Lably
Skip to content

Cephalic index

Ratio of width to length of the head of an organism

  • 7 min read
  • 4 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Organism, Fetus and Anatomy

Lab · Class 9Diversity in Living OrganismsLab · Class 6Living Organisms & HabitatsLabReproduction in OrganismsLabRespiration in Organisms

Historic use in anthropology

Early anthropology

The cephalic index was used by anthropologists in the early 20th century as a tool to categorize human populations. It was used to describe an individual's appearance and for estimating the age of fetuses for legal and obstetrical reasons.

The cephalic index was defined by Swedish professor of anatomy Anders Retzius (1796–1860) and first used in physical anthropology to classify ancient human remains found in Europe. The theory became closely associated with the development of racial anthropology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when historians attempted to use ancient remains to model population movements in terms of racial categories. American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon also used the index in the 1960s, by which time it had been largely discredited.

In the cephalic index model, human beings were characterized by having either a dolichocephalic (long-headed), mesaticephalic (moderate-headed), or brachycephalic (short-headed) cephalic index or cranial index.

Indices

Cephalic indices are grouped as in the following table:

Technically, the measured factors are defined as the maximum width of the bones that surround the head above the supramastoid crest (behind the cheekbones), and the maximum length from the most easily noticed part of the glabella (between the eyebrows) to the most easily noticed point on the back part of the head.

Controversy

The usefulness of the cephalic index was questioned by the Italian anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi, who argued that cranial morphology provided a better means to model racial ancestry. Also, the Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas studied the children of immigrants to the United States in 1910 to 1912, noting that the children's cephalic index differed significantly from their parents', implying that local environmental conditions had a significant effect on the development of head shape.

Boas argued that if craniofacial features were so malleable in a single generation, then the cephalic index was of little use for defining race and mapping ancestral populations. Scholars such as Earnest Hooton continued to argue that both environment and heredity were involved. Boas did not himself claim it was totally plastic.

In 2002, a paper by Sparks and Jantz re-evaluated some of Boas's original data using new statistical techniques and concluded that there was a "relatively high genetic component" of head shape. Ralph Holloway of Columbia University argues that the new research raises questions about whether the variations in skull shape have "adaptive meaning and whether, in fact, normalizing selection might be at work on the trait, where both extremes, hyperdolichocephaly and hyperbrachycephaly, are at a slight selective disadvantage."

In 2003, anthropologists Clarence C. Gravlee, H. Russell Bernard, and William R. Leonard reanalyzed Boas's data and concluded that most of Boas's original findings were correct. Moreover, they applied new statistical, computer-assisted methods to Boas's data and discovered more evidence for cranial plasticity. In a later publication, Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard reviewed Sparks's and Jantz's analysis. They argue that Sparks and Jantz misrepresented Boas's claims, and that Sparks's and Jantz's data support Boas. For example, they point out that Sparks and Jantz look at changes in cranial size in relation to how long an individual has been in the United States in order to test the influence of the environment. Boas, however, looked at changes in cranial size in relation to how long the mother had been in the United States. They argue that Boas's method is more useful, because the prenatal environment is a crucial developmental factor.

Jantz and Sparks responded to Gravlee et al., reiterating that Boas' findings lacked biological meaning, and that the interpretation of Boas' results common in the literature was biologically inaccurate. In a later study, the same authors concluded that the effects Boas observed were likely the result of population-specific environmental effects such as changes in cultural practices for cradling infants, rather than the effects of a general "American environment" which caused populations in America to converge to a common cranial type, as Boas had suggested.

Sign in to keep reading

3 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Human body

Anatomical terms of locationStandard terms for unambiguous description of relative placement of body partsPrefrontal cortexPart of the brain responsible for personality, decision-making, and social behaviorPubMedOnline biomedical databaseMucous membraneProtective layer that lines the interior of hollow organsNeuroimagingSet of techniques to measure and visualize aspects of the nervous systemNeuroscientistIndividual who studies neuroscience