Pedagogical Anthropology

by Maria Montessori

Has the forehead always been a human characteristic, or have we acquired it little by little? Such a problem is associated with the evolution of the brain. There are in existence certain remains of the skeletons of primitive men, which show them to have possessed a cerebral cranium inferior in volume to that now attained by the human species; and in these remains the forehead is also profoundly different from that of to-day, in that it is much lower and slants backward, while the supraorbital arches are very prominent. Such is the evidence of the "cranial caps," discovered in the early geological strata.

In the tertiary strata of the island of Java, which in that remote epoch of the earth's history must, together with Sumatra, have formed part of the continent of Asia, which is considered as the "laboratory of races," a skull was found by Dubois which raised the problem whether it should be classed as that of an ape superior to those now existing, or of a primitive man. Prior to this discovery, it had been maintained that man did not make his appearance until the quaternary period. This supposed primitive man was called by his discoverer the Pithecanthropus, pithecanthropus erectus.

Remains that are unquestionably human occur in the quaternary period, in which however skeletons are very rare, as compared with relics of human labour or social life, relics which are found scattered everywhere throughout Asia and Europe as well (chipped flints). The various remains of skeletons show us skulls much inferior to those of modern man, but superior to that of the pithecanthropus. In treatises of general anthropology reproductions are given of human crania known as the Spy or Neanderthal type, belonging to the epoch when the gigantic mammoth still roamed the earth. The forehead is very low and receding and the orbital arches are enormously developed; while the cerebral capacity calculated from the cranial dimensions is inferior to that of modern man.

Consequently, as the brain increases in volume in the course of the revolution of the race, the cranium not only shows a corresponding volumetric increase, but at the same time alters its form, thus producing the forehead which little by little rises from a receding to an erect position, and becomes high where it was formerly low, while at the same time the prominent orbital arches disappear. Accordingly, we may consider the forehead as the skeletal index of the cerebral volume, and hence of the relative anthropological and intellectual superiority.

In addition to its above-mentioned value, it also furnishes us with a biological principle of much importance: the relation between the volume and form of the cranium.

While the volume has a significance that is relative to the mass of the body, the significance of the form is absolute.

Let us examine these two skulls: normal human skulls of our own epoch; one of the Celtic race (Fig. 46) and the other Sardinian (Fig. 43); that of the Celtic race is much larger and rounder; that of the Sardinian is very much smaller and more elongated.

If we were considering only the volume, we might say that it was simply a case of a microcephalic and a macrocephalic: two terms (microcephaly and macrocephaly) that fall within the province of pathology. On the contrary, these two skulls are normal, but they belonged to individuals characterized by differences of race; the one (small skull) having a low stature; the other (large skull) having a tall stature.

The volume of the head therefore bears a relation to that of the body; the volume has a relative significance. But the form in both of them reveals a state of normality; the two skulls have a high and erect forehead, and exhibit in their whole contour a fine and regular development. Therefore the form has an absolute significance. It even proves to us the normality of the volume, a fact which could not be determined by the volume alone.

Another mechanical correspondence between volume and form is disclosed when we compare the skull of a new-born child with that of an adult. The skull of the new-born child is much smaller in volume; but the form shows the relatively enormous volumetric development of the brain; in fact the skull is protuberant and the forehead bulges forward above the face (front bombé), while corresponding to this index of cerebral development is the enormous preponderance of the cerebral cranium over the facial cranium, which is so small as to be almost reduced to a simple rudiment.