Pete Clarke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi all,
>
> I have a pretty straightforward question. My
> understanding of craniometrics was that it was a
> somewhat discredited form or anthropological
> research, largely based on the racist uses it was
> put to.

It was misused in the context of comparing relative brain sizes..... with racists falsifying data (sampling only those blacks or criminals or mentally challanged types who happened to have smaller heads & ignoring those with larger heads, sampling only those whites or geniuses who happened to have larger heads & ignoring those with smaller heads, to exaggerate differences & falsely imply certain negative associations).

THAT died a well deserved death.

It was used to type & sub-type populations (most European, since most of the researchers were Euros themselves, were interested in Euros, and could easily access Euros to sample) ad nauseum, this turned out rather unhelpful (very complicated, no clear associations to speak of.... computers would likely have helped them out quite a bit) and eventually gained a bit of a bad name by way of being used by researchers (Carleton Coon, etc) & demagogues with racist tendencies.

But it's continued to be used for comparing populations vis a vis trying to determine relationships..... THAT was never dropped, so far as I know.

Heh, they even use it in zoological studies, nowadays, and it's mainstream re forensic investigations.

> The data presented here suggests that the method
> has been, to a certain extent, rehabilitated; can
> someone point me in the direction of some useful
> references that discuss the use of the method in
> modern investigations?
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete

Go to entrez-pubmed at [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] & use the search term "craniometric" for current studies using the method. You might also want to click on the related articles icon when you get results (some variations of the method exist now, where they'll say "morphometric analysis" or some variant thereof, which might not turn up in the other search).

For discussions of the method itself, eh, there are a WIDE range of books discussing it (forensic science, physical anthropology, etc). Check your local library, or run google searches.

One BIG problem, that hurts many studies, is that the results are only as good as the data going in. Most researchers rely heavily on the Howells database.... which has only 3 Native American samples.... so MUCH more sampling needs to be done before studies get really credible. We also know that such things as DIET can rapidly change craniometric variables (head narrows or widens, jaw & frontal area changes, etc).... giving significant changes even within just 1-2 generations. MORE research on this, quantifying the types & degree of such environmentally induced changes, needs to be done.

Kenuchelover.