited for the purpose for which they were intended. But
their mean is free from this disadvantage; it is a constant
that is not affected or not affected materially by the changing
breadth-length relations ; and contrasting the height with this
constant gives a true index of the relative height of the skull
or head.
In showing the distribution of this index, the writer, as on
other occasions, will not attempt any specific nomenclature
and subdivision, which in time tend to assume unnatural and
36
T. D. STEWART
more or less fetichistic value. The criteria by which any index
or measurement must be judged primarily and above all, are
its average, and its curve of distribution.
DISCUSSION
It is evident that less attention has been given to classification of the height indices than to that of the cephalic index.
There has been only one general agreement (Frankfort) that
included the classification of one of these indices (lengthheight) and even this classification is not given in Martin’s
“Lehrbuch” ( ’28). The terminology of the classifications has
become fairly well established as it relates to either length or
breadth, but it is not restricted to a particular definition of
height. I f this terminology is to be of full use, it should be
exactly defined both as to the measurements involved and the
class limits employed. Unless one of the present arbitrary
classifications is adopted, it would be well to search for one
that is more meaningful from the morphological standpoint;.
The relative value of the various indices of height has been
the subject of discussion ever since they came into use. Both
the length-height and the breadth-height index have had their
partisans, whereas many have given both or a mean of the
two. Naturally, those who have been accustomed to use only
the length-height or breadth-height index have been confused
by and unable to interpret the mean height index.
I n order to show how these three indices vary in extreme
forms of the human skull, I have prepared table 2. The four
populations here represented vary from dolichocrany (71.0)
to brachycrany (82.9) and from chamae- or tapeiiiocrany
(68.1, 84.9) to hypsi- or acrocrany (77.8, 101.5) ; there are
combinations of narrow and high-headedness (New South
Wales series), broad and high-headedness (Kentucky series) ,
narrow and low-headedness (Southern California Island
series), and broad and low-headedness (Aleutian Island
series). When subdivided according to the conventional classes
of the cephalic index there is a tendency for the length-height
index to increase as the cephalic index increases, whereas the
37
THE INDICES OF HEAD HEIGHT
breadth-height index decreases. This is due to the compensatory changes in the dimensions. The mean height index occupies a position midway between the other two indices and
reflects the ohanges in both; it is intermediate also in its
range (see p. 31 f o r range of Topinard's mixed index).
Many have recognized that there are disadvantages in considering either the length-height or breadth-height index alone.
TABLE
2
Comparison of three indices of cranial height (basion-bregma).
CBANIAL IhmEX
(NO.)
SERIES
(author)
New South Wales
(HrdliEka, '28)
Mean
S. California I.
(HrdliEka, '2i)
Mean
Kentucky
(HrdliFlia, '27)
Mean
Aleutian Ii~lands
(Hrdlicka, '24)
Mean
LT.-HT.
INDEX
M m N HT.
RE.-HT
INDFX
INDEX
X-69.9
70.0-74.9
75.0-79.9
(36)
(51)
(9)
69.8
72.0
76.3
71.0
(96)
71.5 (Ortho-)
83.6
(14)
(25)
(5)
66.6
673
69.2
71.3
73.7
(84)
1
79.2
78.2
78.4
78.6
68.1 (Chamae-) 78.5
70.0-74.9
75.0-79.9
80.0-84.9
(15)
(41)
(6)
76.5
78.0
i9.2
76.6
(62)
77.8 (Hypsi-)
75.0-79.9
80.0-84.9
85.0-1
(7)
(32)
(13)
70.2
70.2
70.0
82.9
(52)
70.2 (Ortho-)
X-69.9
iO.0-74.9
75.0-79.9
80.0-84.9
(40)
100.8 (Acro-)
1
1 6:2
?
1
92.3 (Metrio-)
104.1
88.2
I
?
4
\ T
-
101.5 (Acro-)
89.8
;%:86.4
75.1
81.0
76.9
84.9 (Tapeino-)
Thus in the present example the Australians are quite lowheaded according to the length-height index (even cliamaecranic according to Broca's subdivisions) but quite highheaded (acrocranic) according to the breadth-height index.
The mean height index indicates a moderately high head14.
did not fully appreciate this point when I criticized Dixon's use of the
length-height index (Stewart, '40)' but some of his findings mere probably dne
t o this weakness of the single index.
38
T. D. STEWART
F o r purposes of general comparison, therefore, the iiieaii
height index is a much more compact expression and iiiore
significant than either the length-height or breadth-height index alone. At present, too, it has the advantage of not being
encumbered with classificatory terminology.
LITERATURE CITED
BAER, C. E. DE 1859 Crania selecta ex thesauris anthropologicis acadeinine
imperialis Petropolitanae. MQm. Acad. Imp. sci. St. PBtersbourg, 6'
&r., Sci. nat., VIII, 243-268.
BROCA,
P A U L 1875 Instructions craiiiologiques et craniom6triques de la Societi!
d'Anthropologie de Paris. Paris (also in M h . Soe. Anthrop Paris,
2' ser. 11).
BERNARD1866 The skulls of the inhabitants of the Cauoliut.
DAVIS, JOSEPH
Islands. Anthrop. Rev. London, IV, 47-61.
DUCKWORTH,
W. L. H. 1904 Morphology and anthropology. Cambridge.
FLOWER,
WILLIAM HENRY 1879 Catalogue of the specimens illustrating the
osteology and dentition of vertebrated animals, recent and extiuet,
contained in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Pt. 1, London. (Second edition 1907.)
GATISSIN, LOUIS 1865 Relation entre les trois diaindtres du crlne. Bull. Sor.
Anthrop. Paris, VI, 141-168.
HOOTON,
EARNESTALBERT 1930 The Indians of Pecos Pueblo. New Haven.
HRDLICKA,
ALE& 1916 Physical anthropology of the Lenape or Delawares, and
of the eastern Indians i n general. Bull. 62 Bur. Am. Ethnol.
1916 a Anthropology of the Chippewa. Holnies Anniversary Volume, pp. 198-227.
1924 Catalogue of human crania in the United States National
Museum collections: The Eskimo, ctc. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., LXI'CI,
art. 12, no. 2480.
____ 1925 Old Americans. Baltimore.
1927 Catalogue of human crania in the United States Natioiial
Museum collections: The Algonkin, ete. Proc. U. S. Nat. MU~.,L X I S ,
art. 5, no. 2631.
1928 Catalogue of human crania in the United States National
Museum collections: Australians, etc. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., LXXI,
art. 24, no. 2696.
IHERJNG,
H. VoN 1873 Zur Reform der Craniometrie. Ztschr. f. Ethnol., V,
121-169.
XARTIN,
RUDOLF 1914 Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Jena. (Second edition in
three volumes, 1928.)
AfIES, FRANZ
Jon. JOSEPH 1890 Ueber die grosate G n g e und ganze Hohe der
Schadel und iiber das Verhaltniss dieser beiden Masse zu einander.
Tageblatt 62. Versamml. deut. Naturf. Aerzte Heidelberg 1889,
292-297.
_
.
-
THE INDICES O F HEAD H E I G H T
RANKE, J.
39
1883 Verstandigung iiber ein gemeiiisames craniometrisclies Verfahren. Arch. f. Anthrop., XV, 1-8.
RETZIUS,ANDERS 1864 Ethnologische Schriften (edited by Gustaf Retzius) .
Stockholm.
STEWART,T. D. 1936 Anthropometric nomenclature. I. The cephalic (lengthbreadth) index. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., X X I I , 97-140.
__-_
1940 Some historical implications of physical anthropology in North
-4merica. Sniithsonian Misc. Colls., C, 15-50.
THURNAM,JOHN1863-1564 On the two principal forms of ancient British
and Gaulish skulls. P a r t 11. Mem. Aathrop. SOC. London, I, 459-519.
TOPINARD,
PAUL 1885 ElBments d 'anthropologie gBn6rale. Paris.
TOROK, AUFSL VON 1895 Ueber den YBzoer Ainosehadel aus der ostasiatischen
Reise des Herrn Grafen BBla Szkhenyi und den Sachaliner Ainoschadel
des konigl. zoologischen und anthropologisch-ethnographischen Museums
zu Dresden. Arch. f. Anthrop. X X I I I , 249-345.
TURNER,WM. 1884 Report on the human crania and other bones of the skeletons
collected during the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger, in the years
1873-1876. Challenger Exp. Reps. X X I X (Zoology).
VIECHOW,R. 1874 Uber eine niedrigc Schiidelforni in Norddeutschland. Verhandl. Berl. Gessells. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urgesch., 239-251 (Ztschr. f .
Ethnol., V I ) .
WELCKER,HERNANN 1866 Kraniologische Mittheilungen. Arch. f. Anthrop.,
I, 89-160.
-___
1885 Die Capacitat und die drei haupdurchniesser der Sehadelkapsel
bei den verschiedenen Nationen. Arch. f. Anthrop. XVI. 1-159.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
875 Кб
Теги
heights, nomenclatural, head, indices, anthropometric
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа