Anthropology

ANTHROPOLOGY (from Greek ἄνθρωπος = man and λόγος = discourse). - It is the science of man. The term is used both in philosophy and in the natural sciences. More commonly used at present is the naturalistic term, but it does not yet have a meaning uniformly accepted by all anthropologists. The broadest current is the one that gives to anthropology the meaning of the study of the whole man, but as a naturalist might do it. De Quatrefages (1869) defines anthropology as: "the history of man made as a naturalist studying an animal would understand it." And Martin (1914), in his classic treatise on anthropology, gives a substantially identical definition: "Anthropology is the natural history of the hominids in their expansion through time and space." Conceived thus, anthropology comprises the study of all human manifestations, whether physical or cultural; and it is divided into two great branches: physical anthropology, which has as its object the physiomorphological characters of man in their individual, racial and sexual variations, and ethnology, which studies human groups in their cultural, social, religious manifestations, etc. Physical anthropology, insofar as it deals with the physical characters of extinct men, is called paleoanthropology; while ethnology, insofar as it studies the cultural manifestations of those same men, is called paleoethnology.

Commonly, however, the term anthropology, without any further qualifier, means physical anthropology, which is identified with somatology. This, although it has many points in common with anatomy and physiology, is distinguished from them because those disciplines have as their object, respectively, the anatomical and physiological characters of man in general — one might almost say, in the abstract — without taking into account individual, sexual (at least for some characters) and racial differences; whereas anthropology deals precisely with such differences. Moreover, anatomy and physiology do not pose the problems of the origins, transformations and diffusion of man; anthropology, on the other hand, has these problems as its aim as well.

It is clear that anthropology in its research ought to take into account the greatest possible number of characters; instead, for a complex of reasons, it may be said that, until recently, it limited itself almost exclusively, or at least predominantly, to the study of the characters of the skeleton. Several factors influenced this direction: in the first place, the fact that the characters of the skeleton often prove more constant than the others and therefore better suited to systematic classification and discrimination; in the second place, because the soft parts of individuals belonging to different races, often distant and difficult of access, are less easy to obtain; finally, because an important part of anthropology, paleoanthropology, can necessarily be pursued only through bones, the only parts of the human organism that are preserved, under privileged conditions, through the millennia.

It goes without saying, however, that a study of man so one-sided and incomplete, one that is practically limited to the investigation of a part of the physical characters, could be accused of presumption or even of recklessness if it claimed to resolve the greatest problems of the origins of man. And this is really the case, at least on the part of some materialist anthropologists, who delude themselves into thinking they can resolve the problem of the appearance of man (body and soul) from the examination of a few bones. In reality the problems of origins are incomparably more complex. They presuppose the solution of other fundamental questions, such as: the question of the nature of man, of the place that belongs to him in nature, etc. Questions that physical anthropology alone cannot resolve without the cooperation and help of the other anthropological disciplines, as well as of psychology and philosophy — in short, of all those sciences that have man as their object, seen from every side, not only naturalistic but philosophical and metaphysical. Only from this intimate collaboration can one hope to receive greater light on the problems of origins, which form, in certain respects, one of the most important goals of anthropology.

1. HISTORICAL NOTES

The study of the natural history of man goes back to ancient Greece, although such study, as has already been said, was not separated from philosophical study. Hippocrates makes some observations on the influence of the environment on the physical nature of man. Aristotle takes an interest in the phenomena of heredity and of crosses, observes the proportions of the body, the distribution of hair, the sutures of the skull, etc. But after these, the study of the natural history of man declined, as did in general all the natural sciences: and throughout the Middle Ages the same notions about the nature of man were repeated, mingling them, not infrequently, with fantastic and extravagant tales.

It is in the 18th century that anthropological studies rise again and flourish. Linnaeus attempts a classification of man. Buffon introduces, it seems, for the first time the term "race," to designate the various human groups. He also sets forth the causes that, according to him, determined their formation. G. F. Blumenbach (1752-1840) lays the foundations of anthropological technique in general. In a work entitled De generis humani varietate nativa (1775) he sets forth a new classification of the principal varieties or living human races, basing it on observations of skulls. He also brings forward the anatomical, physiological and psychological arguments that speak in favor of monogenism. Camper (1691) measures the facial angle (Camper's angle). Daubenton determines the position of the occipital foramen. Various methods are devised, always around this time (Saumarez, 1798; Virey, 1817; Tiedman, 1836), for measuring cranial capacity, subsequently attaching to this character far more importance than it actually has. Some materialist authors even claimed from such a measurement to arrive at the determination of intelligence. This had been demonstrated to be absurd by rational psychology, and the facts were not slow to show it to be contrary to reality.

Around the middle of the 19th century the anthropological methods of measurement are devised which, with some modifications, are still used at present. They were conceived by the Swedish anthropologist Anders Retzius. Likewise to Retzius is due the introduction of the use of indices, that is, of ratios between measurements, which proved incomparably better suited in anthropological studies than the use of absolute measurements.

While in the first half of the 19th century the study of skulls greatly develops, anthropological societies also arise for the advancement of this discipline. In the second half of the same century two names occupy a great part of the history of anthropology: de Quatrefages and Broca. The teaching of anthropology was raised by de Quatrefages to a height that even today it hardly reaches. In the work Unité de l'espèce humaine he declared himself clearly in favor of monogenism.

Broca, a positivist physician, impressed upon anthropology an essentially morphological and materialist direction, positing as the foundation of every progress of the science of man the knowledge of form, not only for anthropological science in the strict sense, but also for the physiological, psychological and sociological sciences. He founded in Paris in 1859 the "Société d'Anthropologie," on whose example similar societies were founded in the principal countries of Europe: in London in 1863, in Madrid in 1865, in Moscow in 1866, in Florence by Mantegazza in 1868, in Berlin in 1869. Broca's direction brought advantages, but also harms to anthropology, above all by having exaggerated the importance of the metric method and because of his materialistic prejudices.

Alongside de Quatrefages and Broca in the 19th century, the Belgian Quetelet must be remembered for the impulse he gave to anthropometry. Among the principal representatives, in recent times, of Broca's school was the Frenchman Manouvrier, who concerned himself, besides anthropometric technique, with the interpretation of the weight of the encephalon.

While abroad there was a tendency to exaggerate the importance of measurements and indices in the study of anthropology, in Italy an attempt was made, through the work of Giuseppe Sergi, to bring it back almost exclusively onto morphological bases. Sergi distinguished various forms of skulls, observing them from different points of view, on the basis of which he established a complex and not infrequently subjective classification that met with the criticism of many. Frassetto (1929) attempted its simplification, suggesting new methods. Among those who contributed most to placing the use of indices and measurements at its true value, without exaggerating or diminishing it, was Biasutti.

Since it is not possible to dwell at greater length on the history of anthropology in recent times, it will suffice for the purpose to recall certain scholars who, more than others, influenced its progress. Such are Virchow, Kollmann, Ranke, Klaatsch, Schwalbe, von Luschan, Martin, Mollison, Weinert, Fischer, Poech and others.

In Italy, besides the names recalled above, mention should be made of: P. Mantegazza, founder of the "Società di antropologia e di etnologia" of Florence, and author of noted popular scientific publications of unfortunately materialistic content; Tedeschi, director of the Institute of Anthropology of Padua; Ruggeri, who taught in Naples and opposed the polygenism of G. Sergi.

At present, those working indefatigably in the field of anthropology in Italy are: Sergio Sergi, son of Giuseppe and his successor in the direction of the Roman Institute; Frassetto, of the Bolognese school; Sera of the University of Naples; Battaglia of Padua; Genna of Florence; Sacchetti of Rome.

Contributing effectively to the development of anthropology, besides the rise and spread of evolutionist ideas, especially after the publication of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (1860), were the discovery of the lithic tools of fossil man, for a long time disputed and finally accepted, and the recognition of the skeletal remains of fossil man. The first discoveries, which occurred for lithic tools in 1858, on the part of Boucher de Perthes, in the deposits of the Somme valley, and for fossil man, in 1856, in the Neander valley, near Düsseldorf, were followed by numerous findings, whence originated two notable branches of anthropological studies, paleoanthropology and paleoethnology.

A further impulse to these disciplines and to anthropology in general was given by the discovery of Pithecanthropus made in Java, in 1891, by the Dutch physician Dubois.

The study of morphology in the various races, made at first especially on the bones and on the skull, extended to a greater degree also to the external forms of the human body (somatology). It suffices to mention, among many, the works of Beddoe for the English, of Livi for the Italians, of Czekanowski for certain groups of Negroes, of Sarasin for the Vedda and the New Caledonians, of Martin for certain tribes of the Malay Peninsula. For the study of the anatomy of the various races, mention should be made of Murie, Turner, Testut, Giacomini, Adachi, etc.

At present, anthropology has turned in a particular way to the study of the heredity of characters (v. EREDITÀ), to racial eugenics (v. RIESSICA), to the doctrine of constitution (v. BIOTIPOLOGIA), to the distribution of blood groups (v. SANGUE).

Factors also extraneous to scientific research, such as nationalist movements and political directives, have influenced this orientation — not always happily.

Unfortunately, however, anthropological studies were for a long time and in strong prevalence contaminated by materialistic thought, dominant in anthropology until recently. This harmful influence made itself felt especially in the grave and most delicate problems concerning origins, which have so intimate a relation with religion and the moral life. At present, however, there is no lack of anthropologists, especially among the young, who, immune from the prejudices of a former time, consider these questions with a more serene mind and one more open to welcoming also finalistic conceptions of nature and spiritualistic conceptions of man. Their research, besides having the merit of greater depth, acquires that of a higher scientific value, inasmuch as it is not limited, like that of certain empiricists and positivists, to the simple description of phenomena, but investigates their profound causes, not shrinking from asking, beyond the causal why, the final why of the various and wonderful phenomena of which the anthropologist is a privileged spectator.

Limiting ourselves here to briefly setting forth the anthropological method and the principal results obtained in the specific field of classical anthropology, that is, of anthropological osteology and human morphology, we refer to the individual entries for the treatment of the other parts of this discipline (v. PALEOANTROPOLOGIA; RAZZA; RAZZISMO).

2. ANTHROPOLOGICAL OSTEOLOGY

The morphological and metric study of bones has always constituted, for the reasons mentioned above, a most principal part of anthropology. It acquires an altogether exclusive value when it comes to the study of fossil races, of which, as is obvious, nothing can remain but the skeletal system. From such study, however, if conducted with prudence and scientific exactness, it is possible to gain information also on the morphology and development of missing parts, by means of the imprints and modifications that they have impressed upon the skeletal system. Thus, for example, it is possible to ascertain the volume of the brain from the cranial capacity, the development of the muscles from the bony crests of the muscular insertions, the approximate shape of the cerebral surface from the cerebral imprints of the endocranium, etc. On this basis, one understands how it is possible for expert anthropologists to know many things about the development and shape of the soft parts of the organism, situated in direct contact with the bones, of completely extinct races known to us only through certain skeletal remains. There has been no lack, however, and there is no lack even in our own days, of enthusiastic scholars who, abandoning themselves to the easy constructions of their fancy rather than to the data of fact, made and make the bones say what they can in no way reveal.

Since it is not possible to set forth here completely the method followed in osteology and anthropology and the results obtained, we limit ourselves to mentioning the principal notions concerning the skull, which is the most important skeletal part and the one that interests most, both for the purposes of racial classifications and, above all, for the study of human fossils.

Elements of craniometry. — In the study of skeletal parts, as indeed in that of the living being, besides shape, account is taken of measurements and proportions. The part of anthropology that deals with measurements and proportions is called anthropometry. In order that anthropometric surveys may permit a general comparison, it is useful that at least a part of them be made according to norms determined and common to all scholars. A certain number of points, distances, planes, lines of reference has therefore been established, both in the skeleton and in the living being, which have for all anthropologists the same value and meaning, and which make it possible to compare the measurements taken by various anthropologists on different materials.

For example, the glabella is the point on the median plane of greatest protrusion of the lower margin of the frontal bone; the opisthokranion is the point that corresponds, on the median line of the occiput, to the greatest distance from the glabella; the bregma is the point at which the two legs of the lambdoid suture meet the sagittal suture; the basion is the point at which the anterior margin of the foramen magnum is cut by the sagittal plane. And the same may be said of other points that are readily determinable in the skull.

Starting from these points it is possible to measure distances that have a homologous or corresponding value in different skulls. Thus there is the glabella-opisthokranion distance, which measures the maximum length of the skull; the basion-bregma distance, which gives the height of the skull; the distance between the most lateral external parts of the skull, which measures the width of the skull; and so on for the other measurements.

Absolute measurements, however, are of lesser importance for comparisons. What matters more is to know, not so much the height, width or length of an individual or of a skull, as the ratio or proportions that these measurements bear to one another, since it is clear that the difference is smaller between two individuals one of whom is larger than the other but whose respective measurements stand in an equal ratio, than between two individuals whose measurements stand in different ratios. Therefore, by means of the measurements just mentioned, ratios between them are determined, which are called indices. These are calculated by taking as numerator the smaller measurement, multiplied by 100, and as denominator the larger measurement. The ratio or index thus obtained has been divided into classes or categories, according to whether their value is below, within, or above certain conveniently chosen values. Thus, for example, skulls have been distinguished, as regards the length-width index or cephalic index, into dolichocephalic (long skulls), mesocephalic (medium skulls) and brachycephalic (short skulls).

Let us indicate the principal indices of the skull with their respective craniometric categories.

1. Transverse-longitudinal index (width-length):

frac{width × 100}{length}

2. Total facial index: total facial height × 100
bizygomatic width

3. Upper facial index:

frac{upper facial height × 100}{bizygomatic width}

4. Nasal index: nasal width × 100
height

Besides points, measurements and indices, angles, planes, circumferences, arcs, etc. have also been determined, which can serve for a more exact understanding of the cranial or biological structure. Among the best known are: the angle of prognathism, which gives the forward protrusion of the face (very pronounced in Australians); the maximum horizontal circumference of the skull; the German and French anthropological planes.

A skull is said to be oriented on the German plane when both lines (one on each side) orbital-porion are on the same horizontal plane.

A skull is said to be oriented on the French plane when the two condyles and the prosthion rest on the horizontal plane.

The determination of such planes becomes indispensable when comparisons are to be made, because the shape and often the measurements change according to the way in which the skull is oriented.

One of the most perfect instruments for such orientations and for the recording of projections is Sergio Sergi's assidiatètero.

With the determination of measurements and indices there are joined observations concerning the shape of skulls, observed according to fixed norms. Thus one distinguishes ellipsoid, pentagonoid, rhomboid, spheroid skulls, etc.

Cranial capacity is also important in anthropological study. Hence various methods for measuring it directly (filling the skull with pellets, millet, etc.) and indirect systems, by means of mathematical calculations based on the measurements and indices.

We report some racial averages of cranial capacity:

Eskimos . . . . . . . cc. 1583

Europeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mongols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

African Negroes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Australians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hottentots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Andamanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It should be borne in mind that the averages concern quite different numbers of individuals and that stature is quite different. There is no doubt, however, that, even taking stature into account, cranial capacities turn out to be different. Indeed, the Eskimos are of small stature, and yet have a cranial capacity higher, on average, than that of Europeans; the Australians have average stature (1.67 m) and low cranial capacity (1349 cc.).

Also as regards cranial capacity, differences are noted among the different classes of the same group, and individual differences are very great.

With the aid of the means mentioned above, anthropology has succeeded in determining various cranial types, corresponding to the different races, and to different ages and sexes. It is not impossible, consequently, for an expert anthropologist to establish, at least with good approximation, the race, age and sex of a prehistoric skull about which no other information is available to us besides its presence.

3. ANTHROPOLOGICAL MORPHOLOGY

The principal morphological and anthropometric characters of the living person that are studied by anthropology are: the color of the skin, the color of the eyes and hair, the shape of the hair, stature, the shape and indices of the face, the shape of the eye and of the palpebral opening, the shape of the nose and the nasal index, the shape of the head and the cephalic indices, the development and shape of the brain, the skin ridges, etc.

Color of the skin. - The color of the skin depends on the presence or absence of certain pigments.

To classify skin colors one has recourse to "chromatic scales." In the past, the one proposed by Broca was much used. Better is the more recent one of von Luschan.

On the basis of color, men are classified, very generally, as Whites or Leucoderms, Yellows or Xanthoderms, Blacks or Melanoderms.

The color of the Leucoderms (Europeans, Western Asians, North Africans, etc.) can vary from milk white to rosy white, to light brown; that of the Xanthoderms (Mongoloids, Bushmen, etc.) from the pale yellow (wheat) of the Chinese, to brownish yellow; that of the Melanoderms (Pygmies, African Negroes, Australians, Malaysians, etc.) from the rare smoke black to the more or less dark chocolate color.

Pigmentation is not uniform over the whole skin. The ventral side, in general, is lighter than the dorsal side; the flexor surfaces of the limbs are lighter than the extensor surfaces.

Pigmentation also varies with age. Newborn Negroes are livid red, those of Whites are bright pink, those of Yellows are much less yellow.

The dependence of skin color on climatic factors is generally accepted; nevertheless it still presents many doubtful and obscure aspects. It is held that climate influences color owing to the fact that the skin, under the prolonged action of solar radiation, becomes dark, and because in the Europe-Asia area there exists a certain correspondence between intensity of pigmentation and luminous radiation. The minimum of pigmentation is found in the zone around the Baltic and the North Sea; the maximum in the open savannas of the Sudan. To these observations, which would argue in favor of a causal link between climate and pigmentation, others are opposed, namely that the darkening of the skin due to light is limited and temporary, whereas melanodermic populations are extremely dark and this trait is constant and hereditary; moreover, in other continents, particularly among the indigenous populations of America, the correspondence between pigmentation and climate is not observed. Therefore the problem of the origins of pigmentation is not yet resolved.

Along with skin color, one should recall the Mongolian spot or congenital pigmented spot, present in newborns up to a few years of life with a highly variable percentage in different races. In the Chinese even 100% (almost), in Whites from 2 to 0.5%. It is found in the sacral region, and is formed by pigmented cells (chromatophores) present in the dermis. The color varies with race: pale blue in Europeans, clay-colored in the Chinese, greenish in the Amerindians, blackish in the Blacks and in the Chinese.

According to some, it would be a trait of a primitive race that would have emigrated from southern Asia toward the East and toward the Mediterranean; according to others it would be an atavistic trait of common ancestors.

Form and color of the hair. - The form of the hair varies from the frizzy, short and fine, to the straight, long and coarse, passing through all the intermediate gradations.

Of great importance is the shape of the cross-section of the hair. S. Sergi's trichocyclophore allows a precise evaluation of diameters.

It is customary to group all these varieties into three categories: helotrichous hair: "spiral." The implantation in the skin is curvilinear; the cross-section has an irregular shape, generally flattened. The spiral of the hair can be very short, in the less frizzy forms (Pygmies, Bushmen) and also considerably wide (Abyssinians, Melanesians). The majority of African Blacks present this form of hair; cymotrichous hair: wavy. The implantation is rectilinear; the cross-section oval. The length of the hair increases the closer it comes to the smooth forms. Europeans have this form of hair; lissotrichous hair: straight, coarse, similar to horsehair. The implantation is rectilinear; the cross-section rounded. The length can exceed that of cymotrichous hair. Mongols present this form of hair.

It is noteworthy that helotrichous individuals at birth are cymotrichous, that is, they present wavy hair and become frizzy only after a few weeks (African Blacks) and even after some months (Oceanic Blacks).

This fact leads one to believe that frizzy hair is a trait acquired later and that initially the hair was straight or wavy.

The degree of hairiness (beard, body hair, etc.) seems to depend on the form of the hair. Lissotrichous individuals are hairless; cymotrichous individuals never are, indeed, in some zones, they show a very high degree of hairiness (Australians, Ainu, Toda of India). Helotrichous individuals generally have scant hairiness. There are, however, notable exceptions (African Pygmies, Melanesians, Tasmanians, etc.).

The color of the hair depends on a twofold pigment: one yellowish-reddish, diffuse, and another, in granules, which varies from brownish-yellow to black.

In Europe and in a broad contiguous zone, all gradations of color are found, both of the eyes and of the hair; outside this zone the colors vary from brown to black.

Blondness (with blue eyes) is found mainly in Europe and the contiguous zone. Within this area it does not seem necessarily linked to a given somatic or racial type, because it can be found among Scandinavians as well as among Poles, Lapps, Finns, Ostyaks and the Alpine populations.

Blond or blondish individuals have also been found among extra-European populations, such as Pygmies, Western Australians, Cuna of Central America, and others.

Red hair would not constitute a racial trait, but an individual anomaly (erythrism), more frequent in some groups, such as Scots, Welsh, Finns, European Jews.

Stature. - The average stature in adult males varies from 142 to 180 cm. The average stature of women is about 12 cm. lower; but in human groups of very low stature, such as the Pygmies of the Ituri, the difference drops to 9.

In general, across the various continents, one notes a peripheral distribution of the lower statures. Such a distribution suggests that the lower statures represent older forms that have gradually yielded ground before the spread of tall statures, until they took refuge in marginal zones or in the most unfavorable ones, such as the arctic tundras, the northern forests, the deserts, etc.

The various measurements are calculated by referring them to that of stature. Particular consideration is due to the ratio between the height of the subject seated and that of the subject standing. This gives the relative length of the leg, and has therefore received the name of skelic index; and likewise noteworthy is the ratio between the total arm span and the stature.

The skelic index varies between 45.7 (a group of very tall Nilotics) and 55.4 (Eskimos of southern Alaska). In this index, low values indicate long legs, high values short legs.

The ratio of arm span to stature oscillates on average between 99 (Japanese) and 108 (Negroes). In the former the arm span is less than the stature, in the latter it is greater.

Generally the development of the limbs in the various human groups is correlative: long legs are found with long arms and short legs with short arms. The other characters (transverse diameters of the trunk) are likewise correlative, whereas stature presents no correlations, since brevilineal and longilineal individuals can be found in every stature class. Within the same group, however, one notes the tendency of longilineal proportions to associate with the taller statures, and of brevilineal ones to join with the low statures.

As for the skelic index, the following categories can be made: macroskele . . . . . from 49.0 to 50.9
mesatiskele . . . . . from 51.0 to 52.9
brachyskele . . . . . from 53.0 and above

The macroskele forms are found mainly in the southern regions of the ancient world, especially Sudan, Ceylon, Australia and the New Hebrides. The brachyskele forms are found especially in the northern regions: part of the Lapps, Kalmyks, natives of North America, almost all peoples of the yellow race, etc. A certain correspondence has been noted between brachyskelia and lissotrichous hair. There seems to be a relation between environment and skelic index. The brachyskele forms (short legs) would be found especially in mountainous and forested regions, the macroskele ones (long legs) in the great open spaces, as in deserts and steppes. Analogous findings are noted in animals, e.g.: the Tibetan antelope is stocky, and that of the North African steppes is longilineal.

Steatopygia. - It is a particular character of certain populations (Bushmen and Hottentots) consisting in a hypertrophic development of the region of the buttocks and thighs.

Shape of the face. Facial index. - Many characters of the face lend themselves poorly to being measured, and can only be described, e.g., the shape of the contour of the face itself, the shape of the eye, of the mouth, of the nasal region, the shape and position of the zygomatic and molar bones, etc. Others can be observed only in the skull (shape of the piriform aperture of the nose, of the orbits and of the palate). But others lend themselves to measurements even in the living subject, and these are the dimensions, whether absolute or relative, of the various parts. These measurements, however, owing to the difficulties to which they are practically subject, must be taken with much discernment, especially when it comes to instituting comparisons. Particularly calculated is the morphological facial index, which gives the ratio - as has been seen - between the nasion-menton height and the width of the face.

On the basis of the facial index the following categories are distinguished: lepto-or dolichoprosopic (long faces) . from 90.0 and above
mesoprosopic (medium faces) . . . . . from 85.0 to 89.9
brachy-or euryprosopic (broad faces) . . . up to 84.9

The minimum average values have been found in Acca women of the Ituri (Congo) with 73.4, the maximum in western Swedes with 93.7. The brachyprosopic forms are found in the tropical and austral regions of the ancient world and in Oceania as far as Tasmania. The dolichoprosopic forms are little widespread. They are encountered especially in certain districts of Europe, of anterior Asia, of northern Africa and in Oceania among the Jaluit and the Tonga.

Prognathism. — That facial profile in which the mouth is more or less protruding is called "prognathous," the opposite profile "orthognathous." Notable variations are observed, from the very protruding form of the face of an Australian to the ultra-orthognathous one of the classical aesthetic type.

To the prognathism of the face contributes the whole upper jaw (Australians), or only the alveolar region ("propathnia"), as in many Negroes.

With prognathism there is generally associated a broad mouth, with thick lips. Swollen lips are found in the southern (equatorial) types, thin ones in the northern.

The chin may be more or less receding backward, or prominent, low or high.

The receding chin is found in many fossil men and, among the living, especially in the New Caledonians. The high chin is characteristic of certain Mongoloid groups (Eskimos) and Europoid ones (Nordics).

Shape of the eye and of the palpebral aperture. — One can distinguish the shape of the orbit and of the soft parts. The shape of the orbit can vary from types narrow and elongated horizontally, to types with vertical development. The former are found in low faces. They are frequent in fossil forms and in certain present-day types (Australians, New Caledonians, Lapps). The latter are found in faces with vertical development.

With regard to the soft parts, the palpebral aperture likewise varies notably from race to race and among individuals of the same race, passing through all the intermediate forms, from the narrow and half-closed to the broad and open.

In Mongols the palpebral aperture is narrow and oblique, in Europeans, Pygmies, Negroes, it is open and horizontal. In Mongols one also observes the mongolic fold. The eyelid, in the inner part of the eye, in certain human groups, is folded and covers the inner corner of the eye. This fold is known by the name of mongolic fold, because it is frequent in Mongol populations. It is observed, however, also in other groups, e.g. among the Hottentots, except that in these it descends toward the lateral side, rather than toward the medial side. The Indian fold of the Amerinds is represented by a medial prolongation of the upper palpebral margin that hides both the caruncle and the medial end of the lower palpebral margin.

These conformations are nevertheless observed, though rarely, in all racial types.

The mongolic fold is not rare in Europoid newborns; but then it disappears with development. The Hottentot fold is not rare even in adult Europoids.

The three characters of the Mongol eye: narrow fissure, obliquity and mongolic fold, present notable group and individual variations and can separate.

The color of the eyes depends on various factors, but mainly on the structure and pigmentation of the iris.

The iris consists of various superimposed layers which, from the anterior to the posterior surface, are: the endothelium, the stroma and the epithelium. The endothelium covers the anterior surface of the iris. On its anterior surface it presents depressions or crypts which are absent in the fundus. It is formed of very flattened endothelial cells, with an almost circular contour and not infrequently pigmented. The stroma forms the fundamental layer of the iris. It consists of fibrillar connective tissue, traversed by vessels and nerves, and contains the sphincter muscle of the pupil. In the stroma are found cells containing pigment in variable quantity (stromal cells).

The epithelium consists of two layers, and is heavily pigmented, except in albinos.

In "light" eyes the pigment is absent or scanty in the stroma; the brown pigment of the inner or retinal layer, through the stroma, the endothelium, the aqueous humor and the cornea, gives, by transparency, the blue, gray or green color. In "dark" eyes the color is given by the pigment of the chromatophore cells of the stroma as well as by the inner pigmented layer.

Rarely is the iris of a uniform tint. It usually presents three concentric zones: a pupillary one, a central one, and a third peripheral one. The latter is usually the darkest, then comes the pupillary one, then the intermediate one. Moreover the chromatophores are often arranged in in wheel-like rays, giving the iris an appearance of radiate and crinkled stripes.

The color of the eyes is classified by means of chromatic charts. Particularly used are those of Martin and those of Martin-Schultz.

Shape of the nose and nasal index. — The root, the dorsum, and the wings of the nose are considered.

The shape and proportions of this part vary greatly with different individuals and with different races, from the classical form of the Greek nose to that of the African nose.

The root of the nose may be more or less sunken, to the point of assuming a straight appearance.

The dorsum of the nose, seen from the side, may present itself as depressed, straight, curved in an arch, or in such a way as to form an angle. Moreover, various combinations of these forms are possible, such as: the depressed-undulating combination, the curved-undulating one. The profile of the nose, besides by the shape of the root and of the dorsum, is determined by the shape of the tip and of the lower edge.

The tip may be sharp or rounded. Characteristically thickened tips of the nose are possible. Those of Armenian noses are typical.

The lower edge of the nasal septum and of the alae is sometimes perpendicular with respect to the upper lip, at other times oblique upward or downward.

The shape of the roots can vary from the highest and narrowest types of the Nordic race to the low and broad types of the African races.

The wings of the dorsum have different shapes and positions, depending on the shape of the nostrils and of the dorsum itself.

The degree of dilation of the nostrils is expressed by a ratio between the width of the nose at the level of the nostrils and the height of the nose, from the nasion to the nasal septum. This ratio is called the nasal index, and is expressed by dividing the width of the nose × 100 by the height:

On the basis of this index, the following noses are distinguished: leptorrhine . . . up to 70 mesorrhine . . . from 70 to 85 platyrrhine . . . from 85 upward.

Platyrrhine and hyperplatyrrhine noses are found throughout Africa up to the northern trunk, in Melanesia, in Oceania up to the equator, in southern Asia and in the East Indies. Leptorrhine noses are encountered especially in Europe, in northern Africa and in anterior Asia. Mesorrhine noses are observed, besides in the marginal zones of the platyrrhine areas, in tropical and subtropical America, in Micronesia and Polynesia, in northern Asia.

On the basis of the shape and the nasal index, various racial types of noses can be distinguished.

Shape of the head and cephalic indices. - As regards the shape of the head and the cephalic indices, what has been said when speaking of the skull holds largely true. It may be added that brachycephalic forms are found in the Eurasian continent, in Polynesia and in America; dolichocephalic ones in the terminal or peripheral zones, as, for example, in the north-western and southern margins of Europe, in southern Asia, in the peripheral islands of Polynesia and in the extreme arctic and subarctic margins of America; or else in central areas, coinciding with the intertropical mountain environment (Indochina, the East Indies, Central and South America).

Also as regards the anatomical conformation of the various systems and organs, racial differences are noted, although these have been observed less than the external morphological ones, because they are more difficult to observe. Such differences, it would be superfluous to say, are observed in statistics or averages, as, moreover, are the other racial differences as well.

4. PRINCIPAL MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND ANTHROPOIDS

The principal differences between men and anthropoids are those which are more or less closely connected with the greater development of the brain, with the erect posture and with the absence of hairy covering in man.

Absence of hairy covering. - All primates, including the anthropoids, have their body covered by a thick fur. In man, on the other hand, the pilary system is so reduced, even taking into account racial and individual differences, that one can speak of bare skin. The formation of long and thick hairs occurs only in certain parts of the body (head, chin, etc.), but the other parts present only a sparse down which cannot be compared with the coat of the anthropoids.

Development and shape of the brain. - The brain and, consequently, the cerebral cranium of man is much more developed than that of the anthropoids, so much so that, even in this respect alone, there exists a clear division between the anthropoids and recent man. In the table that follows we give the maximum, minimum and average cranial capacities of present-day men, of the anthropoids and of some fossil primates. Of these, the values of the males are given, because they are higher.

Not taking into account the values found in Pithecanthropus, because doubts exist about the nature of this primate, and not considering either the value of 850 cc. as the minimum capacity of Sinanthropus, because, given the too fragmentary conditions of the skullcap, the capacity could not be measured even approxi-

(from Marrazzi, La vita e l'uomo, p. 212, according to Unifusa)
ANTHROPOLOGY. - Cross-section of a skull - From top to bottom: of a dog, of an orangutan, of a modern human.
In black: neural skull; in hatching: visceral skull.

tively, but only "estimated," the maximum values for anthropoids remain 655 cc. and the minimum for humans 900 cc. The difference is about 250 cc. It should be noted, however, that minima of 900 cc. among humans are extremely rare, and the averages in Europeans hover around 1500 cc., and in races with more limited capacity, such as Australians, around 1250 cc.

Connected with cerebral development is the shape of the skull. In humans, in proportion to the increase of the cerebral skull, there is a decrease of the visceral skull, that is, of that part of the skull where the respiratory and digestive systems begin. Moreover, in humans the visceral part is situated below the cerebral part; in anthropoids, by contrast, it protrudes notably forward. Furthermore, in the human skull the anterior part, that is, the forehead, is more developed and higher, and the frontal lobes extend to the level of the outer margins of the orbits, whereas in the chimpanzee and gorilla the frontal lobes of the brain do not reach the middle of the orbit.

Young anthropoids, however, are, in this respect, more similar to humans than adult anthropoids. Other differences between the brain of anthropoids and that of humans are noted, besides in development, in the conformation of the individual parts.

The parietal region is much more developed in humans than in anthropoids, and likewise, as we have seen, the frontal region. The convolutions are much greater in the brain of humans.

Conformations dependent on the erect posture. - Only humans possess the erect posture, that is, they stand upright on their legs, which are vertical, with trunk and head likewise vertical. The penguin, among birds, and the dipus, among mammals, do not have the erect posture in the proper sense. Their trunk is incompletely straightened, by means of a change in the proportion of the segments of the lower limb and in the opening of the angles they form with one another.

Anthropoids have a semi-erect posture.

The erect posture of humans is made possible by a total remodeling of the skeleton, the muscles and the external configuration.

The skeleton presents in the vertebral column a series of curves, whose relative proportions, extent and reason for being are exclusive to humans, especially the forward curve of the lumbar region. The thorax is flattened from front to back. The scapula is applied against the posterior surface of the thorax and not laterally as is generally the case in mammals and anthropoids. The spine of the scapula is almost transverse and horizontal and not strongly oblique as in the latter. The articular cavity that it offers to the humerus faces outward, whereas in anthropoids it faces downward. The head of the humerus in humans is placed internally, on the inner margin of the bone, extending equally over its anterior and posterior surfaces; in anthropoids it is rather on the posterior surface, so as to support the scapula (whose articular cavity faces downward) and consequently the trunk, as in quadrupeds.

In humans, the arm and forearm are in a straight line; in anthropoids, the forearm is always slightly bent on the arm. When the human arm hangs, the hand has the thumb forward; in the great apes, backward.

In anthropoids the metacarpals are arched, and there is one fewer carpal bone.

Differences also exist in the pelvis. The iliac bones in humans develop in such a way as to form a true pelvis. The curve formed by the iliac crest and the sacrum is divided, by the vertical passing through the hip, into two equal halves, one placed in front, the other behind the femur. In anthropoids, by contrast, the iliac crest and sacrum come to lie in front of the vertical line passing through the femur. The posterior limbs in humans are relatively longer than in anthropoids, perfectly vertical, and the muscles that originate from the pelvis insert before the knee; in anthropoids they are always slightly bent, and some muscles insert below the knee.

The foot in humans forms two curves: one longitudinal and one transverse, and rests on the ground at three points: at the back (heel), in the middle (first metatarsal), at the front (fifth metatarsal). In anthropoids, the foot rests on the ground only with its outer margin, and the inner margin with the tip of the big toe. The heel and the big toe are poorly developed, and the latter is opposable to the other toes, which are very long. The foot thus forms a true pincer.

Also related to the erect posture is the position of the head. In humans, who have a developed braincase and a relatively reduced facial skull, the skull rests on the vertebral column immediately behind the middle of the base; in anthropoids, by contrast, which have a strong development of the facial part of the skull, it rests on the column much further back than the middle of the base, in any case much more posteriorly than the point of gravity. Consequently, in anthropoids a strong development of the nuchal muscles is required to hold the head balanced, whereas in humans much smaller muscles suffice.

As for the differences and affinities concerning blood, v. SANGUE.

# CRANIAL CAPACITIES IN CCM.

Vittorio Marcozzi