Sent S. Smith to K. Pearson, 24th May 1924.
24 May 1924
Description:

‘Dear Professor Karl Pearson,

With reference to the Acroplatic Index described by you in Crewdson Benington’s [sic] paper I am sending herewith measurements of length, breadth and height of a number of skulls of modern Egyptians all of which have come into my hands in connection with deaths from violence in the last few years.

They are almost entirely country people and are therefore likely to be more typically Egyptian than townspeople, for the fellaheen as you know stick to one place and marry in it. From your paper one naturally expected that they would fall somewhere between the Negro and the European especially in view of the fact that the predynastic Egyptians had an index of -0.5 Male and +0.4 Female and Egyptians of the 4th Dynasty +1.5 and 2.6 respectively. (Derry’s figures)

On the contrary however the index falls much below any previously described skulls and would appear to place the modern Egyptian in a place by himself.

As I am not an anatomist I have taken the precaution of getting Derry to check a number of the measurements and you can be certain that the figures are substantially accurate.

An interesting speculation arises as to the reason for this extraordinary change in diameters leading to an increase in height with a diminution in breadth and to the possible influence of the arab influx in affecting this change.

However with the small amount of material and without comparative measurements of modern Arabs, Syrians, Turks etc it is hardly worth while speculating.

I should like your opinion about the figures which I consider rather startling and to hear what you suggest for further investigation.

I enclose also measurements of the foetal bones about which I last wrote you together with the stature and weight of the bodies. I want to get factors to enable us to get the stature of a foetus from the dried long bones or rather of the diaphyses for when bones are found they are almost invariably in a dry state.

Up to the present I have found the average ratio of diaphyseal length to stature extremely valuable anf as there are no other figures published I should like these to be brought to the notice of others doing medico-legal work similar to my own, apart from any values they may have from an anthropological point of view.

Your future for the reconstruction of stature I find absolutely invaluable; in the last conspiracy trial for instance when the identification of the dry bones of a certain native became the most important bit of evidence in the case, I calculated the height on your formulae and got it to within 0.7 or 0.5cm (I forget which) of the height as shewn on his identification card produced a few months later.

If you would like details of the case I will let you have them later, it was most interesting.

In dozens of other cases they have been accurate and useful.

They do not do for negro bones however owing to the different relative size of the forearms and forelegs nut the arithmetical mean of the stature calculated on the four long bones comes out fairly accurately.

Yours sincerely,

Sydney Smith.

Principal Medico-Legal Expert.’

[lists of measurements attached]