« ForrigeFortsæt »
The most ancient race is apparently homogeneous; it is extremely dolichocephalic, with a mean index of 70 or 71, according to the ordinary data, but Dr. Beddoe is inclined to make it 72. He also points out that it is by no means certain that only one race occupied Britain at this period.
The second column, that of the Round Barrows, or, better, the Bronze Age, shows us a brachycephalic population, far from being homogeneous, owing probably to a greater or less mixture with their predecessors in the country. The mean index of the skull appears to be about 80, but we must admit that the cranial index of the pure race, or, to speak with more exactitude, of the people using bronze, on its arrival in England and before its fusion with the indigenous population, would be a little over 80 or 81. There are indications which permit the conclusion to be drawn
that with the progress of mixture and the arrival of immigrants from Belgic Gaul, the mean fell below 80.
The Romano-British give a mean of about 75.5. Later came the Saxons. Before their mixture with the conquered British, they possessed the type of skull which is called
Grave-row," from the manner of sepulture of an important ancient Teutonic tribe; or occasionally the Batavian type of skull, and their cranial index is about 75.
Nothing positive has been determined concerning the skull type of the subsequent Danish or Scandinavian invaders.
In the Middle Ages we find mesaticephals in predominance, and a fresh frequency of brachycephaly, the mean of the indices being about 78, according to Dr. Beddoe's skull measurements.
The mean cephalic index of modern Englishmen appears to be about 78.5, which, deducting the usual two units, would give 76.5 for the cranial index.
MONG peoples in whom the more prominent types of
nose are of usual occurrence—as among ourselves, for example—the snub nose is always regarded as an inferior type, and, although it may give a certain vivacity to a woman's face, it is usually regarded by her as a trial. Conversely a long, high, narrow, Roman nose is considered an “ aristocratic nose. It is certain that the shape of the nose is generally regarded not alone from an ästhetic point of view, but that to many minds it conveys an idea of weakness or strength of character, and also of social status. Certain types of nose are“ better bred” than others, and, other things being equal, a man with a “good nose” is more likely to gain immediate respect than one with a “ vulgar nose.' Martial, in one of those epigrams which used to amuse and instruct the emperors of the Flavian family, said: “ It is not every one to whom it has been given to have a nose.” Popular impressions may be illogical, and the prejudices of the folk may be unreasoning, but they are all materials for anthropological and psychological study, and they may open up lines of thought that are sug. gestive and fruitful.
A well-formed nose is a distinctively human feature. If you look at pictures of monkeys, from the low marmosets to the great tailless apes, you will at once notice how flat
their nose is at the bridge. The proboscis-monkey (Nasalis larvatus) is the only member of the group that has a wellprojecting nose.
The nose is a very variable feature in mankind. We all recognise how a nose will make or mar a face, how it gives a countenance distinction or renders it insignificant. Much has been written on noses by physiognomists, and the appearance of the nose is greatly relied on by those who profess to be able to read a person's character by a scrutiny of the face.
Not less is a study of the nose of interest to the anthropologist, and it is this point of view solely which concerns us at present.
First of all it is necessary to distinguish between the external nose as seen on the living face, and the nasal skeleton as it is found on the skull—and we must also fix upon a definite terminology.
In the living nose we recognise the bridge, the tip, the ala nasi, or wings of the nose, which arise from the cheeks in a rounded curve, and the nasal septum which separates the nostrils.
The height of the nose is the line from the central point of the root to the corresponding point at the angle which the septum makes with the upper lip; this spot is termed the sub-nasal point.
The breadth of the nose is the greatest breadth of the wings.
The depth of the living nose is the line from the sub-nasal point to the tip; this line is termed the base of the nose.
The length is the line from the root to the tip.
On examining the profile of a nose, two factors must be distinguished: (1) the general outline of the back or ridge of the nose; and (2) the inclination of the base of the nose with regard to the upper lip.
I. The general contour of the back of the nose is expressed by the following five terms: Concave, straight, convex, highbridged, and sinuous. These form five main classes which can be variously subdivided.
1. The concave nose. The various kinds of concave or depressed nose agree in having a low bridge; this, as we have already seen, is a simian or ape-like character; it is also an embryonic feature, and it commonly occurs among young children. This type of nose is very frequently met with among the yellow races, and is not infrequent among women of the higher races.
This type may be defined in general terms as being short, depressed, broad, with a turned-up point.
2. The straight nose. The ridge of the nose is quite 'straight in the most characteristic forms, but it is often slightly sinuous. The nose may be short, low, and broad; but in the most developed type it is long, prominent, and narrow.
3. The convex nose. The ridge or back of the nose describes a nearly uniform convex curve from the root to the point. As in the last instance this type varies from short, low, and broad, to long, prominent, and narrow. The Jewish nose is the best-known variety, and the Papuan nose belongs to the broad variety of this group.
4. The high-bridged nose. The upper portion of the bony part presents a strong and short convexity, below which the remainder of this bony part becomes nearly straight, and is continuous with the ridge of the gristly portion. The typical example of this type is the Roman nose (Fig. 10). It may be considered as a variety of the convex nose.
5. The sinuous nose. The upper part is convex, but the profile of the gristly portion, instead of continuing this curve as in the convex nose, or of taking a rectilinear direction as in the aquiline nose, is incurved. It thus results that the