16.

MEASUREMENTS OF MEN¹

ByJ.n/aDENIKERn/an/an/an/a

STATURE

Of all the physical characters which serve to distinguish races, stature is perhaps that which has been regarded as eminently variable. Not only does stature change with age and sex, but it varies also under the influence of external agencies. These variations are unquestionable; but it must be remarked that they occur in a similar way in all races, and cannot exceed certain limits imposed by race. . . .

The individual limits between which height varies are wide. It is generally admitted that the limits of height in the normal man may vary from 1.25 m. (4 ft. 1) to 1.99 m. (6 ft. 6¾). Below 1.25 m. begins a certain abnormal state often pathological, called Dwarfism. Above 2 m. we have a corresponding state called Giantism. Dwarfs may be only 38 cm. (15 in.) tall, like the little feminine dwarf Hilany Agyba of Sinai, and giants as high as 2.83 m. (9 ft. 5), like the Finn Caïanus. . . .

Extreme statures which are still called normal, those below 1.25 m. and above 1.99 m., are very rare. Even statures below 1.35 m. and above 1.90 m. are exceptions. Thus in the extensive statistics from the American Civil War, based on more than 300,000 subjects, but one giant (above 2 m.) was met with out of every 10,000 subjects examined, and hardly five individuals in 1000 were taller than 1.90 m. (6 ft. 3). Again, in the statistics of the Committee of the British Association, which cover 8,585 persons, only three individuals in a thousand were found taller than 1.90 m. Yet in these two cases populations of a very high stature (1.72 m. on the average) were being dealt with. If we turn to a population lower in stature, for instance the Italians, we find only one adult male who is 1.90 m. or more in height among each 7000 examined, according to the statistics of Pagliani. In the same way, statures under 1.35 m. (53 in.) are met with only once in every 100,000 cases among the men examined by the American commission; and not once among the 8,585 British. Even in a short statured population like the Italians only three such are to be found in every 1000 males examined. We do not possess sufficient data to be able to affirm positively that these extreme statures are equally exceptional among every one of the peoples of the globe. But all we know leads us to suppose that they are exceptional, and that the limits of normal stature in man may therefore be set between 1.35 m. and 1.90 m.

However, individual cases are much less important than averages of different peoples; that is to say, the height obtained by dividing the sum of the statures of the individuals by the number of individuals measured. On comparison of these averages, it becomes possible to form a clear idea of racial differences in bodily height.

I have brought together in a table the average statures of peoples from whom we have series of measurements of twenty-five or more individuals. . . . An examination of this table shows that the extreme averages of different populations fluctuate, in round numbers, from 1.38 m. (4 ft. 6) among the Negrillo Akka to 1.79 m. (5 ft. 10½) among the Galloway Scots. But if we set aside the quite exceptional pigmy tribe of the Akka, as well as the Galloway Scots, and even the northern Scots in general (1.78 m.) who likewise form a group entirely apart, we find that the extreme limits of stature vary from 1465 mm. among the Negritos of the Philippines to 1746 mm. among the Scots as a whole. Speaking broadly, then, we may recognize statures of 1.46 m. (4 ft. 9½) and 1.75 m. (5 ft. 9) as the extremes of human racial averages. The medium between these extremes is 1.61 m.; but if we leave out of account the rather exceptional Negritos, we note that the remainder of mankind presents statures which ascend almost uninterruptedly by degrees of millimeters from 1.54 m. to 1.75 m. These figures make the average 1.65 m. (5 ft. 5), as Topinard recognized. Topinard likewise proposed the division of statures into four classes which have been generally adopted. These are: short, less than 1.60 m.; below average, between 1.60 m. and 1.65 m.; above average, between 1.65 m. and 1.70 m.; tall, 1.70 m. and over. In English measure, these figures correspond almost exactly to under 5 ft. 3 in.; from 5 ft. 3 to 5 in.; from 5 ft. 5 to 7 in.; 5 ft. 7 and up.

The table also shows that there are many more populations—almost twice as many, in fact—whose stature is merely above or below average, than peoples of a decisively tall or short stature. That is, more races, nations, and tribes average between 5 ft. 3 and 5 ft. 7 in height than above and below these figures.

What is the influence of environment on stature? Since the time of Villermé the assertion has been repeatedly made that well-being favored and hardship stunted growth. There certainly are facts which seem to prove this. Well-fed upper classes possess a higher stature than the lower classes; thus, the English of the liberal professions are 69.14 in. (1757 m.) in height, the workmen of the same nation only 67.5 in. (1705 m.). . . .

HAIR

That one of the horny products of the skin which is most important for the classification of races, is undoubtedly the hair of the head and body. The general structure and number of the hairs—there are about 260 to each square centimetre—hardly show any difference between race and race. On the other hand, the length of the head hair, the proportions of this length in the sexes, the nature or texture of the hair, its transverse section, form, and color, vary greatly according to race. . . .

Hair texture.—Four principal varieties of hair arc usually distinguished according to their aspect and texture—straight, wavy, frizzy, and woolly. It is easy to form a clear picture of these varieties at first sight; but careful examination shows that the differences are deeper, and best brought out by . . . microscopic examination of transverse sections. . . . If we calculate the index or percentage relation of the breadth to the length of the cross-sectioned hair in a great number of cases, we obtain satisfactory results, as Topinard and Ranke have shown in general for the Japanese, and Montano for the races of the Malay Archipelago. . . .

Straight hair gives a circular section, while that from woolly hair has the form of a lengthened ellipse. This ellipse is less extended, a little more filled out, in the sections of wavy hair. If the major axis of the ellipse be supposed to equal 100, the minor axis will be represented by figures varying from 40 to 50 for the woolly hair of the Bushmen and Hottentots, from 50 to 60 for that of the Negroes, while the straight hair of the Eskimo will have this axis equaling 77, that of the Tibetans 80, of the Japanese 85. The hair of Europeans yields an oval in which the minor axis is from 62 to 72 per cent of the major, according to Topinard. It may be said with certainty, since the studies of Unna, that the woolly hair of the Negro rolls up into a compact spiral precisely because of the flatness of its elliptical section. . . .

A certain correlation appears to exist between the texture of the hair and its absolute and relative length. Thus, straight hair, as of the Chinese and American Indians, is at the same time the longest, while woolly hair is shortest—from 5 to 15 centimetres. Wavy hair occupies an intermediate position. Moreover, the difference between the length of the hair of men and women is almost inappreciable in the two extreme divisions. In some straight-haired races the head hair is as long in men as in women; one need but to call to mind the queus of the Chinese, or the beautiful heads of hair of the Indians, which occasionally attain a length of as much as 2 metres. In frizzy-haired races, on the contrary, the hair of the head is equally short in the two sexes; women’s hair among the Bushmen, Hottentots, and even Negroes is not appreciably longer than that of men. It is only in the wavy and in part the frizzyhaired classes that the sex difference becomes notable. With European men the length of the hair rarely exceeds 30 or 40 centimetres, while with the women it averages 65 to 75 centimetres, and may attain in exceptional cases to 2 metres.

Hairiness.—Another fact to be noted is that the general development of the pilous system on the face, as on the rest of the body, seems to be related to the texture of the head hair. Straight-haired races are ordinarily very glabrous, the men having a rudimentary or scanty beard, as among the American Indians, Mongols, and Malays. In the wavy or frizzy-haired races, the development of the pilous system is considerable: witness the Australians, Dravidians, Iranians, Ainus, Europeans. Only the woolly-haired races are not to be included in the rule: glabrous types like the Bushmen, and most of the western Negroes are found side by side with rather hairy types such as the Melanesians, Ashanti, and pigmy Akka. . . .

Even baldness results largely from the nature of the hair. According to Gould, baldness is ten times less frequent among Negroes than among Whites between 33 years and 44 years, and thirty times less so between 21 and 32. Among mulattos it is more frequent than among Negroes, but less than among Whites. Among American Indians it seems to be still rarer than among Negroes. White hair follows almost the same rule. . . .

CRANIAL CAPACITY

The cranium or skull forms the object of investigation of an extended branch of anthropology called craniology. . . . First in order of importance comes cranial capacity, or the volume of the cavity of the brain-case, which gives an idea of the volume of the brain, and approximately of its weight.

Cranial capacity may vary to double the minimum figure—from 1100 to 2200 cubic centimetres—among normal individuals in the human race. The average capacity for the races of Europe is from 1500 to 1600 e.c.; that of the skulls of Asiatic races appears to be very nearly the same; that of the Negro races and Oceanians a little smaller, perhaps from 1400 to 1500 c.c. on the average. That of the Australians, Bushmen, and Andaman Islanders is still less, from 1250 to 1350 c.c. But is must not be forgotten that the volume of the head, like certain of its dimensions, bears some relation to the height of the individual; and indeed the small-headed Bushmen and Andaman Islanders are very short in stature, although the Australians are of average height.

The difference between the volume of the cranium in man and in woman must probably also be attributed to their difference in height. According to the race examined, this sex difference ranges from 100 to 200, and even more, in favor of man. The cranial capacity of woman represents from eighty-five to ninety-five per cent of the cranial capacity of man. The cranial capacity of lunatics, of certain criminals, and especially of celebrated or distinguished scholars, artists, and statesmen, appears to be slightly superior to the average of their race. We shall revert later to the question of cranial capacity in connection with weight of brain.

HEAD FORM

The general form of the brain-case is an oval, but this oval may be more or less rounded, quite globular, or more or less elongated into an ellipse the major axis of which is almost double the minor. The numerical expression of the cranial form is given in anthropology by what is called the cephalic index. This is the proportion or relation of the length of the cranium (ordinarily measured from the glabella between the eyebrows to the most distant point of the back of the skull) to its greatest breadth. Reducing the length uniformly to 100, we obtain different figures for the breadth, which express the cranial form. Thus very round skulls have 85, 90, and even 100 for their index, while elongated skulls may have an index of 70, 65, or even 58. According to Broca’s nomenclature, skulls having indices between 77.7 and 80 are mesaticephalic or mesocephalic; those having an index below this figure are sub-dolicho-cephalic (down to 75), or dolichocephalic (below 75); those which have an index above 80 are sub-brachycephalic (up to 83.3), or brachycephalic (above 83.3).². . .

Measurements taken on the head of the living subject can never be as accurate as those obtained on the skull; but on the other hand they may be much more numerous, and the greater number of observations largely compensates for errors due to technical difficulties in the mode of measuring. Further, in the measurement of heads of living subjects, there is the advantage of sex, approximate age, and exact origin being known, while for perhaps every other skull that the anthropologist is able to examine, one or more of these particulars may be wanting. These circumstances explain why, in these latter days, the attention of anthropologists is directed towards measurements of living subjects, among which those of the head occupy a foremost place.

Do the measurements of the head of the living subject correspond to the measurements of the skull? . . . The principal measurement, the cephalic index, does not appear to be exactly identical on the skull and on the head of the living. Theoretically, the living head should have its index a little higher than the skull, the muscles of the temporal region being thicker than those of the back and front region. However, experiments made in this connection are somewhat contradictory in detail. According to Broca, two units must be subtracted from the index taken on the living subject in order to obtain the index on the skull. This is also the opinion of Stieda and Houzé and a great number of anthropologists; whereas Mantegazza and Weisbach advocate the reduction of the index by three units; and Virchow and Topinard do not admit any. . . However, in a general way one may allow a difference of two per cent between the indices of the skull and the living head. In this way the two may be compared: one adds two units to the index of skulls and subtracts two from the index of the living subject. . . .

The differences of cephalic index according to sex are insignificant. According to my personal researches, this difference on the average hardly exceeds 0.7 in the living subject and 1.5 in the cranium; and even this latter figure may be exaggerated. Roundly, it may be said that the difference between the cephalic index of men and women hardy exceeds one unit—that is to say, it is no greater than the degree of personal error in making observations. . . .

Has the form of the head, so far as the cephalic index can express it, an influence on the volume of the brain, and consequently on its weight, and even perhaps on mentality? This question is subordinate to another, namely: To what point is the weight of the brain the expression of the psychical value of this organ? We shall see further on that brain weight can only be considered as a very rough approximation to the degree of mentality. But even if we should allow to brain weight the exaggerated importance that was formerly attributed to it, we must admit that brain weight does not stand in any fixed relation with the shape of the skull. The only investigation made into this matter—that of Calori— . . . shows that among Italian men the brachycephalic have on the average 27 grams of brain more than the dolichocephalic, while among Italian women it is the dolichocephalic who have the better of the brachycephalic by 21 grams. The differences in the two shapes being so very trifling, one may consider oneself equally intelligent whether dolichocephalic or brachy-cephalic. . . .

THE NOSE

The skeleton of the nose presents numerous variations according to race. The nasal bones may be more or less inclined in relation to one another, so as to form either an almost flat plane or a sort of prominent roof; their profile may be straight, concave, or convex; their breadth and their length also vary. The form of these bones, together with the nasal opening below, may be expressed by the nasal index—that is to say, the relation between the height of the bony mass and its breadth. According to the greater or lesser breadth of the nasal bones and of the nasal opening, the skull is called leptorhinian (long-nosed) or platyrhinian (flat-nosed); the intermediate forms bear the name of mesorhinian. The form of the nasal opening appears to be transmitted very tenaciously by heredity.

A table, in which I have introduced only series of more than ten skulls, gives the distribution of the principal ethnic groups according to their nasal index. It is easy to see in running the eye over this table that almost all the populations of the so-called white races are leptorhinians, while all the yellow populations are comprised exclusively in the group of mesorhinians, and Negroes and Bushmen in that of the platyrhinians. . . .

The nose of the living, by the variety and the fixity of its forms, also presents one of the best characters for distinguishing races. We can express by means of the nasal index of Broca the proportion of its width (measured by just touching with the calipers the outermost surfaces of the nostrils) to the total length of the nose (from the root to the lowest portion of the septum) which is taken as equaling 100. This index varies in the living subject more widely than on the skull, namely from 40 to 120 according to race. Among the platyrhinians or broad-nosed, the breadth of the nose exceeds 85 per cent of the length; among the lepto-rhinians, it is less than 70; among the mesorhinians, it lies between 70 and 85. . . .

PROGNATHISM

Prognathism, that is to say the degree of projection of the maxillary portion of the face, namely the upper and lower jaws, is a characteristic trait of certain skulls; however, it does not seem to play so important a part in the classification of races as anthropologists had thought twenty or thirty years ago. It presents too many individual variations to be taken as a distinctive character of race. The degree of prognathism is measured by means of different facial angles. . . .

The chief of the angular measurements on the living person is also the facial angle; great importance was formerly attached to it when prognathism was still considered a trait of inferiority. In spite of the numerous instruments invented, such as the double square, Harmand’s instrument, Jacquard’s goniometer, etc., great precision is not attainable in these measurements. . . .

THE EYE

The eyes furnish some differences of form. We distinguish the ordinary eye, as among ourselves, and the oblique or narrowed Mongolian eye. The latter in its most perfect form is characterized as follows. It is placed obliquely, so that its external angle is higher than its inner angle. . . . The essential characters of the Mongolian eye however consist, as Metchnikof has shown, in a puffiness of the upper eyelid, which turns down at the inner angle of the narrowed eye, and, instead of being free as in the ordinary eye, is folded towards the eyeball, forming a fixed fold in front of the movable ciliary edge; this last becomes invisible and the eyelashes are scarcely seen. Moreover, towards the inner angle of the eye, the eyelid forms a fold more or less covering the caruncula and sometimes extending below it. These peculiarities, which can be met with quite often among children of all races as a transitory characteristic, may be explained up to a certain point by the very small development of the pilous system in the Mongolian peoples. For among Europeans inversion of the eyelid (entropion) may become a cause of disease (trichiasis) precisely on account of the growth of the eyelashes. . . .

THE BRAIN

Among the internal organs, the brain, or better encephalon, deserves a little more attention. I have already said that appreciable differences are observable in the volume of the brain-case according to age, sex, and race. This difference agrees with variability in the volume and weight of the brain. At birth, European boys average 334 grams of brain, girls 287 grams. This quantity increases rapidly up to 20 years of age, remains almost stationary between 20 and 40 or 45, then begins to decrease, slowly at first, until 60 years, then diminishes more rapidly.

Let me also add that the weight of the encephalon varies enormously according to individuals. Topinard in a series of 519 Europeans, men of the lower and middle classes, found that variations in weight extended from 1025 grams to 1675 grams. The average weight of the brain among adult Europeans (20 to 60 years) has been fixed by Topinard, from an examination of 11,000 specimens weighed, at 1361 grams for man, 1290 grams for woman. It has been asserted that the other races have a lighter brain, but the fact has not been established by a sufficient number of examples. In reality all the brain-weighings of non-Europeans that can be matched against these 11,000 European ones, amount to almost nothing. The fullest series that Topinard has succeeded in compiling, that of Negroes, comprises only 190 brains, that of Anamese, which comes next in fulness, contains only 18 brains. And what do the figures of these series teach us? The Negro series gives a mean weight not much different from that of Europeans—1316 grams for adult males; and the Anamese, a mean weight of 1341 grams, almost identical with that of Europeans. For other populations we have only the weight of isolated brains, of series of three, four, or at most eleven specimens. These are absolutely insufficient data for conclusions, seeing that individual variations are as great in foreign races as among Europeans, to judge by the Negroes, who vary from 1013 to 1587 grams, and by the Anamese, who range from 1145 to 1450. . . .

Not having at our disposal sufficient data for racial comparisons of brain weight, let us see if the skull capacity can not supply them. We know, since the investigations of Manouvrier, that we have only to multiply by the coefficient 0.87 the capacity in cubic centimeters of the cranial cavity to get with reasonable exactitude the weight in grams of the brain which it contained. Now the following is what we learn from the figures of cranial capacity brought together by Topinard. . . . Among Europeans the average capacity for men is 1565 c.c., varying from 1530 c.c. (22 Dutch) to 1601 c.c. (43 Finns). The capacity for peoples of other continents we find to range from 1583 c.c. (26 Eskimo) down to 1349 c.c. (36 Australians) and 1310 c.c. (11 Andaman Islanders). Between these two extremes the other populations would be thus arranged in a decreasing order of capacity: 36 Polynesians, 1525 c.c.; 18 Javanese, 1500 c.c.; 32 Mongols, 1504 c.c.; 23 Melanesians, 1460 c.c.; 74 Negroes, 1441 c.c.; and 17 Dravidians of Southern India, 1353 c.c. The difference between the highest and lowest of these figures for non-Europeans is 255 c.c., or a little more than the difference between man and woman in all races.

Manouvrier gives the following weights, converted from cranial capacities: 187 modern Parisians, 1357 grams; 61 Basques, 1360 grams; 31 Negroes, 1238 grams; 23 New Caledonians (Melanesians), 1270 grams; 110 Polynesians, 1380 grams; and 50 Bengalis, 1184 grams. The difference of the extremes here is 196 grams.

Must we recognize in these racial differences of brain size and weight the influence of stature and bulk of body, as appears unquestionable for the sex difference? One is tempted to believe this when one sees that the largest brain weight in Europe, 1417 grams (157 brains), is found among the Scotch, whose stature is the highest in the human species; and that the mean brain weight of Italians (244 cases), whose average stature is rather small, is only 1308 grams. The Polynesians and Caucasians, peoples of high stature, also outweigh the Andaman Islanders and Javanese, of very low stature. However, we see, on considering both brain weights and cranial capacity, that Negro populations of very high stature, also the Australians and New Caledonians of medium stature, have a smaller cerebral weight than the short Eskimo and certain low statured Asiatics like the Javanese.

There is thus a double influence: that of stature and that Of race. We might introduce a third element—the weight of the body; but it represents too many different things, varying according to the individual’s inclination towards stoutness, his diet, and mode of life. C. Voit, experimenting on two dogs of nearly equal bulk, found that the weight of the brain of the well-fed dog represented 1.1 per cent of the weight of its body, while the brain of the dog that had fasted twenty-two days constituted 1.7 per cent of the weight of the body. At all events, we cannot deny the influence of the bulk of the active parts of the body on the volume of the brain.

But then a new question arises. Is the increase of the volume of the brain made at the cost of the white substance formed solely of conducting-fibres; or of the gray cortex substance formed principally of cells with their prolongations (neurons), that is to say, the part which is exclusively involved in mental processes? This question still awaits its solution. It is not the gross weight of the brain, but really the weight of the cortical layer which should be compared in the different races and subjects, if one is to judge of the quantity of substance devoted to mental functions. Until the necessarily very delicate weighings of this kind shall have been actually made, we have only a round-about method of ascertaining the quantity of the gray substance: by measuring the superficial area which it occupies.

The cerebral cortex, composed of the gray matter, forms on the surface of the brain sinuous folds called cerebral convolutions. Now, in brains of equal volume, the more numerous, sinuous, and complicated these folds, the greater will be the surface of the cortex. As the thickness of the gray layer is very much the same in all brains, it is evident that the complexity in the structure of the convolutions corresponds to the increase of the gray substance, and consequently of mental force. Now, the little that is known of the cerebral convolutions in different races, and of various persons in the same race, appears to conform to this deduction. The brains of idiots, of the feeble-minded, present very simple convolutions, almost comparable to those of the anthropoid apes, whose brain is like a simplified diagram of the human brain. On the other hand, distinguished personages, great scholars, orators, men of action, exhibit a complexity, sometimes truly remarkable, of certain convolutions.

I expressly say "certain" convolutions, for all these folds, which are arranged according to a plan common to all human beings, do not have the same value physiologically. In the gray layer of certain of these convolutions are the centers of motor impulses and of general bodily sensibility; for example, those which are arranged around the fissure of Rolando. Some of these regulate the voluntary movements of the limbs, trunk, and head; while others are connected with visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory sensations. These various motor and sensorial regions—centers of projection, they are called—make up nearly a third of the gray matter of the brain. But there are a great many other convolutions, the gray matter of which is unconnected with any special function. What is their purpose? Basing his opinion on the tardy myelinisation³ of the nerve fibers ending in these convolutions, subsequent to birth and to the myelinisation of the sensory and motor center fibers, Flechsig supposes that these convolutions are designed to enable the different brain centers to communicate with one another and to render us conscious of this communication. Therefore he has named their gray substance "centers of association." Without these convolutions, the other centers would remain isolated and condemned to a very restricted activity.

Now, as the eminent anatomist Turner has shown so clearly, the convolutions of the sensory and motor centers do not present any great differences in the brain of a child, a monkey, a Bushman, or of a European man of science like Gauss. What differentiates these brains is the degree of complexity of the convolutions concerned with association. It follows, then, that the parts of the brain available for comparison—the associational parts—are less than the whole by the motor and sensory regions—a third of the brain cortex.

But let us suppose that differences of volume and weight are found in these associational two-thirds of the gray matter. Have we more reason to think that we are approaching a solution of the problem? Hardly. It is believed that only certain cells of the gray substance, namely, the great and little pyramidal-shaped cells, are associated with mental activity. Each of these, forming with its axis-cylinder, dendrons, and other branching prolongations what is called a neuron, is believed not to be in constant connection with other neurons, nor to occupy a fixed permanent position in regard to them, but, by means of its prolongations, to place itself alternately in contact with a great number of them.

The nervous currents resulting from these continual changes of contact must be extremely complex. Thus cerebral activity would very likely have to be measured not merely by the number and size of the gray matter cells, but also by the number and variety of habitual contacts which are probably established after education or training of the cells. As from the same number of piano keys the novice can produce only a few simple strains, while an artist elicits varied melodies, so from a practically equal number of cells a savage would be able to extract only vague and rudimentary ideas, while a thinker would bring intellectual treasures out of them.

How far from a true appreciation of brain functioning are we then with our rude weighings of the organ; when, together with the quarter that would assuredly help us solve our problem, we must weigh three other quarters that have nothing or almost nothing to do with cerebration! And even if we succeeded in finding the number, weight, and volume of the neurons, how are we to estimate the innumerable combinations of which they are capable? The problem appears almost insoluble.

However, in science we must never lose hope, and—who knows?—perhaps some day the solution of the question will be found, and may then appear as simple as to-day it appears a matter of course to see through the body with the X-ray.

¹

² The system now more commonly followed reckons heads with an index below 75 as dolichocephalic or long, above 80 as brachycephalic or broad, between 75 and 80 as mesocephalic (mesaticephalic) or medium. Note that low figures denote the longest heads.—Ed.

³ Formation of the white sheath of nerve fibers.