close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Anthropometry. Anthropometric nomenclature. I. The cephalic (length-breadth) index

код для вставкиСкачать
ANTHROPOMETRY
ANTHROPOMETRIC NOMENCLATURE
I.
T H E CEPHALIC (LENOTH-BREADTH) INDEX
T. D. STEWART
Division of Physiwl Anthropology, 17. S. National Museum
THREE FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
The percental relationship of the length and breadth of the
B x 100
7
is referred
)to most generally in the present-day
head (
literature either as the cephalic index or the length-breadth
index.' In some cases the technique for obtaining the two
measurements involved in this relationship is not stated and
the reader is left to infer either that any measures of length
and breadth can be used to determine this index, or that the
proper measures, whatever they may be, have been used.
On the other hand, not infrequently a head is described as
being dolichocephalic or brachycephalic and the index is not
given. In this case the reader, upon turning for enlightenment to one of the most widely used textbooks (Martin, 'as),
will find that more than one classification of the cephalic
index has been proposed. Moreover, if he desires to compare the indices on the living head and the skull, he will Gnd
that the various classifications are based on the skull, and
that there is no agreement even upon the factor to be used
in making the conversion from one index to the other.
'For convenience i n the present discussion the term cephalic index will be
adopted.
97
AMERICAN J O W N A L O F PHYSICAL ANTEEUPOMQY, VOL. XXII, NO. 1
OCTOBER-DECEMBER, 19 36
98
T. D. STEWART
The existence of this situation has been recognized by the
Anthropometric Committee of the American Association of
Physical Anthropologists and appears under no. 2 in the
Committee’s list of items for review (’36). The writer,
having volunteered to study this item, that is, the “nomenclature of the various cephalic, cranial and facial indices,’’
herewith presents his review of the first and best known of
these indices.
It is felt that a report of this nature should be as objective
as possible, presented chronologically, and fully documented.
T h e early history of the cephalic index has been reviewed on
a number of occasions, and it would be a simple matter to
summarize these statements. Nevertheless, this method has
been avoided in favor of consulting the original sources. As
f a r a s can be learned, the history of the cephalic index since
1886 has not been included in previous reviews.
France and Germany were the leaders of anthropological
endeavor during the time when the cephalic index was being
most intensely investigated. It is in the literature of these
countries that the writer has conducted most of his search.
The literature of England has been included also, because of
its accessibility to American workers. I t is unlikely that
important contributions have been made from other countries.
There is a temptation to add many references to indicate
the following that the various classifications obtained. While
this is a n interesting phase of the history of nomenclature,
it contributes little to the actual development of the subject,
and unnecessarily lengthens both the text and bibliography.
I have contented myself, therefore, with mentioning only some
of the great catalogues of crania that appeared early and
which were influential in establishing terminology.
Since the history of the cephalic index, as applied to the
skull, goes back nearly 100 years, this interval will be subdivided into four arbitrary and unequal periods, each characterized by the names of its foremost contributors to the
subject. A separate section will be devoted to a consideration of the factor used in converting the index of the living
head to that of the skull.
99
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
THE INDEX OF THE SKULL
I . A . Retzius, Baer (1842-1861)
1842. Although racial differences in the shape of the skull
had been recognized earlier, the history of the cephalic index,
so f a r as nomenclature is concerned, properly begins in 1842
when the Swedish anatomist A. Retzius published a race
classification using the terms ‘gentes dolichocephalae ’ and
‘gentes brachycephalae. ’ Retzius did not consider it necessary in his day to explain the etymology of his newly coined
words, namely, long-headed (601&c, long; x c p d r j , head) and
short-headed ( p p a x k , short ; x ~ p a A r j ,head). Neither, unfortunately, did he clearly indicate the distinction between these
two classes. The only indication of his meaning was furnished by his description of the skulls of various races. Thus
of the Swedish skulls classed under ‘gentes dolichocephalae, ’
he says (1864, p. 4) : “The maximum length is about onefourth greater than the maximum breadth, so that the proportion of the former to the latter = 1000: 773 or nearly
9 : 7.” * Of Slavic skulls, classed under ‘gentes brachycephalae,’ he says (p. 8) : “The cranium exhibits . . . an . . . .
egg-shape . . . ., the maximum length of which exceeds the
posterior or maximum breadth by not quite one-eighth, so
that the proportion of the former to the latter =1000: 888 or
approximately 8: 7.”
The Finns, also ‘gentes brachycephalae,’ a r e shown (p. 12) to have a length about one-fifth
greater than the breadth (1000: 808). Skulls of Laps, Kalmucks and Greenlanders are also considered in detail, but
the figures for these groups throw no light on the problem.
It is important to note, however, that Retzius measured maximum length (from glabella) and maximum breadth of the
skull.
’Die grosste G n g e ist urn t grosser als die grosste Breite, so dass sie sich zu
.
dieser = 1000: 773 oder fast = 9: 7 verhalt.
‘Die Hirnschaie zeigt . . . eine . . . Eiforni
. ., deren grosste Lange
die hintere oder grosste Breite urn nicht voll 4 ubwsteight, so dass die erstere
sich zur letztern = 1000: 888 oder ungefahr = 8 : 7 verhalt.
.
.
..
100
T. D. STEWART
The importance of Retzius' contribution seems to have been
recognized a t once, for it was translated into German in 1845
and into French a year later. After this work became generally available through the translations, it became more
apparent that the usefulness of the classification was diminished by the failure to define the two classes. Thus, Duvernoy
seems to have written Retzius to this effect and the latter
replied in 1852 (Retzius, 1864, p. 118) :
You ask for the characters distinguishing brachycephaly from
dolichocephaly! I am still unable to determine any fixed
measures that will distinguish them ; but ordinarily in dolichocephaly the long diameter exceeds the breadth by about onefourth, while in brachycephaly this difference varies between
one-fifth and one-eighth. But the most distinctive characters
are : [There follow seven morphological features distinguishing each of the two groups.]'
Consideration of this statement will show that it did little to
clarify the point, and besides, it was not made public until
1864.
1851. I n the meantime various interpretations began to
appear. Vogt writes as follows (1851, p. 556) :
I n one group [of skulls] the length considerably exceeds the
breadth, so that the proportion of one to the other is at least
as 9 : 7 . . . . These skulls, as seen from above, form an oval
that sometimes is much elongated, in other cases approaches
more nearly a rounded form. This type of skull has been
named the dolichocephalic form . . . . In contrast to the
long heads stands the short heads o r brachycephals, in which
the proportion of length to breadth is at most as 8: 7.6
'Vous me demandez lee c a r w a r e s distinctifs entre la forme brachycephale et
dolichoc6phalel J e ne veux pas encore determiner quelques mesures fixes pour
les distinguer ; mais B 1 'ordinaire, le diam&re longitudinal des dolichoeephalea
surpasse la largeur d 'environ 4, tandis que chez les brachyeephales, cette diffbrence varie entre 4-8. Mais les earaethes les plus distinctifs sont:
Bei den Einen iibertrifft der Gngsdurchmesser den Querdurchmesser urn ein
Bedeutendes, so dass sich beide wenigstens zu einander verhalten, wie 9 : 7
Die Schadel von oben gesehen, bilden ein Oval, das zuweilen sehr in die Lange
gestreckt ist, in anderen Fallen mehr einer rundlieken Form sich nahert. Man
hat diese Gestaltung des Schadels die Dolichoeephale Form genannt, . . Den
Langkiipfen gegeniiber stehen die Kurzkopfe oder Brachycephalen, bei welehen der
Liingsdurehmesser zum Querdurchmesser dch hochstens verhalt wie 8: 7 . .
....
. .
.
.
101
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
1859. Baer published in 1859 a system of measurements,
including maximum length and breadth of the skull, that were
widely adopted. He followed Retzius’ method of expressing
the relationship of length to breadth as a proportion, and in
this connection makes the following statement (p. 248) :
With the average skull of all human kind the simplest way
to express this proportion is:
Length to . . . breadth, as
1 ”
4/5
or 1000 ”
800, . . .6
.
.
1861. Busk wrote as follows (1861, p. 343):
One object I have had in view in the scheme of measurements
now proposed, is that precise numerical values should be employed in place of words, in speaking of the proportions of a
cranium; or, at any rate, that any term employed should be
associated with some given numerical value . . It will
readily be seen that by the adoption of this plan, . . . the
comparative length or shortness of a skull may be accurately
expressed in figures. As, for instance, assuming the length
as the standard, crania as regards their length may be said
to have the breadth as .6, .7, .8, or .9 of the length, the two
former numbers actually embracing all the crania hitherto
classed under the dolichocephalic type, whilst under the two
latter will be found included all the so-termed brachycephalic
skulls.
. .
.
Summary. Other interpretations might perhaps be found.
However, this is snf6cient to show that during the period
following the publication of Retzius’ views effort was centered upon finding the dividing line between dolichocephaly
and brachycephaly. Until the end of the period, also, the
actual relationship between the two dimensions of the skull
was unnamed. Moreover, Retzius and Baer firmly established the practice of measuring maximum length and breadth
of the skull.
*Cum cranium medium totius generis humani simplici hac proportione exprimi
POdt:
Longitudoad
1
veil000
”
”
. . . . latitudinem,ut
4/5
....
800, . . . .
102
T. D. STEWART
I I . Broca, Welcker (1861-1872)
1861-1862. Broca and Welcker, independently and almost
simultaneously, decided that it was a mistake to try to separate races into two groups on the basis of the relationship
of the length and breadth of skull.
Broca ( 1861) encountered difficulties with Retzius ’ classification when he undertook the study of skulls from old Paris
cemeteries. Naming the percental relationship of skull length
to skull breadth the ‘indice ckphalique,’ Broca presents the
following argument (pp. 506-507) :?
There are in fact many skulls, even among those of the pure
races of man, which can be assigned only with difficulty to
either the brachy- or dolichocephalic group. The determination is therefore somewhat arbitrary, and such a race classified by one author as brachycephalic, could be classified a s
dolichocephalic by another. I n order to eliminate this difficulty it is suitable to take the proportion of 7: 9 (77.77: 100)
o r of 8: 10 (80: 100) a s the line of demarcation between these
two cephalic types. This, however, is insufficient, because in
certain pure races nearly equal numbers of skulls are found
situated on one side or the other of the line of demarcation.
M. Broca thinks therefore that the character indicated by
M. Retzius, although excellent as a distinctive and descriptive
character, ought not to be applied in a dichotomous manner
to the classification of races; and he adds that in order to
trace all possible parts in the description of pure and mixed
races, it is well to increase the sections established by 11.
Retzius. For example, he would like to have designated under
the name mesaticephaly (pcaarioc medium) skulls of intermediate type, the index of which varies between 7 : 9 and
8 : 10, that is to say, between 77.77 and 80 per 100 ; he would
have the names brachycephaly and dolichocephaly reserved
for those of which the index is greater o r less, and he would
‘ A s secretary of the society Broca reported his communication in the third
person.
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
103
even have each of these two groups subdivided into two
secondary groups, in the following manner : *
A. Pure dolichocephaly. InI. Dolichocephalic skulls.
dices smaller than 75 per 100.
Indices smaller than 77.7 B. Sub-dolichocephaly. Indices
included between 75 and 77.6
per 100.
per 100.
11. 3fesaticephalic skulls. Indices included between 77.7 and
79.9 per 100.
A. Sub-brachycephaly. Indices
included between 80 and 84.9
111. Brachycephalic skulls.
per 100.
Indices of 80 per 100 and B. Pure brachycephaly.
Indices of 85 per 100 and above.
above.
Likewise, Welcker ( 1862) encountered difficulties with the
dichotomous classification when he assembled the cephalic
indices of a large series of racial groups. H e argues as
follows (pp. 4344):
Throughout, when Retzius discusses a skull, he finds it either
dolichocephalic or brachycephalic. Nowhere does he speak
of intermediate forms . . . . Human skulls, however, are
never formed thus into two diametrically opposed types . . . .
I hold therefore that it is entirely arbitrary and forcible to
divide into two groups the skulls ranged around the neutral
I1 y a en effet beaucoup de crines, m6me parmi eeux des hommes de race pure,
qu ’il est difficile de ranger soit dans le groupe brachycephale, soit dans ie groupe
dolichocbphde. L a dCtermination est alors quelque peu arbitraire, e t telle race,
consideree par un auteur comme braehycephale, pourra dtre consider& comme
dolichocephale par un autre auteur. Pour lever la W c u l t e , on est eonvenu de
prendre le rapport de 7 : 9 ( 7 7 . 7 7 : 100) ou de 8: 10 (80: 100) c o m e la ligne
de demarcation de ees deux types cephaliquea. Mais cela est inswEsant, puisque
dans certaines races puree on trouve en nombre B peu pr6s Bgd des cranes a t u b
en deQB ou d e b de la ligne de demarcation. M. Broca pense done que 1e caractere
indique par M. Retzius, quoique excellent cornme caractare distinctif e t descriptif,
ne doit pas Ctre applique par voie dichotomique B la classification des races; et
il ajoute que pour en tirer tout le parti possible dans l a description des races
pures ou croisbs, il est bon de multiplier les sections Btablies par M. Retzius.
I1 voudrait, par exemple, qu’on designlit sous le nom de mesaticephales ( pEaaTcg
mogen) les crines de type intermediaire, dont 1 ’indice oscille entre 7 : 9 et 8 : lF,
c’est-&-dire entre 77.77 et 80 pour 100; qu’on r b e r v i t les noms de brachycbphales
e t de dolichocephalea pour ceux dont I’indice eat plus grand ou plus petit, et
mdme qu ’on subdivisit chacun de ces deux groupes en deux groupes seeondaires,
de la mnnj6re suivante:
104
T. D. STEWART
middle by using a dividing line that has been determined by
choice or calculation.
Between dolichocephaly and brachycephaly must be included the most extensive group of such skulls, which no one
can classify either as long or as short and which therefore
merit none of these names, because they consistitute the middle form-orthocephaly.
Now at what index shall dolichocephaly and brachycephaly
begin? The figure 75 lies midway between the median figures
of the two end members of our row (Lapps and Ethiopians),
it thus constitutes-as far as I can now determine-the center
of orthocephaly. I should encounter no opposition if I declare as dolichocephalic all skulls that have an index less than
70; one could reasonably go to 72. But further. Indices of
80 and above are brachy~ephalic.~
It is important to note that Welcker does not give a name
to the relationship between length and breadth. Besides, he
departs from the conventional method of measuring these
dimensions; he measures length from a point in the midline
between the two frontal bosses to a point on the occiput
“corresponding to the occipital protrusion of the child’s
skull,” and breadth between the points where the horizontal
and transverse circumferences intersect (1862, p. 24). These
measurements yield indices that, on the average, are probably lower than those resulting from the use of the maximum
diameters.
Ueberall, wenn Retzius einen Schadel bespricht, so findet er denselben entweder
dolichocephal, oder brachyeephal. Nirgends spricht er von Mittelformen, .
Die Schiidel des Menschengeschlechtes sind aber keineswegs derart nach zwei
diametral entgegengesetzten Typen gebildet, . . Ich halte es darum f u r
durchaus willkiirlich und gewaltsam, die um das neutrale Mittel gelagerten
Scheidegrenze in zwei Haufen zu zerspalten.
Zwischen die Dolichocephali und Braehyeephali muss mithin noeh die hochst
urnfangliehe Gruppe derjenigen Schiidel eingeschoben werden, welche Niemandem
weder als lang, noch als kurz auffallen konnen und darum auch keinen dieser
Namen verdienen, meil sie eben die Mittelform darstellen-Orthocephali.
Bei welcher Ziffer der Schadelbreite nun sollen aber die beiden Endformen,
Dolichocephalie und Braehycephalie, beginnen? Die Ziffer 75 liegt zwischen den
Mittelziff ern der beiden Endglieder unserer Reihe (Lappen und sehmalkopfigste
Aethiopier) mitten inne, sie bezeichnet mithin-oweit
ich bis jetzt beatimmen
kann-daa
Centrum der Orthocephalie. Ich werde auf keinen Widerspruch
stossen, wenn ich f u r doliehocephal alle die Schadel erkkire, welche weniger a18
“ 7 0 9 , haben; man diirfte fiiglich bis 72 gehen. Aber weiter.
“80 Procent
Schadelbreite und was dariiber ist, ist brachycephal. ’ ’
...
. .
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
105
Incidentally, it should be noted that Welcker did not give
the etymolo,gy of the word ‘orthocephali.’ Vogt (1863) in
discussing the subject translates orthocephaly as ‘Rechtkopfe ’
and comments in a footnote (p. 57) that “[Broca] used the
far better designation middle-head [ Mittelkopfe] (mesaticephaly, o r for short, mesocephaly). ” The shortened spelling of Broca’s term (mesocephaly) thus appears at this early
date. It should be noted, however, that Broca always objected to this spelling on the ground that as such it was
already applied in the French language to the mid-brain
(see Broca, 1872, p. 401).
1864. Weisbach seems not to have been aware of the proposed third group when he wrote in 1864 that “one must
reckon as short-headed all those forms where the breadth
amounts to over 0.820 of the length, and as long-headed those
falling below 0.820” (p. 127).
The following is Thurnam’s reaction to the classifications
of Broca and Welcker (1864, p. 461) :
This intermediate or ovoid form he [Welcker] names orthocephalic, a term which, on the ground of euphony, is perhaps
preferable to the “mesaticephalic” of M. Broca. Professor
Welcker appears to me warranted in classing all skulls as
dolichocephalic in which the breadth does not exceed .70 or
.71 in proportion to the length, and all in which it amounts
to .80 and upwards as brachycephalic. The figure .75 is thus
“the centre of orthocephalism”. . . . The estimate of Professor Welcker differs somewhat from that of M. Broca,
whose middle or mesaticephalic class, as deduced from a large
series of skulls, from mediaeval and modern cemeteries of
Paris, is placed higher in the scale, though extending only
from 77.7 to 79.9 (-80). With M. Broca, it is desirable to
admit a sub-dolichocephalic and a sub-brachycephalic class.
These appear to me to be most conveniently obtained by
assuming for the absolutely orthocephalic class the three figures of .74, .75, and .76; whilst the lower figures of .73, .72,
and perhaps .71, form the sub-dolichocephalic, and the higher
figures of .77, .78, and .79, the sub-brachycephalic class. We
shall at least find that this method is very applicable to the
right estimate of the measurements of ancient British and
Gaulish skulls.
106
T. D. STEWART
I n contrast, it is notable that Davis and Thurnam in the
Crania Britannica (released to subscribers in installments
between 1856 and 1865) also refer to both Broca and Welcker,
and, although seemingly more inclined to Broca’s classification, a r e influenced by Busk’s view (1861) that dolichocephaly
and brachycephaly divide at the index 80 (see I, pp. 221,
222, 224). Since Davis mentions only Busk’s views in the
Thesaurus Craniorum (1867) it is evident that Thurnam at
least did not succeed in urging the use of his classification.
Davis’ policy in this regard formed the model for similar
catalogues appearing in Germany (Rutimeyer and His, 1864;
Ecker, 1865).
On the other hand, Dusseau (1865) seems to have followed
Retzius’ original method of judging the class of the skull by
inspection,l0 and in America Meigs (1866) is found using the
word ‘mesocephali’ without any indication of its source and
with only the following defmition : ‘‘Skulls intermediate in
length, with broadly oval, triangular or quadrangular crowns ;
the occiput generally rounded o r rather flat.” (Heading of
table p. 33).
Parenthetically, and in order to preserve the chronological
sequence, it should be noted that Gaussin at this time (1865)
proposed the names ‘indice ckphalique horizontal’ and ‘indice
chphalique vertical’ (length-height index). He felt that without these qualifying words the two indices might be confused.
1866. I n the first issue of the Archiv f u r Anthropologie
( 1866) Welcker re-examines his position regarding the classification of the cephalic index (‘Breitenindex,’ as he calls it).
Regarding the name by which the intermediate group is to
be known, he says (footnote, p. 131):
On p. 43 [of my 1862 publication] I have placed very little
value on the name under which it is desirable to accept the
necessarily separate intermediate group. In the meantime
several authors have preferred orthocephaly to mesaticephaly
“ I n 1873 Ihering stated (p. 143) that Duaseau divided dolichocephaly and
brachycephaly at 83. This statement is repeated by Welcker (1885, p. 128).
Careful study of Dusseau’s catalogue does not bear out this statement.
107
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
and accepted the former . . . . so I would retain this designation. Moreover, to my knowledge Broca has subdivided only
the small samples of his old French skulls into dolichocephaly,
mesaticephaly and brachycephaly, and has not expressed the
intention that the races be divided according to their breadth
[cephalic] indices into such groups. I n establishing mesaticephaly the breadth indices of all races were not tested in
order to obtain from such an assembly the index which is
indifferent in relation to dolicho- and brachycephaly. Instead,
the available figures 77.77 and 80.0, the indices of the Swedes
and Lapps, which Retzius had given a s examples of definite
dolichocephaly and brachycephaly, are set up as boundaries
of “mesaticephaly.”
After reviewing again the writings of Retzius, which had
now appeared in collected form (1864), Welcker arranged all
of the available races in a table according to their cephalic
indices. Referring to this, he states (pp. 135-136):
It seems to me that this table, in spite of all of the deficiencies
which may still be connected with it, places beyond doubt the
view that I expressed earlier, namely, that ‘the majority of
skulls accumulate about a middle form’ and that ‘the definite
dolichocephals and brachycephals appear always only as
isolated deviations. ’
We come now to the question: Where does dolichocephaly
and brachycephaly begin? It seems to me that if one agrees
to the inclusion of a middle form to make up three groups
. . . . it ought not to be difficult to reach a general agreement
that for the individual members of this group the first be
named as undoubted dolichocephaly, the second as pure
orthocephaly, the last as pure brachycephaly. As for the two
intermediate groups, for which the designations ‘ subdolichocephaly ’ and ‘subbrachycephaly ’-very fortunately chosen by
Broca-would generally pass, I am not so certain whether
in the limits here selected they are satisfactory to other investigators.
According to the table (p. 135) Welcker’s classification now
stands as follows:
Dolichocephalp
Subdolichocephal y
Orthocephal y
Subbrachycephaly
Brachycephaly
67-71
72-73
74-78
79-80
61-85
AMERICAN J O r m A L OF PIIPSICAL A I T I I R O P O M G Y . VOL. SXXI, NO. 1
108
T. D. STEWART
The same year (1866) that Welcker published the above
classification, Huxley proposed a classification that embodied
Retzius’ two-group system combined with some of the changes
suggested by Broca, Welcker and Thurnam. This new classification, although appearing in a somewhat obscure publication (see Laing), was given immediate prominence through
inclusion in an article reproduced simultaneously in the first
volumes (1867)<of the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology
(London) and the Archiv fur Anthropologie. Huxley ’s
reasoning, given only in the 1866 publication, is as follows
(pp. 8445) :
But apart from any question as to what may have been
Retzius ’ meaning, the terms brachycephalic and dolichocephalic have been so extensively used, in this country and elsewhere, to denote skulls with the cephalic index above and
below 0.8 respectively, that great inconvenience would result
from attaching any other signification to them.
While objecting, however, to the use of ‘dolichocephalic@
in any new sense, I quite agree with Broca, Welcker and
Thurnam in thinking it expedient t o sub-divide the dolichocephalic division; and, in doing this, I shall adopt the very
convenient grouping suggested by Dr. Thurnam, who arranges
the cephalic indices below .80 into four groups:
11.
111.
IV.
I.
(.79 -78 .77) ; (.76 .75 .74) ; (.73 .72 .71) ; (.70 and below)
To No. I. Dr. Thurnam gives the name sub-brachycephalic
used by M. Broca, and which I shall adopt, though not without some reluctance, on account of its etymological hybridity.
No. 11. is the orthocephalic division.
No. III. is called subdolichocephalic, and No. IV.dolichocephalic, by Dr. Thurnam ; but I object to both names for the
reasons given above, and I substitute for No. 111. the title of
mecocephalic, and for No. IV. mecistocephalic. Finally, I
propose to sub-divide the Brachycephali into Eurycephali,
with the cephalic index .80 to .84,and Brachistocephali, with
the cephalic index .85 and above. The following table will
make this terminology plain and exhibit its relations to that
already in use :
109
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
Cephalic index
9 9
91
”
”
3 9
9 9
”
”
t ?
>9
9 9
9 9
J l
”
at or above -80 = I. Brachycephali, round skulls.
99 9 )
91
.85=
Brachistocephali
below .85 and ” ” ” -80 =
Eurycephali.
below .80 = 11. Dolichocephali.
”
.SO ” ’ f ’ 9 above .77=
a. Sub-brachycephali
9 9
-77 I, 9 , 9 , 9 , .74=
b. Orthocephali
skulls.
9 9
-74 7 9 1 9 9 9 9 9
.71=
c. Mecocephali
Oval
”
.71
d. Mecistocephali, oblong
skulls.
1
In 1869 Weisbach was using essentially the same classification as in 1864, except that it now included an intermediate
group (p. 115):
Dolichoeephaly
Meeocephaly
Brachycephaly
73-79
80-81
82-90
2872. By this time the subject of classification of the
cephalic index had become so confused that Broca decided
to devote an article exclusively to its critical analysis. Since
Broca defends his own position and singles out for criticism
the classifications of Welcker, Thurnam and Huxley, his
article should be read by all those interested in the subject.
The reasoning used by Broca in arriving at his own classification, herewith revised (1872) is as follows (pp. 397398) :
These [five] divisions, however, established with a view of
facilitating descriptions, are entirely artificial and the lines
of demarcation that determine them can only be conventional.
Now, in establishing conventions, it is well, as f a r as possible
without inconvenience, to retain those that already count some
partisans. It was this consideration which led me to choose
the indices 7/9 and 8/10 as limits of mesaticephaly, and likewise to choose 6/8, o r 75 per 100, as the line of demarcation
between true dolichocephaly and sub-dolichocephalp. One is
not unmindful that one of the interpretations of Retzius’ test
has led some authors to establish the superior level of dolichocephaly on this limit. My true dolichocephals were therefore
those which always had been called dolichocephals by everyone; and I left among the sub-dolichocephals those of which
the dolichocephaly had not been recognized by some authors.
As to the subdivisions of the group of brachycephals, I had
t o determine that myself, for here there was no precedent to
consult. I placed it originally on the index 85 per 100; this
110
T. D. STEWART
figure, easy to remember, offered me the advantage of being
very convenient for classifying the brachycephalic skulls of
the Parisian series in which the highest individual cephalic
index rose to 91. I thus had, from 80 to 91 per 100, a considerable step which the figure 85 divided nearly in half; but
when, later, I wished to apply this division to the classification of brachycephalic races, I recognized the necessity of
modifying it. None of these races, at least none of those
which are represented in the Paris museums by series of more
than four OF fire skulls, gave me a mean cephalic index above
86 ; nearly all are below 85, so that the division of the brachycephalic races into two groups limited by the index 85 was
far too unequal, and the distinction of sub-brachycephaly and
true brachycephaly lost nearly all of its utility in ethnic
craniology. Therefore, it has appeared to me necessary to
lower this limit, that is to say, to diminish the extent of the
group sub-dolichocephaly, and to increase by as much that
of the group brachycephaly. I n searching for the point where
it would be most convenient to establish the line of demarcation, I have proposed first to make the division convenient
for the classification of races and then to make it convenient
for the memory. From this point of view I have thought
that a simple fraction was preferable to all others. One is
not unmindful that Retzius and his successors have had recourse to centesimal reductions only after having taken as
limits some simple fractions such as 3/4 (75 per loo), 7/9
(77.77 per loo), 4/5 (80 per 100). Having adopted this principle in the other parts of my classification, I have found it
useful still to conform here; I have therefore selected the
fraction 5/6, which gives the centesimal index of 83.33 per
100, and I have observed that this figure had the advantage
besides of giving to the distinction of sub-brachycephaly and
brachycephaly a value nearly the same as that of sub-dolichocephaly and dolichocephaly.
After this correction the constitution of my five groups is
determined in the following manner : l1
Cephalic indez
Simple fractions
True dolicho.
Below and including 75%
or 3/4, or 6/8
Sub-dolicho.
Sub-brachy.
From 75.01 to 77.770/0
From 77.78 to
From 80.01 to 83.330/0
or
7/8
or 4/5, or 6/10
or 5 / 6 , or 10/12
True brachy.
Above 83.33%
Dolichocephaly
Mesaticephaly
. . . ... . . . .
Brachycephaly
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
111
I’ Toutefois ces divisions, Btablies en me de la facilitb des descriptions, aont
entieremexit factiees, et lea lignes de demarcation qui les dhterminent ne peuvent
6tre que conventionnelles. Or, en f a i t de convention, il est bon, lorsqu’on peut
le faire sans inconvbnient, de conserver celles qui comptent dBjB des partisans.
C’Btait cette consideration qui m’avait choisir les indices de 7/9 et de 8/10 pour
limites de la mbsaticBphalie, et ce f u t dans la m6me pens& que j e choisis l’indice
de 6/8, ou de 75 pour 100, pour ligne d e demarcation entre l a dolichoc6phalie
vraie e t la sous-dolichoeBphalie. On n’a pas oubli6 que l’une des interpretations
du texte de Retzius avait conduit quelques auteurs B Btablir sur eette limite le
niveau supBrieur de la dolichocbphalie. Mes dolichocBphales vrais Btaient done
ceux qui avaient toujours BtB appelbs dolichocCphales par tout le monde; et je
laissak parmi les sous-dolichocbphales ceux dont la dolichocbphalie avait 6th
mBconnue par quelques auteurs.
Quant B l a subdivision du groupe des brachycephales, j e due la determiner
moi-m6me; car ici il n’y avait pas de prbebdent B consulter. J e la plagai d’abord
sur l’indice de 85 pour 100; ce chiffre, facile B retenir, m’offrait l’avantage
d ’6tre trbcommode pour elasser les cranes braehycBphales des series parisiennea,
oii le plus grand indice cbphalique individuel s’elevait jusqu’h 91. J’avais donc,
de 80 B 91 pour 100, un C a r t considerable, que le chiffre de 85 coupait a peu
prhs par moiti6; mais lorsque, plus tard, j e voulus appliquer cette division au
classement des races brachycbphales, j e reconnus la nhessit6 de la modSer.
Aucune de ces races, aucune du moins de celles qui sont representees dans les
musees de Paris par des series de plus de quatre ii cinq crlnes, ne me donna un
indice cbphalique moyen suphieur B 86; presque toutes restaient au-dessous de
85, de sorte que la rbpartition des races brachycbphales en deux groupes limitBs
par l’indice de 85 etait beaucoup trop i d g a l e , et que la distinction des sousbrachyc6phales e t des brachycbphales vrais perdait presque toute son utilitB dans
l a crlniologie ethnique. I1 m’a done paru nbcessaire d’abaisser cette limite,
c ’est-%-direde restreindre 1’Btenduc du groupe sous-brachycbphale, et d ’augmenter
d’autant celle du groupe brachyc6phale. En cherchant le point oil il Btait le plus
convenable d’etablir la ligne de dBmsrcation, j c mc suie prop086 d’abord de
rendre la division commode pour le classement des races e t ensuite de la rendre
commode pour l a mBmoire. A ce dernier point de vue, j’ai pens6 que le choix
d’une fraction simple Btait prBf4rable h tout autre. On n ’ a pas oublid que
Retzius e t ses successeurs n ’avaient eu recours am rBductions centBsimales
q u ’ ap r h avoir pris pour liniites des fractions simples, telles que 3/4 (75 pour
100)’ 7/9 (77.77 pour loo), 4/5 (80 pour 100). Ayant adopt6 ce principe dans
les autres parties de m a classification, j ’ai trouvb utile de m ’y conformer encore
ici; j e me suis done a r r M B l a fraction 5/6, qui donne l’indiee centesimal de
83.33 pour 100, et j’ai reconnu que ce chiffre avait en outre l’avantage de donner
B l a distinction des sous-brachycbphales et dcs brachycephales une valeur a peu
pr& semblable ti celle des sous-dolichocdphales et des dolichoc6phales.
A p r b cette correction, la constitution de mes cinq groupes se trouve dBtermin6e
de la manihre suivante:
112
T. D. STEWART
Broca discusses Welcker ’s term orthocephaly and points
out that the intended meaning of the radical ‘orthos’ (just,
wise, true, exact, correct; in other words, its figurative sense)
is contrary to the meaning in which it is generally used
(right, vertical). He thus accuses Welcker of wishing to
apply an honorable epithet to the Germans, who, according
to the latter’s system of measuring, have heads of intermediate shape.
Broca is fully aware that Welcker uses a different system
of measurements, and to this attributes the differences in
grouping employed in their respective classifications. On the
other hand, he blames Thurnam for using Welcker’s subdivisions and yet taking the measurements in the conventional
manner.
Huxley ’s classification Broca criticizes on the grounds that
it retains Retzius ’ two-group system, while unnecessarily
multiplying the subgroups. As to terminology, he accuses
Huxley of employing the term eurycephali, originally introduced by Broca, in a new sense, and of characterizing most
of his groups by dimensions of a single diameter (length).
Summary. It appears that, with the exception of Welcker
and his followers, the foremost anthropologists continue
during this period to measure maximum length and breadth
of the skull. The relationship between these two measures,
expressed in per cent, was given a name first by Broca (1861) :
the cephalic index. However, at the close of the period, and
outside of France, this term was not yet widely used. In
Germany the following terms are found in use: Breadthlength-index (Rutimeyer and His), length-breadth index
(Ecker), skull index (Ecker) and breadth index (Welcker,
1866). The last term is used by Wyman (1868) in America.
Also, in many cases the relationship still goes unnamed.
The different classifications proposed during this period,
other than those involving only two groups, are compared
in figure 1. This arrangement shows that the first term proposed f o r the intermediate group-mesaticephaly-is
still
less widely used than Welcker ’s term orthocephaly. Also,
w
l-
l-
\
4
v
79-80.9
SUB-BR.
DOLICHOCEPHALY
BELOW 80
MESATL
82
ABOVE
BRACHYCEPHALY
BRACffYC€?HAL Y
80 8/.9
MESO.
-' -
*
BRACHYC€PffALi
85 8 ABOVE
8RACHlSTO.
BRACHYCEPHALY
81 8 ABOVE
BRACffYC€?HALY
7958 ABOVE
80 4 AbW€
BRACHYCEPHALY
%%r'
z7-79.9 ;
80 - 84.9
ORTHO. SUB-BRACW, . EURYCEPHALY
DOLICht3CEWAL/
7 / - 73.9
MECO .
OR TffO.
74
- 78.9
SU0-m
I---
76.5- 79.4
SU~-BRACH)(
7i!5 -73.4 73.5-76.4
m0-m.ORTHO.
DOLICffOCEPHALY
BELOW 71
MECISTO.
DOMHO.
DoLicHo.
I---
70 79.9
OR THOCEPHALY
,
I
I
1
I
' 75- 77.6 7iT7179.9'
80-84.9
858 ABOVE
'SOUS-BRACC" ;HR. PURS'
.sDcIcs-DOL;.
68 69 70 7/ 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 &S 87
L indicated by an
Fig. 1 Comparison of classifications of the cephalic index proposed between 1861 and 1872. Mid-point in the index range
X. The interpretation of Thurnam's divisions (decimals) is consistent with his statement that "75 is the
center of orthocephalism. ''
WEISBACH, 1869
HUXLE): 1866
WELCKER 1866
JHURNAM, i864
WELCER, /a6z
hWEx
114
T. D. STEWART
the most radical change in terminology is that proposed by
Huxley, and the most radical change in grouping is that used
by Weisbach. I n general there is rather close agreement as
to the definition of brachycephaly, but a total lack of agreement regarding the two other classes.
III. Ihering, Frankfort Agreement (1873-1885)
1873. Following closely upon Broca 's revised classification
comes Ihering's 'reform of craniometry' in which he proposes to measure skulls in a horizontal position and by a
method of projection. Included in this paper is a review of
the classifications of the 'length breadth index' then in use.
The following statement concerns the classification which
Ihering proposes to use (pp. 141-142) :
. . . . it is absolutely necessary to insert a third group between the two [dolichocephaly and brachycephaly]. One
could therefore, for example, make the figures 72-80 the
boundaries of mesocephaly, and at the same time distinguish
those skulls the index of which lies between 72-76 as mesodolichocephalic, and those the index of which lies between
76-80 as mesobrachycephalic.'*
F o r a number of years after this there seems to have been
no special articles written on the subject of this index. Nevertheless, a number of anthropologists, especially in Germany,
made use of classifications, usually without explaining their
reasons, which embraced features proposed by various
authors. I n view of the national agreement (German ; Frankfort) which closes this period, it is of interest to see what
new groupings were being used just before 1883.
1877. The original German classification is that of Welckcr
(1862,1866). Meyer made use of this ip 1877, but with a new
interpretation as regards decimals (see pp. 178-179). Whereas Welcker includes under dolichocephaly all indices from
". . . . so ist es durchaus nothig e h e dritte Gruppe zwischen beide einzuschieben. Man konnte also z. B. die Zahlcn 72-80 zu den Grenzziffern der
Mesoccphalie machen, und dabei etwa noch diejenigen Schadel deren Index
zwischen 72-76 lieqt a18 mesodolichocephale, solche, deren Index zwischen 76-80
liegt, als mesobrachyeephale unterscheiden.
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
115
67 to 71 (70.9), Meyer includes those from 66.5 to 71.4 Thus
Meyer’s classification is as follows :
Dolichocephaly
Subdolichocephaly
Orthocephal y
Subbrachycephaly
Brachycephaly
Below 71.5
71.5-73.4
73.5-78.4
78.5-80.4
80.5 and above
The same year Virchow classified a series of indices (p.
423), thereby showing clearly that he was using the following
scheme :
Doliehocephaly
Mesoeephal y
Brachycephaly
Below 75
75-79.9
80 and above
This classification (with the substitution of the term
‘mesaticephalic’) is the same a s Flower’s (1879). It should
be remembered, however, that Flower measures length from
ophryon instead of from glabella.
I n 1878 Gildemeister was using a classification that in some
ways is reminiscent of Broca’s. It is a s follows (p. 32) :
Dolichocephaly
Mesocephaly
Brachycephaly
I
Below 73.113
73.1-75
75.1-77.5
77.6-80
80.1-83
1879. I n America, Carr (1879) was influenced by ‘‘Dr.
Thurnam and other English authorities” to devise the following scheme (footnote, p. 280):
I. Dolichocephali, or long skulls with index at or below .739
11. Orthocephali, or oval skulls with index from .740 t o .799
111. Brachycephali, or broad skulls with index at or above B O O
The next year, however, Carr uses the term ‘mesaticephali.’
I n 1881 Kollmann used the following classification (p. 180) :
Dolichocephaly
Mesocephaly
Brachycephaly
Hypsibrachycephalg
under 67 to 73.9
from 74 ” 79.9
”
80 ”86.9
”
87 ” 93 and above.
KO names are given t o the subdivisions of dolichocephaly and mesocephaly.
Elsewhere the term subbrachycephaly is used.
116
T. D. STEWART
Kollmann also gives the following grouping (without names)
which he attributes to Ranke (p. 116) :
Below 75
75-79.9
80-84.9
85-89.9
90-97.6
A more extended search would doubtless reveal still more
examples of individuality. However, this is sufficient to show
the growing tendency to establish the upper limit of dolichocephaly at 75 and to use the term mesocephaly in preference
to orthocephaly for the intermediate group.
1883. The Frankfort Agreement (published by Ranke in
1883) is notable, among other things, for including a classification of the ‘length breadth index,’ as follows:
Dolichocephaly
Meaocephaly
Brachycephaly
Hyperbrachycephaly
Below 75.1
75.1-79.9
80 -85
85.1 and above
This agreement recommended taking both maximum horizontal length and maximum length without regard to orientation, and did not specify the one to be used in calculating
the index.
1885. Welcker supplies a commentary upon such agreements. Although his name appears among the signers of the
Frankfort Agreement, only 2 years later (1885) he is found
proposing another classification. Welcker now measures
maximum breadth and has given up his term orthocephaly
in favor of mesocephaly. The reasoning upon which the new
classification is based is as follows (pp. 127-131):
Whereas in the old table (Arch. I, 135) the medium broad
skulls have the (interparietal) index 76, in the adjoining new
table the point of indifference of skull breadth lies between
79 and 80. Now as regards the boundaries of dolichocephaly
and brachycephaly, it appears to me . . . . that skulls with
the indices 77 t o 82 are to be designated appropriately as
mesocephalic, whereas ‘76 and less ’ indicate dolichocephaly,
‘83 and more’ brachycephaly . . . .
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
117
I have sought to determine the boundaries not on a row o l
figures, but while the skulls themselves stand before my eyes.
The average breadth indices occurring among the races range
between 70 and 90 (the variability of individual indices conceivably goes much farther). I have therefore arranged in
a row 20 skulls which represent the races strictly according
to the breadth indices 70 to 89; I have critically examined
these and maneuvered them in various manners. It appears
to me that a division of this row of indices into three groups:
Dolichocephal y
Mesocephaly
Brachycephaly
from 71 to 76 (strictly from 70.6 t o 76.5)
”
77 ”82 (76.6 to 82.5)
”
83 ” 88 (82.6 ” 88.5)
must be the most natural. I have placed the beginning of the
extremes equidistant. from the point of indifference ; thus :14
70.5 and less = Hyperdolichocephaly
88.6 and more = Hyperbrachycephaly
Summary. This period is characterized by a tendency to
break away from the conventional procedure of measuring
maximum skull length. Ihering, one of the leaders in urging
the horizontal orientation of the skull, was followed by a few
other Germans, notably A. B. Meyer and Kollmann. In
England Flower introduced still another measure of length.
It will be realized that any but maximum length will yield a
higher index, the breadth being the same in all cases.
”Trugen die mittelbreiten S c E d e l der alten Tabelle (Arch. I, 135) den
(interparietalcn) Index 76, EO liegt in nebenstehender neuen Tabelle der Indifferenzpunkt der Schadelbreite zwischen 79 und SO. Was nun die Grenzen der
Dolichocephalie und der Brachycephalie anlangt, so scheint es mir nach meinen
an Tabellen wie an Schiidelreihen vorgenommenen Musterungen, dass Schadel
mit den Indices 77 bis 82 sachgemass als Mesocephalen zu bezeichnen sind,
wahrend “ 76 und weniger ” Dolichocephalie, “ 83 und mehr ” Brachycephalie
bedeuten.
Nicht an einer Ziffernreihe, sondern indem die Schadel selbst mir vor Augen
standen, habe ich die Grenzen zu hestimmen gesucht. Da die innerhalb der
Volkerreihe vorkommenden mittleren Breitenindices im Ganzen zwischen 70 und
90 spielen (die Schwankungsbreite der Indices der Individuen geht begreiflich
vie1 weiter), so habe ich 20 Schadel, welche der Reihe nach genau die Breitenindices 70 bis 89 reprasentiren, in einc Reihe aufgestellt, dieselben gemustert
und in verschiedener Weise mit denselben operirt. Es schien mir, daas eine
. . . das Naturgemasseste sei.
Theilung dieser Indexreihe in drei Gruppen:
Gleichweit von dem Indifferenzpunkte setzte ich den Beginn der Extreme;
demnach :
.
118
T. D. STEWART
In Germany there is a growing tendency, culminating in
the Frankfort Agreement, to use the term ‘length breadth
index’ (for example, Ihering, Meyer, Virchow, Kollmann and
Ranke). Gildemeister and Welcker still use the term ‘breadth
index,’ which is similar to the ‘index of breadth’ used by
Flower and Carr.
The classifications of the period may be compared in figure 2. I n contrast to figure 1 it is evident that there is much
closer agreement among the classifications proposed between
1873 and 1885.
IV. Topinard, Garson (1885-1936)
1885-1886. The classifications proposed by Broca prevailed
in France until after his death. Topinard, in his famous
textbook of 1885, states that Broca’s subdivisions were a
concession to the ideas of the day (Retzius’ fractions) and
that Broca himself, in his later years, had come to desire
round numbers. Topinard thereupon proposes a new classification based upon the following reasoning (p. 370):
Among the subdivisions that we have given, is there one which
recommends itself and answers to the principles that we have
establishd? Yes, there is one, followed by four eminent
craniologists who lend authority : MM. Flower, Virchow,
Ranke and Calori. Their mean central group is exactly
placed around the median of humanity at 77. The two extreme groups are symmetrical and have only one inconvenience, that of being too large. By cutting them into
sub-sections of five units each, equal to the central group,
they answer to all the needs of craniometry.
Here then are the divisions and the corresponding nomenclature that I adopt. Considering the great number of races
that fall in the middle section and that it is important to
distinguish first of all between these and then with the neighboring divisions, I add two words to those which are current:
The [sus-m&atic6phales] ,16 above the median, and the submesaticephals, below.
l5
There is no good English equivalent for this term corresponding to sub- f o r
‘sous.’
INDEX
b YP'RDOL.
e 2
76-79.9
UESOBR.
- 79.9
I
I
L
'
,
80
-
85
MESOCEPHALY
76.6-825
Y
'
82.6-88.5
BRACHYC€PffALY
I
88.6-
4
HYPSIBR.
HYPERBRACff L:
BRACHYCEPHALY
80 86.9
-
80 8 ABOVE
BRACHYCEPHALY
BRACHYCEPHALY
*
83.f& ABOVE
BRACHYCEPHALY
8 0 8 ABOVE
BRACHYCEPHALY
80.58 ABOVE
BRACHYCEPHALY
80 & ABOVE
M€SOC€PHA L Y BRACHYCEPHALY
75.f r79.9
-
MESOCEPHAL Y
74 -' 79.9
Y
OR THOC€PHALY
74
=-
M€SOC€PHAL Y
70.6-76.5
DO. /CHOC€Ph!ALY
DOLICHOCEPHALY
BELOW - 7 . f
DOL/CHOC€PHALY
DOLICHOCEPHALY
DOLICHOCEPHALY
1
MESOCEPHALY
-
72 75.9
, MESODOL.
72 '
DOLICHO.
ff€LOW
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 8/ 82 83 84 63 86 87 88 89
I
Fig.2 Comparison of classifications of the eepllalic index proposed between 1873 and 1885. Gildemeister does not name
his sub-divisions.
CYELCKER, I885
I
I
1881
FR. AGR., I8I83- /
YOLLMA",
C'ARR, I879
G I .D€MEIST€R,
I8 78
V/RCHO& I877
FLOWER,
IH€RIAfG, I873
\
120
T. D. STEWART
These are not new divisions, but simple expressions to aid
the present language . . .16
.
The classification is as follows (p. 371) :
Dolichocephaly
Meaaticephaly
Brachycephaly
{
{
{
$idbelow
ir::edian)
78-79
1l:dabove
85-89
Ultradolieho.
Dolieho.
Sub-dolicho.
Sub-mesati.
' ' Sus-mBsati.
Sub-brachy.
I ' Sus-brachy. '
Ultrabrachy.
The same year Topinard elaborated his ideas regarding
the so-called 'quinary nomenclature ' in a special article.
Here he sets forth the following three principles, which are
the same as those referred to in the above quotation (1885 a,
pp. 219-220) :
A nomenclature ought to be unified throughout its extent;
the groups ought to be rigorously equal; none ought to be
favored; such is the first principle to be observed.
The second principle is that the middle group ought to be
situated as exactly as possible at the center of the series of
values, or of the means that the measure gives or the character presents, in all humanity. I say as exactly as possible,
f o r the reason that the extreme individual cases or the normal
extreme means in humanity are generally very di.lXcult to
determine . . .
.
* Parmi lea divisions que nous avons donn6esJ y en a-t-il m e qui a 'indique de
prbfhrenee, e t rBponde aux prineipes que nous avons BtablisP Oui, il y en a m e ,
suivie par quatre craniologistes Bminenta qui font autoritB: MM. Flower Virchow,
Ranke et Calori. Leur group moyen central eat exactement place autour de la
mbdiane de 1'humanit6 A 77. Lea deux groupes extdmes sont symlrtriques et n 'ont
qu'un inconvBnient, celui d'6tre trop vastes. En lea dBcoupant en sous-sections
de cinq unites chaque, Bgales an groupe central, ils repondent A tous lea besoins
de la craniomhtrie.
Voiei donc les divisions et la nomenclature correspondante que j'adopte. Eu
Bgard au grand nombre de races qui tombent dans la section moyenne et qu'il
importe de distinguer d'abord entre ellea puis avec lea divisions voisines, j 'y
ajoute deux mots i ceux qui ont cours:
Les sus-mbsaticBphales, au-dessua de la mBdiane et lea soua-m6saticBphales
au-dessous.
Ce no sont pas des divisions nouvelles, mais de simples expressions pour aider
au langage courant
....
121
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
The third principle is especially a necessity; it is that
the divisions should be convenient for use and easy to remember. Broca’s figures 77.77 and 83.33 were bad in this
respect . . . 17
.
The classification given in this publication offers a greater
range and slightly different terminology from that above
(p. 221) :
Dolichocephaly
Mesaticephaly
Brachycephaly
I
55-59.9
60-64.9
65-69.9
70-74.9
75-79.9
I 80-84.9
85-89.9
90-94.9
I 95-99.9
Ultradolicho.
Hyperdolicho.
True dolicho.
Sub-dolicho.
Mesaticephaly
Sub-brachJ .
True brachy.
Hyperbrachy.
Ultrabrachy.
About this time it appears that J. 0..Garson, representing
the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,
was in communication with Topinard (see Garson, 1886,
p. 12; 1886 a, p. 20) regarding an international agreement
upon the cephalic index. Although not so stated, it would
seem that these conversations led Topinard to publish the
third change in his nomenclature (1886) wherein French
p r e h e s are eliminated; it is as follows (p. 100) :
Ultradolichocephal y
Hyperdolichocephaly
Dolichocephaly
Mesaticephaly
Brachycephaly
Hyperbrachycephaly
Ultrabrachycephaly
60-64.9
65-69.9
70-74.9
75-79.9
80-84.9
85-89.9
90-94.9
’’Une nomenclature doit 6tre une dam toute son Btendue; les groupes doivent
6tre rigoureusement Bgaux; aucun ne doit &re favorbe; tel eat le primier
principe B. observer.
Le second principe, c’est que le groupe dn milieu doit 6tre situ6 aussi exactement que possible au centre de la s6rie des valeurs ou des moyennes que la mesure
donnee ou le caractare prbsente dam toute l’humanite. J e dis aussi exactement
que possible, par la raison que lee cas individuels extremes ou lee moyennes
extr6mea normalea dans I’humanitb sont en g6nBral trhs difficiles B. dbterminer.
Le troisiBme principe est plutdt une nkessite; c’est que les divisions soient
commodes pour les operations et faciles B se rappeler. Les chiffres de 77.77 et
de 83.33 de Broca Btaient mauvais sous ce rapport .
. ..
122
T. D. STEWART
The same year Garson secured an international agreement
upon a classification identical with that last published by
Topinard.18 Of the sixty-seven original signers of the Frankfort Agreement, only twelve did not sign the new agreement.
Five had died (Aeby, Henle, v. Hochstetter, Lucae and A.
Meyer ( 8 ) ) ; of the remaining seven, Welcker alone stated
his objections (Garson, 1886 c, pp. 21-22), namely, that
mesocephaly should include indices between 77 and 81.9.
Welcker accompanied his objections with a list of twentyseven racial groups arranged according to his and Garson’s
classifications. By comparison with his earlier classifications
it is apparent that Welcker is proposing an entirely new
arrangement ; it follows :
Ultradolichocephaly
H yperdolichocephaly
Dolichocephaly
Mesocephaly
Brachycephaly
Hyperbrachycephaly
Ultrabrachycephaly
62-66.9
67-71.9
72-76.9
77-8 1.9
82-86.9
87-91.9
92-96.9
Since this point of view was not accepted it is, naturally, of
little interest, except for pointing up the fact that none of
Welcker ’s ideas regarding classification of this index has
ever been generally adopted.
Returning to the agreement itself, it should be noted that
the English version (Garson, 1886 a ) defines maximum length
as “the distance between the most prominent points of the
glabella of the 0s frontis in front, and the most prominent
point of the 0 s occipitis behind, in the mesial plane” (p. 18).
I n the German translations (1886 b and c), on the other hand,
maximum length is stated to be the no. 2 of the Frankfort
Agreement, that is, as measured to the most prominent part
of the occiput without regard to the mesial plane. Also,
these translations replace the terms ‘cephalic index’ and
‘mesaticephaly ’ with ‘length-breadth index’ and ‘mesocephaly, ’ respectively.
“Provision was made for the addition of a group of five indices at each end,
but no names were suggested for these groups.
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
123
1890. The tendency is for agreements soon to be forgotten.
In the present instance this was true in countries other than
Germany. Thus in France we find Deniker and Laloy (1890)
proposing to combine Broca’s and the ‘quinary’ classifications (footnote, p. 264):
I n order to avoid confusion and better to express the nuances,
we are going to use in the course of this work some terms
derived from these two nomenclatures, according to the table
that follows :
H yperdolichocephaly
Dolichocephaly
Sub-dolichocephaly
Mesocephaly
Sub-brachycephaly
Brachycephaly
Hyperbrachycephaly
Ultrabrachycephaly
69.99 and below
70 -74.99
75 -77.76
77.77-79.99
80 -83.32
83.33-84.99
85 -89.99
90 and above
In England, as f a r as I can find, the Anthropological Institute, which fostered the International Agreement, has published no articles in its journal since 1886 that use the
classification agreed upon. Instead, the references are mostly
still to Broca’s classification.
I n Germany, on the other hand, the International Agreement on the Cephalic Index was kept alive through inclusion
in Schmidt’s (1888, p. 291) and v. Torok’s (1890, pp. 234, 612)
textbooks. Here it is made plain that the new classification
replaced that of the Frankfort Agreement. It should be
noted also that both of these writers use the terms ‘extreme
dolichocephaly ’ and ‘extreme brachycephaly’ for the groups
55-55.9 and 95-99.9, respectively.
1897. Deniker contributed a second classification in 1897,
intended primarily for studies on the living and hence augmented by two units to compensate for the presumed difference in the index between the living head and the skull. This
classification, as will be seen below, reduces the number of
indices in each group to two, although retaining the earlier
terminology (p. 191) :
A M E R I C A N JOURNAL OF P H Y S I C A L ANTRBOPOII)GY, VOL. XXII, NO. 1
124
T. D. STEWART
Hyperdolichocephaly
Dolichocephaly
Sub-dolichocephaly
Mesocephal y
Sub-brachycephaly
Brachycephaly
Hgperbracliycephaly
75.9 and below
76-77.9
78-79.9
80-81.9
82-83.9
84-85.9
86 and above
J900-1936. Thus f a r the twentieth century has seen practically no new contributions to the subject. Almost everyone
has been content to follow the recommendations of a few
standard textbooks, which are in fair accord in this connection. That by Duckworth (’04) is an exception, as shown by
the following statement (p. 260) :
With regard to the cephalic index, it has been conventionally
agreed to [refer] to skulls providing this index with a smaller
value than 75, as dolichocephalic, for such skulls as possess
a maximum transverse cranial diameter less than threequarters of the maximum length give the appearance of elongation: should the figure be 75 or any higher figure up to and
including 80, the designation of the example is mesaticephalic
(of mean proportions), and from 80.1 upwards the term
applied is brachycephalic, the form then appearing short in
comparison with the foregoing.
It should be noted also that Duckworth recommends taking
length in the median sagittal plane.
International agreements were formed in 1906 (Monaco)
and 1912 (Geneva) (see HrdliEka, ’20) defining certain
craniometric and cephalometric procedures. Maximum length
from glabella and maximum breadth were included, but not
the cephalic index.
Three textbooks hare probably most influenced American
physical anthropologists, namely, Martin ( ’14)’ HrdliEka
( ’20) and Wilder ( ’20). Martin, following the precedent of
earlier German writers, favors the classification of Garson’s
International Agreement (p. 544). He further favors the
ending ‘-many’ to ‘-cephaly’ (thus, dolichocrany) for the
purpose of distinguishing the classification on the skull from
that on the head, and attributes the introduction of this
ending to Schmidt and v. Torok. It should be noted also that
THE CEPHALIC IXDEX
125
Martin defines the maximum length to be used in the calculation of the index as that measured from glabella in the median
sagittal plane.
Wilder repeats Martin’s recommendations in full.
Hrdlicka, on the other hand, stresses the International
Agreements of Monaco and Geneva. He notes (footnote,
p. 14) that there was some confusion in the text of the Monaco
Agreement regarding the measurement of skull length ; his
interpretation is that‘this measurement is not limited to the
median sagittal plane. Regarding the matter of classification
he states (p. 151) :
Today anthropology has ceased to regard the grouping and
naming of the indices in the somewhat fetishistic light in
which it looked upon them before. The arithmetic and
graphic presentation of the distribution of each index has
become the essential procedure in all anthropometric work,
and divisions with terms, which in the nature of things must
always retain something of the arbitrary, are now employed
more for convenience than of necessity. Still, the classification of the various indices and its terminology are useful,
and some day will doubtless become subject to proper international agreements.
No source is given for the classification appearing on p. 151,
but this is essentially the same as Garson’s, as far as the
three main groups go. It is important to note that HrdliEka
uses here, probably for the first time, the term ‘cranial index’
to distinguish the index on the skull from that on the head.
A rapid survey of the recent writings of American physical
anthropologists indicates that Garson’s classification is the
one most widely used. Disagreements appear in the matter
of the name by which the index is designated and the measurement of length used in its calculation.
Summary. This recent period is dominated by the so-called
‘quinary ’ classification for which Topinard was probably
most responsible and upon which Garson secured an international agreement. The Germans are chiefly responsible
for keeping the agreement alive. In France the term
‘cephalic index’ is still preferred, but in Germany it is generally replaced by the term ‘length breadth index.’ I n
126
T. D. STEWART
English speaking countries both terms are in use. I n addition, HrdliEka has introduced the term ‘cranial index.’
The various classifications proposed during this period are
shown in figure 3. Although this chart indicates considerable difference of opinion, the majority today are using the
Garson classification.
This period is notable, too, for the first international agreement upon cranial measurements.
THE INDEX OF THE HEAD
I n the foregoing, with one exception (Deniker, 1897), reference has been to the skull alone. All of the earlier work was
done on the skull, and classifications of the cephalic index
are based thereon. After a technique became available for
measuring the living head it then became desirable to compare the indices of the head and skull. The conversion factor,
although not directly connected with the subject of terminology, nevertheless is involved in the definitions, and is
usually considered in this connection.
Broca was engaged between 1862 and 1865 in formulating
a set of anthropological instructions intended partly for the
use of travelers who had the opportunity of visiting primitive peoples. These ‘Instructions’ included the first printed
directions for measuring the living head. For the most part
the terminology relating to the head measurements was the
same a s for the comparable ones on the skull ; and indeed the
intention was to arrive at the characters of the skull through
the overlying integuments. Thus a foundation was laid for
the accumulation of anthropometric data on living races ; and,
naturally, this includes the cephalic index.
1868. Broca’s work on the ‘Instructions’ possibly brought
to his attention the question as to whether or not the index
of the living head and that of the underlying skull were
identical. This problem was investigated and reported on by
Broca in 1868. Proposing to distinguish the two indices by
the terms ‘indice ckphalique de la Gte’ and ‘indice cQphalique
du crbne,’ he shows both by simple illustration and by mathematics that these indices cannot be identical, and that the one
OEN/K€R 8
L ALOK
/890
W€LCK€R,
1886
II
DOL.
"
"
l
g
,
67
-
I 1 1
v
,
80-84.9
,SOUS-B?
I
75
74
'
7276 -79.9 85.32 -84.9
BffACffYC€PffALY
80.1 & ABOVE
848: ABOVE
I
Fig. 3 Comparison of classifications of the cephalic index proposed since 1585. Deniker 's classification of 1897, intended
for the index on the living, is here reduced by two units 80 as to apply to the skull.
MESAT/.
'75280'
74- 76- 78- 80- 8275.9 7Z9 799 8L9 83.9
k+W++I
DOL. 'SOU9 MESO "50if.Y 8R WP€RB. IgD
UL
TRABR.
d
lBOvEI
70 - 74.9
' 771'8f.9
I
90 -94.9
HYP€RB. ULTRAB.
BRACff YCEPHALY
v
85- 89.9
S. VRAW
I1 I I
95
90 8: ABOVE
ULTRABR.
I I I I
.
BffACff YC€PtfALY
SUS-BCT
I I I
90
I
B5-89.9
II
85
' 82-86.9 ' 87- 9/.9
HYP€ffD. DOL/CffO. MESAT/. BRACHI: HYPER8. ULTRABR.
67-7f.9 I 72-76.9
DOL/CffOC€PffALY
BELOW
BELOW
1
-
ffYP€RDOL/CffO.
ULTRADOL.
BELOW
II
5 U q .'sOUS-B:
MESAT1
SOUS-0.: ,'OUS'
M€SATL
'
I 1 I
C - W W '
II
80
DOL/CffOC€PHALY
I
DOL/CHOCEPffALY
I
I I I
75
75- 79.9
I
I I I
70
' 65 -69.9 ' 70-74.9 -76.9 78-I 80-84.9
II
I I I
II
BELOW 65
ULTRADOL.
I I
65
60
-60
60- 64.9 65 -69.9
70 -74.9
ULTRAD. HYPERD. V. VRAIS SOW-D.:
8
OUCKWORTY,
1904
O€N/K€ff.
4
' -{
TOPINARD,
1885
\,I
AUTHOR
/ND€X
128
T. D. STEWART
for the head is greater than the one for the skull. This
demonstration is fortified by actual figures obtained on nineteen cadavers. For this group the average difference in the
indices was 1.683.1e Broca concludes (pp. 31-32) :
Consequently, if we should wish to establish a comparison
between the cephalic indices calculated from measurements
taken on the living and the cranial cephalic indices, in other
words, if we should wish to discover the degree of dolichocephaly or of brachycephaly of a population of which we did
not possess skulls, we should have to subtract at least two
units from the mean cephalic index of the head of the individuals measured.2o
During the following 10 years o r so Broca’s finding was
not accepted in Germany. Some anthropologists (Weisbach,
1878, p. 273, for instance) decided that the difference
amounted to as much as three units, while others (following
the example of Miklucho-Maclay, 1878, footnote, p. 3) found
no difference and compared the indices of the head and skull
directly. Weisbach’s reasoning is as follows (condensed by
Stieda, 1880, pp. 425-426):
Breadth and length of the head cannot agree with the same
measurements of the skull, because the former include the
soft parts ; in individual races indeed both measurements
change very unequally, because the length increases less than
the breadth. I n the North Slavs, Rumanians and Magyars
one finds the length of the head exceeding that of the
macerated skull by about 7.5 and 6 mm., the breadth, on the
other hand, by about 11, 12 and 9 mm., whence there results
on the average 6 mm. for length and 10 mm. for breadth
which, in the case of the head measurements, may be attributed to the soft parts. A further inference from this is that
on account of the unequal distribution of the soft structures
on the head in favor of length and breadth, the relationship
IDTwo errors in calculation make it seem probable that the true value is 1.70.
mPar consbquent, lorsque nous voudrons Btablir une comparaison entre les
indices c6phaliques calcul6s d’aprhs des mesures prises sur le vivant et les indices
cephaliques crlniens, en d ’autres termes, lorsque nous voudrons apprbeier le
degrB de doliehocbphalie ou de brachycephalic d’une population dont nous ne
possBderons pas les crbnes, nous devrons retrancher au moins d e u unit68 de
l’indice c6phalique moyen de la t&te des individus mesur6s.
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
129
of the two measurements to one another (the breadth index)
also must be different from that on the macerated skull, and
indeed on account of the greater increase of the breadth, the
head index must be greater. The three mentioned races supply the satisfactory demonstration. I n measurements on the
living the North Slavs have an index of 85.7, the Rumanians
87.2 and the Magyars 84.6, whereas their skulls show indices
only of 82.9, 82.8 and 52.3. If one takes the means of these
two series of indices, then the head index 85.8 corresponds
to the skull index 82.6, that is, one must subtract 3 percent
from the breadth index of the living in order to obtain approximately the skull index.*’
I n contrast, Bliklucho-Maclay ’s conclusion was based upon
the examination of two cadavers.
1880. Broca’s work was verified by Stieda in 1880. This
writer had been aware of the differences of opinion on the
subject, and also had been impressed by his own finding of
a difference of 2.2 units between the indices of skulls and
living heads of Esthonians. Stieda measured twenty cadavers and the skulls of the same and found an indicial difference of 2.06.
The next year F6r6 gave figures on twelve adult cadavers,
showing an indicial difference of 1.3.
1882. One of Broca’s last pieces of research was directed
to this subject. I n his earlier work Broca had felt that some
=Breite und Liinge des Kopfes kiinnen mit den gleichen Maassen des ScUdels
nicht iibereinstimrnen, weil erstere ja die Weichtheile mit einschliessen ; bei
einzelnen Nationen wechscln sogar beide Maasse sehr ungleich, indem die Lange
meniger zunimmt, als die Breite. Bei Nordslaven, Rumlnen und Magyaren findet
man die Liinge des Kopfes um 7.5 und 6 mm, die Breite dagegen um 11, 12 und
9 mm grosser, als an den maeerirten Schadeln, woraus sich im Durchschnitt f u r
die G n g e 6 mm, fiir die Breite 10 mm ergeben, die bei den Kopfmaassen auf
Rechnung der Weichtheile kommen. Eine weitere Folgerung daraus ist die, dass
wegen ungleicher Vertheilung der Weichgebilde a m Kopf zu Gunsten der Lange
und Breite auch das Verhaltniss beider Maasse zu einander (der Breitenindex)
ein andcrs sein muss, als am macerirten Schadel, und zwar wegen grosserer
Zunahme der Breite muss der Kopfindex ein grosserer sein. Die drei genannten
Volker bringen den geniigenden Beweis. Nach Messungen an Lebenden besitzen
die Kordslaven einen Index von 85.7, die Rumiinen von 87.2 und die Magyaren
von 84.6, wahrend deren Schadel hloss die Indices von 82.9, 82.8 und 82.3 aufweisen. Zieht man aus diesen beiden Indexreihen das Mittel, so entspricht 85.8
dem Kopfindex, 82.6 dem Schadelindex, d.h. man muss vom Brcitenindex des
Lebenden 3 Proe. abziehen, um den Schiidelindex anniihernd zu erhalten.
130
T. D. STEWART
error resulted from the distortion of the dead tissues through
pressure and edema. Seeking to avoid this error, he had the
heads of the cadavers removed and supported in the upright
position for 24 hours before measuring them. Broca’s death
occurred before this work was finished, but it was published
in 1882 by Topinard. The conclusion now was that there was
essentially no difference between the two indices. As pointed
out by Houz6 (1887) the condition of the head after loss of
tissue fluids is f a r from duplicating t,hat of the living head.
The same year an important piece of work appeared that
has never attracted much attention. Houz6 (1882) decided
that the tissues of the cadaver were greatly altered as compared to those in the living state, and therefore he secured
measurements on a small group2* before death and then
measured their skulls after death. The two indices were
found to differ by 2.21 units; the tissues antero-posteriorly
were 5 111111. thick and laterally 8 mm. thick. I n 1887 Houz6
extended his remarks and pointed out among other things
that the index varied according to age, size and shape of head.
1889. I n 1889 Weisbach reported his measurements on 503
cadavers. By dividing his material into two groups according to the state of nourishment, he was able to show a considerable difference which naturally favored the better nourished group. Also he was able to show a difference that
varied according to stock, that is, German, Slav and others.
Weisbach now stated that 1.5 or 2 was the proper conversion
factor. It is interesting to note that in the discussion of this
paper (p. 200) Szombathy inquired whether Weisbach had
grouped the head and skull measurements according to size
of the index ; he thought it might be possible to establish some
such orr relation.^^ Weisbach replied that he had not investigated this point.
Number not stated in original; 20 mentioned in 1887.
. . ea auch versucht hat, die von ihm ermittelten Kopf- und Schiidelmaasse
nach der Grosse des Schadelindex zu gruppiren. Es ware ja moglich, dass sich
fiir die verschiedenen Stufen des Schadelindex eine verschieden grosse durschnittliche DXerenz zwischen den Yaassen des Kopfes und des skelettirten Schadele
ergebe.
..
131
T H E CEPHALIC INDEX
The next year Mies was able to answer Szombathy’s question through his own investigation of fifty cadavers. Combining his results with those of Broca and Stieda, Mies
showed that the indicial difference increased directly with
round-headedness. I n addition, his own material showed
differences according to age and sex; his twenty-three adult
males showed an indicial difference of 1.11,with a thickness
of tissue antero-posteriorly of 4.07 mm. and laterally of
5.37 mm.
These are the principal studies on this subject appearing
up to this time. A number of minor studies could be cited,
but they add nothing to the above h d i n g s .
1895. American anthropologists are generally familiar
with the fact that Boas (1895) has pointed out that comparable groups of skulls and heads of Indians and of Eskimos
have an indicial difference of 1.4.
The thickness of the tissues on the head was investigated
again in 1905 by Gladstone. His findings on eighty-nine
cadavers are somewhat similar to those of earlier workers
(pp. 110-111):
Number
Sez
18
Male
27
17
27
Female
2 9
9 9
Age
20-46
46 and up
2046
46 and up
Thieknesa
Of ti6SUe8
ant.-post.
8.47 mm.
7.25
7.52
7.12
Thickneaa
of Cisauca
lnt.
8.27 mm.
7.40
7.88
6.98
I n 1907 appeared an impressive paper by Czekanowski in
which he gave measurements on 120 cadavers and derived
carious formulae therefrom. It is important to note, however, that he did not measure the skull, but estimated its
dimensions by subtracting from the cadaveric measurements
the thicknesses of the overlying tissues as determined with
a graduated needle. Moreover, it appears that Czekanowski
found the tissues involved in the transverse diameter to be
less thick than those antero-posteriorly, which is contrary to
the findings of most other observers. The figures are as
follow : Indicia1 difference 0.5 ; thickness of tissues anteroposteriorly 7.3 mm., thickness laterally 6.9 mm.
132
T. D. STEWaRT
1910. I n 1910 the thickness of the tissues on the head was
re-investigated by Anderson with the following results for
forty-three cadavers (p. 274) :
Number
34
9
Aos
SCZ
Male
Female
69 (aver.)
9 )
39
Thicknean
Thickness
of t i a a r c s
ant.-pobt.
Of &?SUM
8.68 mm.
8.12
10.55 mm.
ht.
10.32
In 1917 Duckworth published detailed measurements on
120 male and forty female cadavers, made with the purpose
of checking the conclusions of Czekanowski. Needless to say,
the results accord instead with those of the majority of observers. They are as follows: Indicia1 difference 2.2; thickness of tissues antero-posteriorly 7.6 mm., laterally 10.2 mm.
1924. The most recent study of the subject is that by Todd
and Kuenzel ('24). These observers found the thickness of
the tissues in twenty-five white males to amount to 5.1 mm.
antero-posteriorly and 7.0 111111. laterally. In addition they
would add 1.8 and 2.1 mm., respectively, for shrinkage in
drying (investigated by Todd the year before) and 7.8 and
5.2 mm., respectively, in order to restore the cadaveric dimensions to those assumed to be the living dimensions. Application
of these sums to Todd's figures for 167 white male skulls
yields an indicia1 difference of 1.33.
In actual practice, two main schools of thought have arisen :
the one, following Broca's precedent, adds 2 units to the index
of the skull; the other, with its beginnings probably in Germany (see Martin, for example), believes that there is less
difference between the two indices, and therefore adds only
1 unit. On the other hand, in England it is not uncommon
to find corrections made by the addition of certain values,
representing the soft parts, to the mean length and breadth
of the skulls. Both Lee ( '01) and Parsons ( '22), who use
this method-and
also, it may be added, different values
(11and 8 mm., respectively)-seem to believe that the tissues
of the head are of equal thickness on all sides.
Summary. The h d i n g s of the various investigators discussed above may be compared in table 1. With the exception
133
THE CEPHALIC IBDEX
of Topinard and Czekanowski, whose methods have been
criticized, all a r e in fair agreement. The differences shown
might be expected in view of the variations in sample (number, nationalitg, age, sex) and technique. I n general this
shows that cadaveric heads with a mean cephalic index of
about 80 have skulls with a n index between 1 and 2 units
lower; that the combined thickness of the tissues laterally is
greater than those antero-posteriorly. Gladstone ( ’05) and
Anderson (’10) have shown how the age and sex factors
influence these values.
TABLE 1
Summary: Difetences between the head and green skull
AUTHOB
Broca
Stieda
F~TB
Topinard
How6 (1882)
Houzb(1887)
Weisbach
Mies
Czekanowski
Gladstone
Anderson
Duckworth
Todd and Kuenzel
NUMBKB
39
20
12
19
201
24
202
23
64
27
34
118
25
SEX
Male
Nostly male
Mostly male
Mostly male
7
INDEX
)F READ
(AVER.)
80
81
80
82
t
?
?
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
85
82
84
?
?
78
81
THICKNESS O F
EXCESS O F
READ INDEX
0SIrULL
THICPNESB O F
INDEX
.NT.-POST.
LATER
ALLY
mm.
mm.
5.8
7.4
6.4
6.5
5 .-
7.7
9.7
7.5
5.9
8.?
7 .5.37
6.9
7.40
10.55
10.2
7.-
1.70 (cor.)
2.06
1.30
0.31
2.21
1.82
1.50
1.11
0.5
?
?
2.2
?
TISSUE6
I
5.4.07
7.3
7.25
S.68
7 .o
5.1
TISSUES
hfies has given a table showing the increasing difference
between the indices of the head and skull with round-headedness; also the increasing thickness of the tissues with size of
the two head dimensions. I n table 2 I have combined Mies’
table with the corresponding analysis of Duckworth’s data.
Although Duckworth’s figures are higher, the indication is
the same.
The essential validity of these findings on the cadaver has
been established for the living by Houz6 (1882).
134
T. D. STEWART
DISCUSSION
I have presented above, as objectively as possible, the
essential contributions relating to the terminology and classification of the cephalic index. Having investigated these
sources I am taking the liberty of making a few comments
that can serve as a start.ing point for general discussion.
TABLE 2
Correlation of indicia1 difference and tissue thickness with size and shape of head
DC'CKWOBTH
MIES
RAX'GE
h'umber
Number
Change
Change
Excess of head index over skull index according to shape of head
..
...
9
39
31
10
0.46
1.42
1.41
1.59
2
2
17
35
22
4
1.00
1.25
1.67
4.21
4.53
6.43
7.75
I
..
...
I
1
10
33
37
2.00
2.30
6.44
6.92
-71.9
72-76.9
77-81.9
82-86.9
87-92.9
-149
150-159
160-169
170-179
180-189
190-199
200-209
210-129
130-139
140-149
150-159
160-
6
I
4
36
100
13
1
1.17
1.49
1.84
3.31
4.70
..
..
...
7
43
83
17
2
5.86
7.16
7.88
8.24
11.50
..
...
...
..
...
5
64
74
5.60
8.11
10.67
In the first place I hold that it is desirable to follow the
general biological practice of recognizing precedence in
terminology. This principle need not be followed slavishly
by anthropologists to the point of re-introducing a term that
has long been superceded by another. Nevertheless, it can
be a valuable guide in deciding between two terms at present
used synonomously.
THE CEPHALIC INDEX
135
On the basis of this principle it would be preferable to name
the percental relationship between the maximum length and
breadth of the head the cephalic index, after Broca. Since
Broca himself, however, was forced to distinguish in an
awkward fashion between the index on the living head and
that on the skull, it is desirable and consistent to restrict the
term ‘cephalio index’ to the living head, and to follow
HrdliEka’s custom of applying the term ‘cranial index’ to
the skull. Also in the interest of consistency, the classifications of the two indices should be distinguished by the endings
‘-cephaly ’ and ‘-crany ’ (thus, dolichocephaly, dolichocrany ),
as maintained by Martin.
In the matter of definitions, it is clear that from the time
of Retzius the most general practice has been to use the maximum diameters, whether of the skull or head, for the determination of this index. In view of the inclusion of these two
diameters in the Monaco and Geneva agreements, there is
nothing today to prevent the general acceptance of this
definition.
The subdivisions of what I would now call the cranial index
are probably best as deflned in Garson’s International Agreement. This so-called ‘quinary’ classification is the one most
widely used today, and indeed represents the culmination of
much thought and usage. Except in the French language,
there seems to be no longer a possibility of ambiguity in the
meaning of the term mesocephaly (mesocrany ). Since this
word is in general use today, there seems to be no occasion
to revert to mesaticephaly.
Regarding the subdivisions of the cephalic index, or the
index on the living head, there is less basis for a permanent
agreement ; but a tentative agreement embodying better principles than heretofore observed is still possible. I have shown
above that in order to get corresponding values in the two
indices it is by no means so simple a matter as the addition
(or subtraction) of a certain accepted figure to ( o r from) the
mean index. It appears that the thickness of the tissues
varies with size (including sex and age) and that the relationship changes in such a manner that the difference in the two
136
T. D. STEWART
indices increases as the shape of the head becomes rounder.
Houz6 (1882) found the same thing in his investigation of
the living and the dea.d. Thus it is erroneous to correct by
a set value, regardless of size of index.
In all of the evidence herewith presented the indicial difference has been determined a s between the head and the green
s l d l . Todd was the first to determine the change in dimensions between the green and dry skull. The shrinkage is
slightly greater in the transverse dimension, and may possibly vary with stock and size of skull. This fact, combined
with the evidence favoring a greater thickness of the tissues
laterally, makes it appear erroneous to represent the tissues
TABLE 3
Change in the index with the addition of different tissue thicknesses to skulls
of various sizes
I
iI
DIFFEBENCE BETWEEN CEPEAIJC A N D CUANIAL INDICES
EE;
EE
t-0
4
++
i;
ffiJ
120/190
140/180
150/180
160/170
63.2
77.8
83.3
94.1
_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _
M.48
f2.83
+0.34
f2.15
+1.79
4-2.43
-0.12
-0.41
4.35
4.70
+l.62
+2.23
+1.33
4-1.92
-0.87
-1.34
_______
+1.49
+2.01
f0.94
$1.28
f0.71
+0.96
t0.26
+0.36
both laterally and antero-posteriorly by equal values as in
the case of Lee ('01) and Parsons ('22).
On the theoretical side,,the effect of adding various values
representing tissue thickness t o an arbitrary range of skull
dimensions is shown in table 3. It should be evident that
when the tissues are thicker laterally the difference between
the indices increases both as the tissues themselves increase
in thickness and a s the thickness laterally increases disproportionately. The indicial difference is much less when the
tissues a r e of equal thickness both laterally and anteroposteriorly. Naturally, an entirely opposite trend is found
when the tissues are less thick laterally than antero-poster ior 1y .
THE CEPHALIC IKDEX
137
Assuming that the indicia1 difference increasing with roundness of head is statistically significant, this can be accounted
for probably on the basis that with increasing brachycephaly
the points of maximum breadth on the head and skull approach an alignment and have greater thicknesses of tissue
intervening. Perhaps, on the other hand, in dolichocephaly
the points of maximum breadth on the head and skull become
more widely separated antero-posteriorly and thus allow
some compensation for the
In view of this situation it is my opinion that instead of
using a single conversion factor, it would be better to grade
the factor according to the index. As a tentative scheme that
accords fairly with the present evidence I suggest the following classification :
Hyperdolichocran y
Dolichocrany
Mesocrany
Brachycrany
Hyperbrachycrany
65-69.9
70-74.9
75-79.9
80-84.9
85-89.9
+ 0.5 = Hypcrdolichocephaly
+ 1.0 = Dolichocephaly
+ 1.5 = Mesoccphaly
+ 2.0 = Brachycephaly
+ 2.5 = Hyperbrachycephaly
65 -70.4
70.5-75.9
76 -81.4
81.5-86.9
87 -92.1
It would be interesting to have this scheme tested by those in
possession of suitable data on the cadaver and dry skull.
Especially desirable would be the presentation of such data
on long-headed groups.
LITERATURE CITED
ANDERSON,JOHN H. 1910 An inveetigation as t o the most accurate method
of estimating the cubic capacity of the living head, together with
some remarks on the relative thickness of the cranial integuments.
J. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. and Ire., LX, 264-278.
BAER,C. E. DE 1859 Crania eelecta ex thesauris anthropologicis academiae
imperialis Petropolitanae. MBm. Acad. Imp. sci. St. Petersbourg,
6" sBr., Sci. nat., V I I I , 243-268.
BOAS,FRANZ1895 Zur Anthropologie der nordamerikanischen Indianer. Ztschr.
f. Ethnol., XXVII, 366-411.
~~
~
This is suggested by analysis of Duckworth's figures: In thirty-four males
with cephalic indices between 72-76.9 and in sixty-nine between 77-81.9 the
tissues antero-posteriorly average 7.4 and 7.7 mm., respectively. In the same
groups the tissues laterally average 8.7 and 10.3 mm., respectively.
138
T. D. STEWART
BROCA,PAUL1861 Sur des cranes provenant d'un eimetihre de la Citb, antbrieur
au treizihme sikle. Bull. Soe. Anthrop., Paris, 11, 501-513.
1865 Instructions gknhrales pour les recherches et observations
anthropologiques. MBm. Soe. Anthrop. Paris, 11, 69-204.
1868 Comparaison des indices chphaliques sur le vivant et sur le
squelette. Bull. Soe. Anthrop., Paris, 2" sBr., 111, 25-32.
1872 Sur la claasifieation et la nomenclature craniologiquea d 'aprhs
les indices cbphaliques. Revue d 'Anthrop., I, 3 8 5 4 2 3 .
BUSK, GEORGE 1861 Observations on a systematic mode of craniometry. Trans.
Ethnol. Soe. London, N.S., I, 341-348.
CARR, LUCIEN 1879 Observations on the crania from the Santa Barbara
Islands, California. Rept. U. S. Geogr. Surv. West 100th Mer., V I I
( Archseol. ), 277-292.
1880 Notes on the crania of New England Indians. Anniver.
Mem. Boston Soe. Nat. Hist., 10 pp.
JAN1907 Untersuchungen uber das Verhaltnis dcr Kopfmasse
CZEKANOWSKI,
zu den Schadelmassen. Arch. f. Anthrop., N.F., VI, 42-89.
DAVIS, JOSEPH
BARNARD
1867 Thesaurus craniorum. Catalogue of the skulls
of the various races of man. London.
DAVIS,
JOSEPH
BARKARD
AND JOHN
THURXAM 1865 Crania Britannica, I.
London.
DENIKER,J. 1897 Les races europ6ennes. Bull. Soe. Anthrop. Paris, 4. a&.,
V I I I , 189-208.
DENIKFB,J. AND L. LAMY 1890 Les races exotiques i1'Exposition Universelle
de 1889. L'Anthrop., I, 257-294.
DUCKWORTH,W. L. H. 1904 Morphology and anthropology. Cambridge.
1917 Notes on some measurements made on subjects in the dissecting-room. J. Anat., LI, 167-179.
DUSSEAU, J. L. 1865 Musbe Vrolik. Catalogue de la collection d'anatomie
humaine, comparhe et pathologique. Amsterdam.
ECKEE,ALEXANDER1865 Crania germaniae meridionalis occidentalis. Freiburg
i.B.
FCd, CH. 1881 Nouvelles recherchea Bur la topographie crlnio-c6rBbrale. Revue
d'Anthrop., 2" sbr., I V , 468-487.
FMWEE,
WILLIAMHENBY 1879 Catalogue of the specimens illustrating the
osteology and dentition of vertebrated animals, recent and extinct,
contained in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
pt. 1, London.
GARSON,J. G. 1886 The cephalic index. J. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. and Ire.,
XVI, 11-17.
1886 a The international agreement on the classification and nomenclature of the cephalic index. J. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. and Ire.,
XVI, 17-20.
1886 b Internationale Verstandigung iiber die Nomenklatur des
Schadelindex. Verhandl. Berl. Gesell. Anthrop., Ethnol. n. Urgesch.,
151-153.
1886 c Internationale Vereinigung iiber Gruppen-Eintheilung und
Verzeichnung der Schadelindices. Corr-Blatt deut. Gesell. f. Anthrop.,
Ethnol. u. Urgesch., X V I I , 3, 17-22.
THE CEPHALIC I N D E X
139
GAUSSIN, L. 1865 Relation entre les trois diametres du c r h e . Bull. SOC.
Anthrop., Paris., V I , 141-168.
GILDEMEISTJCB, J. 1878 Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss nordwestdeutscher Schadelformen. Arch. f . Anthrop., XI, 25-63.
GLADSTOKE, R. J. 1905 A study of the relations of the brain t o the size of the,
head. Biometrika, IV, 105-123.
H o o d , E. 1882 Sur l'indice c6phalique des Flamands et des Wallons. Bull.
Soc. Anthrop. Bruxelles., I, 20-26.
1887 Comparaison des indices c6phalombtrique et eraniom6trique.
Bull. SOC. Anthrop. Bruxelles., V, 397-407.
HRDLJ~KA,
A. 1920 Anthropometry. Philadelphia.
1936 [First report of] the anthropometric committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.,
XXI, 2, 287-300.
HUXLEY,TROMASH. 1867 On two widely contrasted forms of t h e human
cranium. J. Anat. and Phpsiol., I, 60-77.
1867 Ueber zwei extreme Formen des menschlichen Schidels. Arch.
f. Anthrop., I, 345-359.
IHERING,H. v. 1873 Zur Reform der Craniometrie. Ztschr. f . Ethnol., V,
121-169.
KOLLMANN,
J. 1881 Beitrage zu einer Kraniologie der europaischen Volker.
Arch. f. Anthrop., X I I I , 79-122, 179-232.
LUNG, SAMUEL1866 Pre-historic remains of Caithness (with notes on the
human remains by Thomas H. Huxley). London.
LEE, ALICE 1901 D a t a f o r the problem of evolution in man. VJ. A first study
of the correlation of the human skull. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London,
Ser. A., CXCVI, 225-264.
MARTIN,
R. 1914 Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Jena. (Second edition, 1928).
MEIGS,J. AITKEN 1866 Observations upon the cranial forms of the American
aborigines. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., May, 1-39.
MEYER, A. B. 1877 o e b e r Hundert Fiinf und Dreissig Papfia-Schadel von New
Guinea und der Insel Mysore (Geelvinksbai). Mitt. k. Zool. Mus.
Dresden, 2, 165-204.
1890 Uebcr die Unterschiede zwischen Lange, Breite und LangenMIES, JOSEF
Breiten-Index des Kopfes und Schadels. Mitt. Anthrop. Ges. Wien,
xx, 1, 3749.
MIKLUCHO-MACLAY,
N. v. 1878 Anthropologische Notizen, gesammelt auf einer
Reise in West-Mikronesien und Nord-Melanesien im J a h r e 1876. Verhandl. Berl. Gesell. f . Anthrop., Ethnol. u. Urgesch., Sitz. 9. Marz,
1-21.
PARSONS,
F. G. 1922 The cephalic index of the British Isles. Man, X X I I ,
no. 14.
RANKE, J. 1883 Verstiindigung iiber ein gemeinsames craniometrisches Verfahren. Arch. f. Anthrop., XV, 1-8.
R m m s , AKDERS 1842 Om formen a f nordboarnes cranier. Forhandlingar
vid de Skandinaviska Naturforskarnes tredje Mote i Stockholm, 157-201.
AYEBICAH JOWNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHBOPOLOGY, VOL.
xxn, NO. 1
140
T. D. STEWART
RETZIUS,ANDWS 1845 Ueber die Schadelformen der Nordbewohner (translation
by Dr. F. D. H. Creplin). Arch. f. Anat., Physiol., u. Wissenschaft.
Med., herausgegeben von Johannea Miiller, 84-129.
1846 Sur les formes du crLne des habitants du nord (translation
by Dr. Courty). Ann. Sci. Nat., 3” shr., Zoo]., VI, 133-172.
1864 Ethnologische Sehriften (edited by Gustaf Retzius) . Stockholm.
RUTIMEYEFL,
L. AND W. HIS 1864 Crania helvetica. Basel u. Genf.
SCHMIDT,
E. 1888 Anthropologische Methoden. Leipzig.
STIEDA,
LUDWIG1880 Ueber die Berechnung des Schadelindex aus Messungen
a n lebenden Menschen. Arch. f. Anthrop., XII, 421430.
THWNAM, JOHN1863-1864 On the two principal forms of ancient British
and Gauliah skulls. Part 11. Mem. Anthrop. SOC.London, I, 459519.
TODD, T. W. AND WILHELMINEKUENZEL1924 The thickness of the scalp.
J. Anat., LVIII, 231-249.
TOPINARD,PAUL1882 De I’indice cbpbalique sur le c r h e e t sur 1e vivant
d’aprhs Broea. Revue d’bnthrop., 2‘ sBr., V, 98-102.
ElBments d ’anthropologie gGn6rale. Paris.
1885 a L a nomenclature quinaire de 1 ’indice chphalique. Revue
d’Anthrop., 2” sh., VIII, 210-228.
1886 Du principe gBnBral h adopter dans les divisions et nomenclature de c a r a c t h e et en particulier de la nomenclature quinaire de
I’indice cbphalique. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 3” sbr., IX, 91-108.
TOROE, AUREL v. 1890 Grundziige einer systematischen Kraniometrie. Stuttgart.
VIBCHOW,
R. 1877 Archaologische Reise nach Livland. Ztschr. f. Ethnol., IX,
Verhandl., 365-437.
VOGT,C m 1851 Zoologische Briefe. Naturgeschichte der lebenden und untergegangenen Thiere, etc. 11. Frankfurt a. M.
1863 Vorlesungen iiber den Menschen. Giessen.
WEISBACH,
A. 1864 Beitriige zur Kenntniss der Schadelformen osterreichiacher
Volker. Wiener med. Jahrb., XX Jahrg., 11, 118-154.
1869 Die Schldelform der Rumanen. Denkschr. d. k. Acad. d.
Wissensch. Math.-natur. Cl., Wien, XXX, 107-136.
1878 Korpermessungen verschiedener Menschenrassen. Ztschr. f .
Ethnol., IX, Suppl.
1889 E n g e und Breite des Kopfes und Sehadels. Mitt. Anthrop.
Ges. Wien, XIX, 4, 198-200.
WELCKEB, HEBMANN1862 Untersuchungen iiber Wachsthum und Bau des
menschlichen Schldels. Leipzig.
1866 Kraniologische Mittheilungen. Arch. f . Anthrop., I, 89-160.
1885 Die Capacitat und die drei Hauptdurchmesser der Schadelkapsel bei den verschiedenen Nationen. Arch. f. Anthrop., XVI, 1-159.
WLLDEB,H. H. 1920 A laboratory manual of anthropometry. Philadelphia.
1868 Observations on crania. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
WYYAN,JEFFBIUES
XI, 440462.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
1
Размер файла
2 171 Кб
Теги
nomenclatural, length, index, cephalic, breadth, anthropometric
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа