Craniometry

Craniometry is measurement of the cranium (the main part of the skull), usually the human cranium. It is a subset of cephalometry, measurement of the head, which in humans is a subset of anthropometry, measurement of the human body. It is distinct from phrenology, the pseudoscience that tried to link personality and character to head shape, and physiognomy, which tried the same for facial features.

Today, physical and forensic anthropologists use craniometry to study the evolution of human populations, determining the origin of ancient remains such as the Kennewick Man, or helping law enforcement to identify the race of the deceased.^[1]^[2]^[3] Forensic anthropologists can correctly identify the perceived social race of an individual with rates from 81-99% accuracy depending on the craniometric data, the number of variables used, the populations, and the type of analysis.^[4]^[5]^[6]

There is a rift between forensic and biological anthropologists in the use of race in craniometry, with biological antrhopolists attempting to disprove any theory of biological race, compared to how many forensic anthropologists make factual inquiries based on societally-created racial categories.^[7] It was once intensively practised in physical anthropology in the 19th and the first part of the 20th century. Theories attempting to scientifically justify the segregation of society based on race became popular at this time, one of their prominent figures being Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854–1936), who divided humanity into various, hierarchized, different "races", spanning from the "Aryan white race, dolichocephalic" (from the Ancient Greek kephalê, head, and dolikhos, long and thin), to the "brachycephalic" (short and broad-headed) race. On the other hand, craniometry was also used as evidence against the existence of a "Nordic race" and also by Franz Boas who used the cephalic index to show the influence of environmental factors. Charles Darwin used craniometry and the study of skeletons to demonstrate his theory of evolution first expressed in On the Origin of Species (1859).

Quite separately, certain artists from the 15th century onward made measurements of heads and skulls with a view to attaining greater accuracy in their representation of those parts of the human frame. Bernard Palissy and Albrecht Dürer were pioneers in such researches.^[8]

^ Mann, Robert (2015). The Sagittal Suture as an Indicator of Race and Sex. Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains: Beyond Black and White. p. 106. Retrieved 18 July 2024.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Gill, George (1998). Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race (2nd ed.). Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. pp. 293–295. Retrieved 18 July 2024.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Bonnichsen v. United States, 367 F.3d 864, 870-872 (9th Circuit 2004).
^ Mann, Robert (2015). The Sagittal Suture as an Indicator of Race and Sex. Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains: Beyond Black and White. p. 111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Gill, George (1998). Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race (2nd ed.). Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. p. 305.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Ousley, Stephen (2009). "Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 139 (1): 71.
^ Ousley, Stephen (2009). "Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 139 (1): 68.
^ Duckworth 1911, p. 372.

[1] Mann, Robert (2015). The Sagittal Suture as an Indicator of Race and Sex. Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains: Beyond Black and White. p. 106. Retrieved 18 July 2024.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] Gill, George (1998). Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race (2nd ed.). Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. pp. 293–295. Retrieved 18 July 2024.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[3] Bonnichsen v. United States, 367 F.3d 864, 870-872 (9th Circuit 2004).

[4] Mann, Robert (2015). The Sagittal Suture as an Indicator of Race and Sex. Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains: Beyond Black and White. p. 111.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[5] Gill, George (1998). Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race (2nd ed.). Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. p. 305.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[6] Ousley, Stephen (2009). "Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 139 (1): 71.

[7] Ousley, Stephen (2009). "Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 139 (1): 68.

[FOOTNOTEDuckworth1911372-8] Duckworth 1911, p. 372.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]