Cephalic Index and Facial Index

[Hellstar]

Originally posted by Seppl
As for facial features & cephalic index they are major indicators of Race. However, Cephalic index is not concrete as Dr. C. Coon mentioned in his book "the Races of Europe" that cephalic index can change from parents to offspring. For example he noted measurements of the children of Eastern European migrants and they were lower than their parents.
Likewise the SS measured Ethnic Germans in Rumania, who outwardly looked Nordic but had a sub-brachiacephalic index 80-83. The point being perhaps environment might have some affect on cephalic index.

A Danish Anthropologist Birket-Smith states that under the big drought in soviet union did the scientist Ivanovski measure 2000 people each half year, in a period of 3 years under this hunger atrophy, this scientist ivanovski found that C.I decreased with 1-4 units in this period,

another man Boas, I read about, made examinations of east Jews Cephalic index, and it was permanently settled around 83, but when they immigrated to USA and got kids their kids had 81 C.I in average. (decreased by 2 units) and there grandchildren 79 in average (decreased again by 2 units) all this was supposedly nothing to do with miscegenation and to be considered to be part of the natural selection somehow.

reversed seen has Boas examined other groups of immigrating long sculled Scots and Sicilians as well as niggers and spains from Costa Rica; He concluded that their heads width expanded frequently while not practicing foreign race mix.

[Seppl]

Hellstar is correct,
C.I. is a problematic measurement in racial assessment. I would use a number of other criteria such as body form, facial form , hair & skin colour, eye colour and facial index i.e. europeans have a high forehead whilst negroes have a sloping forhead which retards their mental capacities particularly reasoning and creativity.
I will write on SS racial assessment soon which used other criteria as well as C.I. to determine race.
Servus,x_cheers

[GreenHeart]

Something interesting.......

You can find this article by looking for it on the Google news under the SCI/Tech Section. If you go through the NY Times you have to create an account.



Two physical anthropologists have reanalyzed data gathered by Franz Boas, a founder of American anthropology, and report that he erred in saying environment influenced human head shape. Boas's data, the two scientists say, show almost no such effect.

The reanalysis bears on whether craniometrics, the measurement of skull shape, can validly identify ethnic origin. As such, it may prompt a re-evaluation of the definition of human races and of ancient skulls like that of Kennewick Man.

"I have used Boas's study to fight what I guess could be considered racist approaches to anthropology," said Dr. David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. "I have to say I am shocked at the findings."

Forensic anthropologists believe that by taking some 90 measurements of a skull they can correctly assign its owner's continent of origin — broadly speaking, its race, though many anthropologists prefer not to use that term — with 80 percent accuracy.

Opponents of the technique, who cite Boas's data, say the technique is useless, in part because environmental influences, like nutrition or the chewiness of food, would overwhelm genetic effects.

Boas measured the heads of 13,000 European-born immigrants and their American-born children in 1909 and 1910 and reported striking effects on cranial form, depending on the length of exposure to the American environment.

But in re-examining his published data, Dr. Corey S. Sparks of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. Richard L. Jantz of the University of Tennessee find that the effects of the new environment were "insignificant" and that the differences between parents and children and between European- and American-born children were "negligible in comparison to the differentiation between ethnic groups," they are reporting today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The groups that Boas studied were Bohemians, Hungarians, central Italians, Jews, Poles, Sicilians and Scots. As to why he drew the wrong conclusion, Drs. Sparks and Jantz note that he was much involved in disputing contemporary belief that many different racial types could be reliably distinguished.

Boas's motives, they write, "could have been entwined in his view that the racist and typological nature of early anthropology should end, and his argument for dramatic changes in head form would provide evidence sufficient to cull the typological thinking."

Dr. Jantz said that Boas "was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it work that way."

"Corey and I," Dr. Jantz said, "certainly aren't arguing that scientific racism is something you should go back to. But that doesn't mean cranial morphology is meaningless, either."

The new report raises the issue of whether an earlier generation's efforts to play down the role of genetics in fields like behavior and racial variation may not have been carried to extremes. Dr. Steven Pinker, who assigns a larger role to genetics in shaping behavior in his new book, "The Blank Slate," said it was not Boas but his disciples, including the anthropologists Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Ashley Montagu, who "helped establish the blank-slate, social-constructionist, antibiology mindset of the social sciences."

Dr. Thomas said that "once we anthropologists said race doesn't exist, we have ignored it since then." In that context, the reanalysis of Boas's data "really does have far-reaching ramifications," he said.

One is the question whether present day races existed as such in the past, an issue brought up by the discovery of Kennewick Man. The skeleton, including a Caucasoid-looking skull 9,000 years old, was found by a Columbia River bank in Washington. Indians and their supporters contend that the skull differs from present day Indians because of environmental changes. Scientists who want to study the skull, instead of handing it over for reburial, said it was evidence that other ancestral groups had reached North America besides the Central Asians whom Indians most closely resemble.

In "Skull Wars," his recent book on Kennewick Man, Dr. Thomas argued that it was bad science to introduce racial concepts like "Caucasoid" in the context of people who lived 9,000 years ago, because environmental factors would have extensively changed body shape since then. Scientists on the other side, who included Dr. Jantz, "took a lot of heat in saying they could project racial classifications back in time," Dr. Thomas said.

Because no DNA was extracted from the Kennewick bones, craniometrics is the only way to learn about his population, Dr. Sparks said. By that measure, the skull most closely resembles those of the Ainu, the original inhabitants of Japan who now live in the country's most northern islands. Boas's immigrant data, Dr. Sparks said, "has been the burr in our bed for 90 years for people who tried to study population history using cranial data."

"I would love to see this wrong," Dr. Thomas said. "But I don't see any holes in the study."

But Dr. Alan H. Goodman, a biological anthropologist at Hampshire College, said that the authors were setting up a straw man by "purporting to show that Boas was a rampant environmentalist, when in fact he wasn't."

[Stríbog]

BTW, Boas was an egalitarian Jew who first began the earnest effort to "discredit" racism. Other "cultural anthropologists" that followed in his footsteps were Ashley Montagu (Jew with a bogus English name) and Margaret Mead. Though it has been the dominant school of academic anthropology for nigh 40 years now, it still has no scientific credibility. It is purely political.

[Ross]

There seems to ba contradiction...

Bizyg. diameter of this person is 156, facial height is 138...

So Bitragion diameter must be around 166, but it's enormous, and greater than head's breadth.

[Ross]

So it seems Coon was using Bitragion diameter for FI?

And this illustration is not correct?

"21" is not the facial breadth? It's "29" actually?

[Tryggvi]

Cephalic Index and Facial Index


Cephalic Index

The cephalic index (C.I.) formula is:

Cephalic index C.I. = [Head width (eu-eu) x 100]/ Head length (g-op)

It is therefore the ratio of the width (or breadth) of the head to its length.

Head length is the distance between glabella (g) and opisthocranion (op), i.e. (g-op). Glabella is "the most prominent point in the median sagittal plane between the supraorbital ridges". Opisthocranion (op) is the most prominent posterior point on the occiput:

Occiputal Section (Quicktime .mov)

Head length (g-op) therefore measures the maximal head depth or length when the head is viewed either from above or from one side, but it is impossible to have an idea of it from one's face photograph. On the other hand, a profile picture can show if a head is long or short.

Head width (or breadth) is measured from euryon (eu) on one side of head to euryon (eu) on the other side. This distance (eu-eu) measures the greatest transverse diameter or maximal head width.

Expressed as a percentile number C.I. provides the simplest description of the geometric relation of two dimensions. The index is obtained by dividing the maximum width of the head by its maximum length and multiplying by 100. In anthropometry, the cephalic index has been the favored measurement.

A cephalic index of 80 or more is called brachycephalic or broad; a measurement between 75 and 80 is mesocephalic; below 75 is considered dolichocephalic or long. The cranial index is the same ratio taken on a skull. Dolichocephals are thus "relatively" long or narrow-headed while brachycephals are "relatively" short or large headed. Skulls are further divided into further low or chamaecephalic (up to 70.0), medium or orthocephalic (70.1 to 75.0), and high or hypsicephalic (over 75.0). The following designations were added to those already in use: ultradolichocephalic (55.0 to 59.9), hyperdolichocephalic (60.0 to 64.9), hyperbrachycephalic (85.0 to 89.9) and ultrabrachycephalic (90.0 to 94.9).

Cephalic Index  --  Skull Shape

55.0 to 59.9    --  ultradolichocephalic
60.0 to 64.9    --  hyperdolichocephalic
up to 70.0      --  chamaecephalic
up to 74.9      --  dolichocephalic
70.1 to 75.0    --  orthocephalic
over 75.0       --  hypsicephalic
75.0 to 79.9    --  mesocephalic
over 80.0       --  brachycephalic
85.0 to 89.9    --  hyperbrachycephalic
90.0 to 94.9    --  ultrabrachyhcephalic

The Main European Head Types

Below are maps showing the C.I. distribution within European populations:

Map 1 (William C. Boyd and Isaac Asimov)




Map 2:Western Europe (Carleton S. Coon)




Map 3:Eastern Europe (Carleton S. Coon)

More specifically in Scandinavia:

Cephalic Index Distribution in Scandinavia (Bertil Lundman)




Facial Index

The facial index (F.I.) formula is:

F.I. = [total face height (n-gn) * 100] / bizygomatic (zy-zy)

It is the ratio of the height (or length) of the face to its breadth (or width).

Total face height is the distance between nasion (n) and gnathion (gn), i.e. (n-gn). Nasion (n) is the midpoint of the nasofrontal suture. Gnathion (gn) is in the midline, the lowest point on the lower border of the chin. Bizygomatic (zy-zy) is the face breadth (or width).

Total face height (n-gn) is a measurement of the A15 distance on the picture below:

F.I. is more intuitive than C.I.

Physical anthropologists describe faces as either euryprosopic (short and wide) or leptoprosopic (tall and narrow).

A facial index (on the living) of 88.0 to 92.9 is called leptoprosopic (long- or narrow-faced, or both); a measurement between 84.0 to 87.9 is mesoprosopic (moderate in face form); below 83.9 is considered euryprosopic (short- or broad-faced, or both). An individual who possesses a facial index of 93.0 or over, and is thus extremely long or narrow-faced (or both) is referred to as hyperleptoprosopic.

Facial Index  --  Facial Morphology

below 83.9    --  euryprosopic
84.0 to 87.9  --  mesoprosopic
88.0 to 92.9  --  leptoprosopic
93.0 or over  --  hyperleptoprosopic

Relations between Head and Face Morphology

The dolichocephalic headform sets up a developing face that becomes narrow, long and protrusive. This facial type is termed leptoprosopic. This is the case with Hallstatt Nordic type that is found in its greatest concentration on the Swedish plain and in the long valleys and lowlands of southeastern Norway.

The brachycephalic headform establishes a face that is more broad, but somewhat less protrusive. This facial type is called euryprosopic. Within European populations, the Alpine, Borreby types exemplify this tendency.

[william_russellsb]

Hello Njörd,

I am happy to see that you have visited my website at:
http://www.geocities.com/pbateman852/index.html

I would actually like to improve its design and add content.
There is only one thing that people should keep in mind: my website is a non-political one. It simply focuses on physical anthropology and does not try to influence the political opinions of its visitors.
Anyone who wishes to help me (design, advises, articles or hosting) is welcome.

Regards

William Russell

[Johannes de León]

Hello Njörd,

I am happy to see that you have visited my website at:
http://www.geocities.com/pbateman852/index.html

I would actually like to improve its design and add content.
There is only one thing that people should keep in mind: my website is a non-political one. It simply focuses on physical anthropology and does not try to influence the political opinions of its visitors.
Anyone who wishes to help me (design, advises, articles or hosting) is welcome.

Regards

William Russell

I thought it was taken from orthomail.us, more precisely here: http://www.orthomail.us/mambo/index....d=69&Itemid=79

[william_russellsb]

Sorry, but it is actually Orthomail US who plagiarized my website. I have been a member of the Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology mailing list for years under the pseudonym of "Patrick Bateman". The SNPA website lacked an anthropometry section. I therefore designed this website. The "Cephalic Index and Facial Index" section of my site was online long before it appeared on their website.

The Orthomail administrator dumped my page without any critical sense. While my site, which is devoted to physical anthropology, contains numerous and legitimate references to Carleton Stevens Coon's work and the taxonomy established by the Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology, the Orthomail page contains unexplainable references to the Hallstatt Nordic, Alpine and Borreby types and links to the SNPA race gallery. These considerations should have nothing to do with orthodontics, at least from a politically correct standpoint.

It is funny to note that this orthodontics site links to the description of the Hallstatt Nordic race… Has this lazy webmaster only realized what he has done? I personally do not think so. If you have any doubt concerning the authenticity of my page, please just take some time to compare my website and the orthodontics one. The style of this page is more consistent with my site. It is a bit out of place at Orthomail…

On the other hand, this has a positive side effect, because it furthers our agenda to revive the interest in physical anthropology, which has too long been discarded as "nazi science". I am moreover honored to see that my work raised such interest in the medical community, while I am actually working as software engineer…


The Original:
http://www.geocities.com/pbateman852/cfanalysis.htm

Orthomail's Copycat Work:
http://www.orthomail.us/mambo/index....d=69&Itemid=79