actually a return to a system devised in 1859 by Karl E. von Baer.
 |
| Fig. 7.—The facial angle of the Frankfort Agreement is shown in the crania of:—A, a New Britain native (male) 62°; B, a gorilla (male) 50°; C, a dog 42°. This angle has now replaced the facial angle of Camper (cf. fig. 1). |
The fourth subdivision of craniometry is closely allied to that which has just been described, and it deals with the comparison of the prehistoric and the recent types of mankind. The methods are exactly similar to those employed in the comparison of living races; but in some particular instances where the prehistoric individual is represented only by a comparatively minute portion of the skull, some special modifications of the usual procedures have been necessitated. In this field the works of W. His and L. Rütimeyer on the prehistoric races of Switzerland, those of Ecker (South Germany), of Broca in France, of Thurnam and Davis in England, must be cited. G. Schwalbe, Kramberger, W. J. Sollas and H. Klaatsch are the most recent contributors to this department of craniometry.
 |
| Fig. 8.—The facial angle of the Frankfort Agreement is shown in the crania of:—A, a New Guinea native (male) 75°; B, a European (woman) 93°; C, a new-born infant (93°). |
Thus the complexity of craniometric studies has inevitably increased. In the hands of von Török of Budapest, as in those of M. Benedikt of Vienna at an earlier date, the number of measurements regarded as necessary for the complete “diagnosis” of a skull has reached a colossal total. Of the trend and progress of craniometry at the present day, three particular developments are noteworthy. First come the attempts made at various times to co-ordinate the systems of measurements so as to ensure uniformity among all observers; of these attempts two, viz. that of the German anthropologists at Frankfort in 1882 (figs. 7 and 8), and that of the Anthropometric Committee of the British Association (1906) seem to require at least a record. In the second place, the application of the methods of statistical science in dealing with large numbers of craniometric data has been richly rewarded in Prof. Karl Pearson’s hands. Thirdly, and in connexion with such methods, there may be mentioned the extension of these systems of measurement, and of the methods of dealing with them on statistical principles, to the study of large numbers of the skulls of domestic and feral animals, such as white rats or the varieties of the horse. And lastly no account of craniometry would be complete without mention of the revolt, headed by the Italian anthropologist Sergi, against metrical methods of all kinds. It cannot, however, be alleged that the substitutes offered by the adherents of Sergi’s principles encourage others to forsake the more orthodox numerical methods.
Literature.—Tyson, The Anatomy of a Pygmie (London, 1699); Daubenton, “Sur la différence de la situation du tron occipital dans l’homme et dans les animaux,” Comptes rendus de l’académie des sciences (Paris, 1764); Camper, Works (1770, translated by Cogan, 1821); Broca, Mémoires (1862 and following years); Huxley, Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. 1 (1867); Retzius, Über die Schädelformen der Nordbewohner (Stockholm, 1842); Anthelme, Physiologie de la pensée (Paris, 1836); Grattan, Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 1 (1853); Busk, “A System of Craniometry,” Transactions of the Ethnological Society (1861); Flower, Catalogue of the Hunterian Museum, Osteology, part 1 (London, 1879); Turner, “‘Challenger’ Reports,” Zoology, vol. x. pt. 29, “Human Crania” (1884); de Quatrefages, Crania ethnica (Paris, 1873); Lucae, Architectur des menschlichen Schädels (Frankfort, 1855); Welcker, Bau und Wachsthum des menschlichen Schädels (1862); Cleland, “An Inquiry into the Variations of the Human Skull,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Society (1870), vol. 160, pp. 117 et seq.; von Baer, “Crania selecta,” Académie impériale des sciences de S. Pétersbourg (1859); His and Rütimeyer, Crania Helvetica (Basel, 1866); Ecker, Crania Germaniae meridionalis (1865); Thurnam and Davis, Crania Britannica; von Török, Craniometrie (Stuttgart, 1890); Benedikt, Manuel technique et pratique d’anthropométrie cranio-céphalique (Paris, 1889); Pearson, Biometrika, from vol. 1 (in 1902) onwards; Sergi, “The Varieties of the Human Species,” English translation, Smithsonian Institution (Washington, 1894); Schwalbe, “Der Neanderthalschädel,” Bonner Jahrbücher, Heft 106; also Sonderheft der Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie; Kramberger, Der paläolithische Mensch von Krapina (Nägele, Stuttgart, 1901); Sollas, “The Cranial Characters of the Neanderthal Race,” Phil. Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 199, Series B, p. 298, 1908; Klaatsch, “Bericht über einen anthropologischen Streifzug nach London,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Heft 6, 1903, p. 875.
Handbooks.—Topinard, Éléments d’anthropologie générale (Paris, 1885); Schmidt, Anthropologische Methoden (Leipzig, 1888); Duckworth, Morphology and Anthropology (Cambridge, 1904).
Journals.—Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Archiv für Anthropologie, Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie. (W. L. H. D.)
CRANK, a word of somewhat obscure etymology, probably
connected with a root meaning “crooked,” and appearing in the
Ger. krank, ill, a figurative use of the original word; among
other words in English containing the same original meaning are
“cringe” and “crinkle.” In mechanics, a crank is a device by
which reciprocating motion is converted
into circular motion or
vice versa, consisting of a crank-arm,
one end of which is fastened
rigidly at right angles to the
rotating shaft or axis, while the
other end bears a crank-pin, projecting
from it at right angles and
parallel to the shaft. When the
reciprocating part of a machine, as
the piston and piston-rod of a
steam engine, is linked to this
crank by a crank-rod or connecting
rod, one end of which works on the crank-pin and the other
on a pin in the end of the reciprocating part, the to-and-fro
motion of the latter imparts a circular motion to the shaft
and vice versa. The crank, instead of being made up as described
above, may be formed by bending the shaft to the
required shape, as sometimes in the handle of a winch. A
bell-crank, so called because of its use in bell-hanging to change
the direction of motion of the wires from horizontal to vertical
or vice versa, consists of two arms rigidly connected at an angle,
say of 90°, to each other and pivoted on a pin placed at the point
of junction.
Crank is also the name given to a labour machine used in prisons as a means of punishment (see Tread-mill). Other uses of the word, connected with the primary meaning, are for a crooked path, a crevice or chink; and a freakish turn of thought or speech, as in Milton’s phrase “quips and cranks.” It is also used as a slang expression, American in origin, for a harmless
