ANTHROPOLOGY (from Gr. ἀνθρωπος = man and λόγος = discourse). — It is the science of man. The term is used both in philosophy and in the natural sciences. At present, the naturalistic meaning is more widely used, though it has not yet received uniform acceptance among all anthropologists. The broadest current is that which gives to a. the meaning of the study of man in his entirety, but as a naturalist might do II. De Quatrefages (1869) defines a.: “the history of man as a naturalist would understand it when studying an animal.” And Martin (1914), in his classic treatise on a., gives a substantially identical definition: “Anthropology is the natural history of hominids in their expansion through time and space.” Thus conceived, a. includes the study of all human manifestations, both physical and cultural; and it is divided into two main branches: physical anthropology, which has as its object the physiomorphological characteristics of man in their individual, racial, and sexual variations, and ethnology, which studies human groups in their cultural, social, religious, etc. manifestations.
Physical anthropology, in so far as it deals with the physical characteristics of extinct men, is called paleoanthropology; while ethnology, in so far as it studies the cultural manifestations of the same, is called paleoethnology.
Commonly, however, the term a., without any further qualification, is understood to mean physical anthropology, which is identified with somatology. This, although it has many points in common with anatomy and physiology, is distinguished from them because these disciplines have as their object, respectively, the anatomical and physiological characteristics of man in general, one might almost say, in the abstract, without taking into account individual, sexual (at least for some characteristics), and racial differences; whereas a. deals precisely with such differences. Moreover, anatomy and physiology do not address the problems of origins, transformations, and the diffusion of man; whereas a. also has such problems as its aim.
It is clear that in its research a. should take into account the greatest possible number of characteristics; instead, for a variety of reasons, it can be said that, until recently, it was limited almost exclusively, or at least predominantly, to the study of skeletal characteristics. Influences on this direction were, in the first place, the fact that skeletal characteristics are often more constant than others and therefore more suitable for systematic classification and discrimination; secondly, because the soft parts of individuals belonging to different races, often distant and difficult of access, are less easily obtainable; and finally, because an important part of a., paleoanthropology, can necessarily be carried out only with bones, the only parts of the human organism that are preserved under privileged conditions over the millennia.
It goes without saying, however, that a study of man so one-sided and incomplete, practically limited to the investigation of certain physical characteristics, might be accused of presumption or even temerity if it claimed to solve the greatest problems of the origins of man. And this is indeed the case, at least for some materialist anthropologists, who delude themselves into thinking that they can solve the problem of the appearance of man (body and soul) by examining 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 he occupies in nature, etc. These are questions that physical anthropology alone cannot resolve without the contribution and assistance of other anthropological disciplines, as well as psychology and philosophy—in short, all those sciences that have man as their object, viewed from every aspect, not only naturalistic but also philosophical and metaphysical. Only from this intimate collaboration can we hope to receive greater light on the problems of origins, which, in certain respects, constitute one of the most important goals of anthropology.
1. Historical Notes
The study of the natural history of man dates back to ancient Greece, although, as has already been said, this study was not separated from philosophical inquiry. The peoples of antiquity made some observations on the influence of the environment on man’s physical nature. Aristotle took an interest in phenomena of heredity, cross-breeding, observed the proportions of the body, the distribution of hair, the sutures of the skull, etc. But after him, the study of the natural history of man declined, as did the natural sciences in general; and throughout the Middle Ages, the same notions about the nature of man were repeated, often mingled with fantastic and extravagant tales.It was in the 18th century that anthropological studies revived and flourished. The Lincean Academy attempted a classification of man. Buffon seems to have been the first to introduce the term “race” to designate the various human groups. He also set out the causes which, in his view, had determined the formation of these groups. J. F. Blumenbach (1752–1840) laid the foundations of anthropological technique in general. In a work entitled De generis humani varietate natura (1775), he presented a new classification of the principal living varieties or races of man, based on observations of skulls. He also adduced anatomical, physiological, and psychological arguments in favor of monogenism.
Camper (1691) measured the facial angle (Camper’s angle). Daubenton determined the position of the occipital foramen. At this time, various methods (Sau- marez, 1708; Virey, 1817; Tiedemann, 1836) were adopted for measuring cranial capacity, and undue importance was attached to this character. Some materialist authors even claimed that such measurements could determine intelligence. This was shown to be absurd by rational psychology and was soon contradicted by the facts.
Around the mid-19th century, anthropometric methods were devised that, with some modifications, are still in use today. They were developed by the Swedish anthropologist Anders Retzius. Retzius also introduced the use of indices, i.e., ratios between measurements, which proved to be incomparably more suitable for anthropological studies than the use of absolute measurements.
While in the first half of the 19th century the study of skulls flourished, societies for the advancement of anthropology also arose. In the second half of the century, two names dominate much of the history of anthropology: de Quatrefages and Broca. De Quatrefages elevated the teaching of anthropology to a level that even today is rarely attained. In his work Unité de l'espèce humaine, he firmly upheld monogenism.
Broca, a positivist physician, gave anthropology an essentially morphological and materialist direction, maintaining that the foundation of all progress in the science of man lay in the knowledge of form—not only for anthropology in the strict sense, but also for physiology, psychology, and sociology. In 1859, he founded the Société d'Anthropologie in Paris, and similar societies were established in the principal countries of Europe: London in 1863, Madrid in 1865, Moscow in 1866, Florence by Mantegazza in 1868, and Berlin in 1869. Broca’s approach brought benefits to anthropology, but it also caused harm, particularly by exaggerating the importance of metric methods and by his materialist prejudices.
Alongside de Quatrefages and Broca in the 19th century, the Belgian Quétel should be remembered for the impetus he gave to anthropometry. Among the principal representatives, in recent times, of the Broca school was the Frenchman Manouvrier, who concerned himself not only with anthropometric technique but also with the interpretation of brain weight.
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 base it almost exclusively on morphological grounds. 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 drew criticism from many. Frassetto (1929) attempted to simplify it, suggesting new methods. Among those who most contributed to placing the use of indices and measurements in their proper perspective, neither exaggerating nor minimizing it, was Biasutti.
Unable to dwell at greater length on the history of anthropology in recent times, it will suffice for our purpose to recall some scholars who have most influenced its progress. These include Virchow, Kollmann, Ranke, Klaatsch, Schwalbe, von Luschan, Martin, Mollison, Weinert, Fischer, Pöch, and others.
In Italy, in addition to the names already mentioned, the following should be noted: P. Mantegazza, founder of the "Società di antropologia e di etnologia" in Florence and author of noteworthy popular scientific publications unfortunately containing materialistic content; Tedeschi, director of the Institute of Anthropology in Padua; and Ruggeri, who taught in Naples and opposed G. Sergi’s polygenism.
At present, indefatigably working in the field of anthropology in Italy are: Sergio Sergi, son of Giuseppe and his successor in directing the Roman Institute; Frassetto, of the Bolognese school; Sera of the University of Naples; Battaglia of Padua; Genna of Florence; and Sacchetti of Rome.
The development of anthropology was significantly advanced, in addition to the rise and spread of evolutionary ideas—especially after the publication of Darwin’s *On the Origin of Species* (1860)—by the discovery of lithic tools of fossil man, long contested but eventually accepted, and by the recognition of fossil skeletal remains. The first discoveries occurred with lithic tools in 1838 by Boucher de Perthes in the Somme Valley deposits, and with fossil man in 1856 in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf; these were followed by numerous finds, from which arose two notable branches of anthropological studies: paleoanthropology and paleoethnology.
Another impetus to these disciplines and to anthropology in general came from the discovery of *Pithecanthropus erectus* made at Java in 1891 by the Dutch physician Dubois.
The study of morphology in the various races, initially focused especially on bones and the skull, was later extended to include the external forms of the human body (somatology). Among many works, it suffices to mention those of Beddoe on the English, Livi on the Italians, Czekanowski on certain groups of Negroes, Sarasin on the Vedda and Neocaledonians, and Martin on some tribes of the Malay Peninsula. For the study of the anatomy of the various races, the names of Muric, Turner, Testut, Giacomini, Adachi, etc., should be recalled.
At present, the author has turned in a particular way to the study of the heredity of traits (v. RENDITA), racial eugenics (v. EUGENICA), the doctrine of constitution (v. HISTOPOLOGIA), and the distribution of blood groups (v. SANGUE).
This orientation has been influenced—though not always happily—by factors extraneous to scientific research, such as nationalist movements and political directives.
Unfortunately, however, anthropological studies for a long time and to a large extent were contaminated by the materialistic outlook, which until recently dominated anthropology. This harmful influence was felt especially in the grave and most delicate problems concerning origins, which are so closely related to religion and moral life. At present, however, there are anthropologists—especially among the younger generation—who, free from the prejudices of the past, consider these questions with a calmer and more open mind, even embracing finalistic and spiritualistic conceptions of nature and man. Their research, besides possessing the merit of greater depth, acquires that of a higher scientific value, in that it does not limit itself, as do those of some empiricists and positivists, to the mere description of phenomena, but investigates their profound causes, not hesitating to ask not only the causal why but also the final why of the various and wonderful phenomena of which the anthropologist is a privileged observer.
Limiting ourselves here to briefly outlining the anthropological method and the principal results obtained in the specific field of classical anthropology—that is, anthropological osteology and human morphology—we refer the reader to the individual entries for the treatment of the other branches of this discipline (v. PALEONTOLOGIA; BRAZZA; RAZZISMO).
OSTEOLOGIA ANTROPOLOGICA
The morphological and metric study of bones has always constituted, for the reasons mentioned above, a most essential part of anthropology. It acquires an almost exclusive value when dealing with the study of fossil races, of which, as is obvious, only the skeletal system remains. From such a study, however, if conducted with prudence and scientific exactitude, it is possible to infer even the morphology and development of missing parts through the impressions and modifications they have left on the skeletal system. Thus, for example, it is possible to determine the volume of the brain from cranial capacity, the development of muscles from the bony crests of muscular insertions, the approximate shape of the cerebral surface from the cerebral impressions on the endocranium, etc. On this basis, one understands how experienced anthropologists can know many things about the development and shape of the soft parts of the organism, which are in direct contact with the bones, of races completely extinct and known to us only through some skeletal remains. Yet there have not lacked, nor do they lack even today, enthusiastic scholars who, yielding to the facile constructions of their imagination rather than to the data of fact, have made and continue to make bones reveal what they can in no way disclose.
Since it is not possible to expound here in full the method followed in osteology and anthropology, nor 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 most interests both racial classifications and, above all, the study of human fossils.
### Elements of Craniometry
In the study of skeletal parts, as indeed in that of the living, account is taken not only of form but also of measurements and proportions. The part of anthropology that deals with measurements and proportions is called anthropometry. For anthropometric surveys to allow general comparison, it is useful that at least some of them be made according to fixed and common norms for all scholars. A certain number of points, distances, planes, and reference lines have therefore been established, both in the skeleton and in the living, which have the same value and significance for all anthropologists and which permit comparison.
Anthropologia - Cranium suspended on the assidiatétero of S. Sergi, according to the bregma-basion axis.
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 taking projections is the assidiatétero of Sergio Sergi.
To the determination of measurements and indices are added observations on the shape of the skulls, observed according to certain norms. Thus skulls are distinguished as ellipsoid, pentagonoid, rhomboid, spheroid, etc.
Cranial capacity is also important in anthropological study. Hence various methods for measuring it directly (filling the cranium with shot, millet, etc.) and indirect systems, by mathematical calculations based on measurements and indices.
We report some racial averages of cranial capacity:
| Index | Racial Averages |
| Eschimesi | 1,5,3 |
| Européi | 1,5,5 |
| Mongoli | 1,5,4 |
| Negri Africani | 1,5,4 |
| Australiani | 1,5,4 |
| Ottentotti | 1,5,4 |
| Andamanesi | 1,5,4 |
It should be borne in mind that these averages are based on very different numbers of individuals and that stature varies greatly. There is no doubt, however, that even taking stature into account, cranial capacities prove to be different. In fact, the Eskimo are of small stature, and yet their cranial capacity is, on average, greater than that of Europeans; the Australians have average stature (m. 1.67) and low cranial capacity (cm. 13.49).
Differences in cranial capacity are also noted among the different classes of the same group, and individual differences are very great.
Important considerations also apply to cranial stature, and it must be emphasized that cranial stature is important in relation to the shape and size of the cranium. Consequently, it is not impossible for an expert anthropologist to determine, at least approximately, the race, age, and sex of a prehistoric skull about which no other information is available besides its presence.
3. ANTHROPOLOGICAL MORPHOLOGY. The main morphological and anthropometric characteristics of living beings studied by anthropology are: skin color, eye and hair color, hair form, stature, shape and indices of the face, shape of the eye and palpebral fissure, shape of the nose and nasal index, shape of the head and cephalic indices, development and shape of the brain, dermatoglyphics, etc.
Skin color. Skin color depends on the presence or absence of certain pigments.
To classify skin colors, color scales are used. In the past, the one proposed by Broca was widely used. Better is the more recent one by von Luschan.
Based on color, humans are generally classified into Whites or Leucoderms, Yellows or Xanthoderms, Blacks or Melanoderms.
The color of Leucoderms (Europeans, western Asians, North Africans, etc.) can range from milky white to reddish white, to brownish; that of Xanthoderms (Mongoloids, Bushmen, etc.) from pale yellow (wheat) of the Chinese, to brownish yellow; that of Melanoderms (Pygmies, African Negroes, Australians, Malays, etc.) from smoky black, rare, to varying shades of chocolate brown.
Pigmentation is not uniform across the entire skin. The ventral side is generally 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, and those of Yellows are much less yellow.
All these varieties are usually grouped into three categories:
**Helicotrichous hair**: "spiral." The implantation in the skin is curved; the cross-section has an irregular shape, generally flattened. The hair spiral can be very short in less curly forms (Pygmies, Bushmen) and also notably wide (Abyssinians, Melanesians). Most African Negroes exhibit this hair form;
**Cymotrichous hair**: wavy. The implantation is straight; the cross-section is oval. The length of the hair increases the closer it is to straight forms. Europeans have this hair form;
**Lisotrichous hair**: straight, coarse, similar to horsehair. The implantation is straight; the cross-section is rounded. The length can exceed that of cymotrichous hair. Mongoloids exhibit this hair form.
It is noteworthy that helicotrichous hair at birth is cymotrichous, i.e., the hair is wavy and becomes curly only after a few weeks (African Negroes) and even after several months (Oceanic Negroes).
This fact suggests that curly hair is a later-acquired trait and that initially the hair was smooth or wavy.
The degree of hairiness (beard, body hair, etc.) seems to depend on the form of the hair. Lissotrichous individuals are hairless; cymotrichous ones never are, and in some areas they show a very high degree of hairiness (Australians, Ainu, Toda of India). Elicotrichous individuals generally have little hairiness, though there are notable exceptions (African Pygmies, Melanesians, Tasmanians, etc.).
The color of the hair depends on a twofold pigment: one yellowish-reddish, diffused, and another, in granules, which varies from yellowish-brown to black.
In Europe and a large contiguous zone, all gradations of color are found, both in eyes and hair; outside this zone the colors range from brown to black.
Blondism (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, since it is found among Scandinavians as well as among Poles, Lapps, Finns, Ostyaks, and Alpine populations.
Blond or blondish individuals have also been found among non-European populations, such as Pygmies, West Australians, Cuna of Central America, and others.
Red hair would not constitute a racial character, but an individual anomaly (erythrism), more frequent in certain groups, such as Scots, Welsh, Finns, and European Jews.
Anthropology - Tricocicloferodi S. Sergi, apparatus for measuring the diameter of hair and body hair. Seen from the side and from above.
**ANTHROPOLOGY – Various forms of hair**: a-b, lisotrichi or straight; c-d-c, cimotrichi; f-i, ulotrichi.
The dependence of skin color on climatic elements is generally admitted; however, it still presents many doubtful and obscure aspects. It is believed that climate influences color because the skin, under the prolonged action of solar radiation, becomes dark, and because in the Europe-Asia area there is a certain correspondence between the intensity of pigmentation and luminous radiation. The minimum of pigmentation is found in the region surrounding 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, while melanodermic populations are extremely dark and this trait is constant and hereditary; moreover, on 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.
With skin color, the Mongolian spot or congenital pigmentary spot should be recalled, present in newborns for up to a few years of life with a highly variable percentage in different races. In the Chinese it is almost 100%, 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 by race: pale blue in Europeans, clay-colored in the Chinese, greenish in Native Americans, blackish in Blacks and in the Chinese.
According to some, it would be a trait of a primitive race that migrated from southern Asia toward the East and the Mediterranean; according to others, it would be an atavistic trait of common ancestors.
**Shape and color of hair**: - The shape of hair varies from the curly, short and fine to the straight, long and coarse, passing through all intermediate gradations.
Of great importance is the shape of the cross-section of the hair. Sergi’s tricocyclofero allows for a precise evaluation of diameters.
**ANTHROPOLOGY - Tricocicloforodi S. Sergi, an apparatus for measuring the diameter of hair and fur. Seen from the side and from above.**
Stature. — The average stature in adult males ranges from 142 to 180 cm. The average stature of women is about 12 cm. lower; but in human groups with very low stature, such as the Pygmies of the Ituri, the difference is reduced to 9 cm.
In general, on the various continents, a peripheral distribution of lower statures is noted. Such a distribution suggests that lower statures represent older forms that have gradually given way before the spread of taller statures, retreating to marginal zones or those less favorable, such as the Arctic tundras, northern forests, deserts, etc.
Body proportions. — The proportions of the body, i.e., the relative dimensions of the head, trunk, and limbs, also show individual and average variations that must be considered.
Various measurements are calculated, relating them to stature. Particular consideration is given to the ratio between the height of the seated subject and that of the standing subject. This gives the relative length of the leg, and has therefore received the name of "sitting height index"; and so it is to be noted that the ratio between the arm span and stature.
The sitting height 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 averages 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. Other characters (transverse diameters of the trunk) are also correlative, whereas stature does not show correlations, since both stocky and slender individuals can be found in every stature class. Within the same group, however, there is a tendency for slender proportions to be associated with taller statures, and stocky proportions with shorter statures.
As for the sitting height index, the following categories can be made:
- macroscheli: from 49.0 to 50.9
- mesatischeli: from 51.0 to 52.9
- brachyscheli: 53.0 and above
Macroschelic forms are found chiefly in the southern regions of the ancient world, especially Sudan, Ceylon, Australia, and the New Hebrides. Brachyschelic forms are found especially in the northern regions: parts of the Lapps, the Kalmyks, the natives of North America, almost all the peoples of the yellow race, etc. A certain correspondence has been noted between brachyschelia and lissotrichous hair. There seems to be a relation between environment and the cephalic index. Brachyschelic forms (short legs) are found especially in mountainous and forested regions, while macroschelic forms (long legs) are found in open spaces, such as deserts and steppes. Similar correspondences are observed in animals, e.g., the Tibetan antelope is stocky, while the North African steppe antelope is long-limbed.
**Steatopygia.** — This is a pathological trait of certain populations (the Bushmen and Hottentots) consisting in a hypertrophic development of the gluteal and thigh regions.
**Shape of the Face. Facial Index.** — Many facial traits lend themselves poorly to measurement and can only be described, e.g., the shape of the facial contour, the shape of the eye, mouth, nasal region, the shape and position of the zygomatic and molar bones, etc. Others can only be observed in the skull (shape of the palatal opening). Still others lend themselves to measurement even in the living and are the dimensions, both absolute and relative, of the various parts. These measurements, however, on account of the practical difficulties involved, must be taken with great discernment, especially when comparisons are to be made. The morphological facial index is particularly calculated; it 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 upwards
- 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 the Akka women of the Ituri (Congo) with 73.4, the maximum in the western Swedes with 93.7. Brachyprosopic forms are found in the tropical and southern regions of the ancient world and in Oceania as far as Tasmania. Dolichoprosopic forms are not widely diffused. They are found especially in certain districts of Europe, of Asia Minor, of North Africa, and in Oceania among the Jaluit and Tonga.
**Prognathism.** — A facial profile is called “prognathous” when the mouth is more or less prominent; “orthognathous” is the term for the opposite profile. Considerable variations are observed, from the very prominent face of an Australian to the ultra-orthognathous type of classical aesthetic standards.
Prognathism of the face may involve the whole of the upper jaw (Australians), or only the alveolar region (“prophatnia”), as in many Negroes.
Prognathism is generally associated with a wide mouth and thick lips. Thick lips are found in southern (equatorial) types, while thin lips are found in northern types.
The **chin** may be more or less receding, or prominent, low, or high.
A receding chin is found in many fossil men and, among living peoples, especially in the Neocaledonians. A high chin is characteristic of some Mongoloid groups (Eskimos) and Europoid groups (Nordics).
**Shape of the eye and of the palpebral fissure.** — One can distinguish the shape of the orbit and of the soft parts. The shape of the orbit can vary from types that are narrow and elongated horizontally to types with vertical development. The former are found in low faces. They are common in fossil forms and in some present-day types (Australians, Neocaledonians, Lapps). The latter are found in faces with vertical development.
As regards the soft parts, the palpebral fissure also varies considerably from race to race and among individuals of the same race, passing through all intermediate forms, from those narrow and half-closed to those wide and open.
In Mongols the palpebral fissure is narrow and oblique, while in Europeans, Pygmies, and Negroes it is open and horizontal. In Mongols, moreover, the **Mongolian fold** is observed. In some human groups, the eyelid, on the inner side of the eye, is folded and covers the inner corner of the eye. This fold is known as the Mongolian fold because it is frequent in Mongol populations. It is also observed in other groups, e.g., among the Hottentots, though in these it descends toward the lateral side rather than the medial side. The Indian fold of the Amerindians is represented by a medial extension of the upper palpebral margin that covers both the caruncle and the medial end of the lower palpebral margin.
These conformations, however, are observed, though rarely, in all racial types.
The Mongolian fold is not rare in Europoid infants; it then disappears with development. The Hottentot fold is also not rare in adult Europoids.
The three characteristics of the Mongolian eye—narrow fissure, obliqueness, and the Mongolian fold—show considerable group and individual variations and can occur separately.
The **color of the eyes** depends on several 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. It presents on the anterior surface depressions or crypts that are absent at the base. It is formed of very flattened endothelial cells, with an almost circular outline and not infrequently pigmented. The stroma forms the fundamental layer of the iris. It consists of a 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 varying quantity (stromal cells).
The epithelium consists of two layers and is quite pigmented, except in albinos.
In "light" eyes the pigment is absent or scarce in the stroma; the brown pigment of the inner or retinal layer, shining through the stroma, the endothelium, the aqueous humour and the cornea, gives, by transparency, the colour blue, grey or green. In "dark" eyes the colour is produced by the pigment of the chromatophore cells of the stroma as well as by the inner pigmented layer.
Rarely is the iris of uniform tint. It usually presents three concentric zones, a pupillary, a central, and a third peripheral one. The latter is usually the darkest, then comes the pupillary, and then the intermediate. Moreover, the chromatophores are often arranged in wheel-like rays, giving the iris a striped and crinkled appearance.
---
**Diagram of Macrozzi, La vita e l'uomo, tav. XXIII, according to Metschnikow (ANTHROPOLOGY - Mongolian fold of the eye).**
rays, giving the iris a striped and crinkled appearance.
Eye colour is classified by means of such chromatics. Particularly in use are those of Martin and those of Martin-Schultz.
**Shape of the nose and nasal index.** — The root, the bridge, and the wings of the nose are considered.
The shape and proportions of this part vary greatly among individuals and races, from the classic form of the Greek nose to that of the African nose.
The **root of the nose** may be more or less depressed, even to the point of appearing straight.
The bridge of the nose, seen in profile, may be depressed, straight, curved in an arc, or angular. Moreover, various combinations of these forms may occur, such as the depressed-undulating, curved-undulating. The profile of the nose, besides being determined by the shape of the root and bridge, is also influenced by the shape of the tip and the lower border.
The tip may be pointed and rounded. There may be characteristically thickened tips, such as those typical of Armenian noses.
The lower border of the nasal septum and of the alae is sometimes perpendicular to the upper lip, sometimes slanting upward or downward.
The shape of the roots may range from the high and narrow types of the Nordic race to the low and broad types of the African races.
The wings of the bridge have different shapes and positions, depending on the shape of the nostrils and of the bridge 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:
Nasal index: width of nose × 100
height
On the basis of this index, noses are distinguished as:
- leptorrhine
- mesorrhine
- platyrrhine
Flat-nosed and hyperflat-nosed types are found throughout Africa up to the northern trunk, in Melanesia, in Oceania up to the equator, in southern Asia and in the Insulindia. Leptorrhine noses are encountered especially in Europe, in northern Africa and in the Near East. Mesorrhine noses are observed, in addition to the marginal zones of the platyrrhine areas, in tropical and subtropical America, in Micronesia and Polynesia, and in northern Asia.
Based on shape and nasal index, various racial types of noses can be distinguished.
Head shape and cephalic indices. — As regards head shape and cephalic indices, much of what has been said about the skull applies. It may be added that brachycephalic forms are found in the Eurasian continent, in Polynesia and in America; dolichocephalic forms in terminal or peripheral zones, such 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 sub-Arctic margins of America; or else in central areas coinciding with the intertropical mountain environment (Indochina, Insulindia, Central and South America).
Racial differences are also noted in the anatomical conformation of the various systems and organs, although these have been observed less than the external morphological ones because they are more difficult to observe. Such differences, needless to say, are observed in statistics or averages, as indeed are the other racial differences.
4. PRINCIPAL MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND ANTHROPOIDS
The principal differences between men and anthropoids are those that are more or less closely connected with the greater development of the brain, with the upright posture and with the absence of a hairy covering in man.Absence of hairy covering. — All primates, including anthropoids, have the body covered with a thick coat of fur. In man, however, the piliferous system is so reduced—even taking racial and individual differences into account—that one may speak of naked skin. Long and thick hair is formed 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 fleece of anthropoids.
Development and shape of the brain. — The brain and, consequently, the cerebral cranium of man is much more developed than that of anthropoids, so much so that, even from this point of view alone, there is a clear division between anthropoids and modern man. In the table below we give the maximum, minimum and average cranial capacities of present-day men, anthropoids and some fossil primates. For these, the values given are those of the males, since they are higher.
Not considering the values found in the *Pithecanthropus*, because the nature of this primate is still debated, and neither do we take into account the value of 850 cm³ as the minimum capacity of *Sinanthropus*, because, given the excessively fragmentary condition of the skull, its capacity could not even be estimated approximately, but only "guessed," the following values remain: