The zyg om a tic diameter is the distance, in a right line, between the most
prominent points of the zygomae.
The fa c ia l angle* is ascertained by an instrument of ingenious construction
* The facial angle, which was first proposed by the learned Professor Camper, is measured in'the
following manner: a line called the facial line, is drawn from the anterior edge of the upper jaw, (or,
if the tooth projects beyond the jaw, from the tooth itself,) to the most prominent part o f the forehead,
which is usually the space between the superciliary ridges. A second or horizontal line, is drawn
through the external opening of the ear (meatus auditorius) till it touches the base of the nostrils,
between the terminal roots of the front incisor teeth, and from this point it is still prolonged until it
meets with the facial line already described: hence the two lines may meet at, or very near, the nasal
spine, or base of the nose; but in other instances the decussation of the lines occurs at a point
considerably anterior to the bone. It is obvious that an angle will be formed where these lines thus
intersect each other, and this is the facial angle. For example, notice the annexed wood cut, (No. 1,)
which represents the skull of the Cowalitsk already
figured in this work, (see Plate 50.) The line A, B,
is the facial line, extending, as just observed, from the
anterior margin of the upper jaw to the most prominent
part of the os frontis; the second or horizontal
line, is represented between the points C and D, and
for the purpose of having a fixed point for its anterior
termination, I have uniformly carried it to the nasal
spine, above and between the roots of the two front incisor teeth. The point E , where these lines
decussate each other, is the facial angle, which in the present instance will be found to measure about
sixty-six degrees.—The second wood cut (No. 2 ) represents the lines
as drawn on a much better formed head, that of a Peruvian Indian,
in which the angle at E measures seventy-six degrees.
The most casual inspection of these diagrams will satisfy any
one that the facial angle is no criterion of mental intelligence; and in
justice to Camper we must add that he does not assert it to be so.
In fact it chiefly gives the projection of the face in relation to the
head, without conveying the least idea of the capacity of the cranium,
whichis often the same.in heads whose diameters are altogether different. The mere obliquity of
the teeth contracts the'angle; and what is yet more important, the space bettyeen the eyes from
whence the facial line is drawn, may be very prominent, so as to give an anglb of eighty degrees,
while the forehead itself retreats so rapidly, that if the fecial line were made to touch it, the resulting
angle would not perhaps exceed sixty-five degrees.
.«Th e maximum angle that can be embraced by the facial lines,” says Camper, “ is lp.0S: if we
advance these lines stiU further, the head becomes pretematurally large, as in hydrocephalus. But it
is surprising to observe that the most ancient Greek artists'have chosen the very maximum of the
facial angle, while the best Roman graveurs were.satisfiedwith the angle of 95°:
“ I have thus established the two extremes of obliquity in the facial line, viz: from 70° to 100°..
and ready application, which has received so many additions from the suggestions
of different individuals, that its invention cannot be ascribed to any one person.
The original idea, however, originated with my friend Dr. Turnpennypjand I
have much pleasure in explaining it, inasmuch as it appears to me to supersede
tïjlhcse embrace all the gradations, from the head of the Negro to the sublime beauty of the ancient
Greek models.. If-we descend below 70° we have an orang ta a n g j.< |! | monkey | j f we descend still
lower we have a dog or a bird—a shjpe,for example, qf: which the facial line is almost parallel with
a horizontal plane.”—(Dissertation sur lés üffêrence réelles, Src., p. 42, t a | j g
Professor Blumenbach has d e n p th a t the genuine antique heads present an aiïgp of 95» or 100°,
and supposes that s i i* measurements could only be derived from incorrect copiés ( Di Wiseman,
thewfher hand, remarks, whoever will examine the heads » J u p ite r in the Vatican Museum,
p a r tic p la r l^ e bpst in the/ Jargeicii^lar Trail, or the more defaced heads of the Elgin marbles, will be
Satisfied that Camper is accurate in this respect.S=-( Twelve factures, fyc., p. 105.J
Another mode of comparing Skulls, was devised by Professor Blumenbach; called the norma
verticdUs, or Verticàl method; and consists in supporting the head on the lower jaw, and 'h e u ^ k in g
down upon it from above and behind. If, hdwever,. several skulls are to Be compared, they are to be
stood each .one on its occiput, the jaw being vertical and resting against a board or other plane surface.
To make the comparison complete, the occipital ends should be so elevated as to bring-the cheek bones
I n a linelas in the following diagram, w hich is! copied from Blumenbach.—(He Generis Humane
Var. Nat. p. 204, et tab. 1.)
TheySret of these figures represents a Negro head, elongated, add narrow-in ftont, with expanded
zygomatic arches, projecting cheek bories, and protruded upper jaw. The second is a Caucasian
bkull in which those parts are nearly concealed in the more symmetrical outline of the whole head, and
especially by the full development of the frontal region. The third figureds.taken from a Mongol
head, in which the orbits and cheek bones are exposed,, as in the Negro, and the zygomas arched and
expanded; but the forehead is much broader, the face more retracted,-and the whole cranium larger.
Having been at much pains to give m norma vertiealis of M skulls figured in this work, the reader
will have ample opportunity to compare for himself. He will see that the American head approaches
nearest to the Mongol, yet is not so long, is narrower in front, with a more prominent face and much
more contracted zygomas.