Crossing centuries, trades, arts and sciences

Some notes on the spreading calliper, by Marina L. Sardi (UNLP)

Turin, April 12, 2024

Much of scientific activity has been dependent on the use of instruments, whose creation and production with increasing levels of technical complexity has been one of the most conspicuous aspects of the last 250 years. Its representation has highlighted objects such as telescopes, microscopes, clocks, cameras, and others of refined manufacture, which occupy relevant spaces in science exhibitions, or even in art exhibitions, and have frequently been the focus of historical studies.

Physical anthropology, during its period of institutionalization in the 19th century, searched for precision and the replacement of descriptions by “objective” numbers, developing a vast corpus of instruments. As physicians and naturalists organised their skull collections in their cabinets during those years or even earlier, they also acquired measuring instruments, often devoted to phrenological studies. The long-desired precision would be achieved through the accumulation of great amounts of observations and, for this purpose, voyagers, military, religious, authorities and traders were invited to transport and manipulate instruments, collaborating with the anthropological enterprise by sending their measurements from the colonial territories, prisons, or hospitals to scientific societies and institutions.

The French physician Paul Broca (1824-1880), founder of the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, was the main promoter of the use of scientific apparatus, collaborating frequently with Louis Mathieu (1817-1879), a manufacturer of surgical and orthopaedic instruments. He suggested, however, in his Instructions Générales pour les Recherches et Observations Anthropologiques that “all the instruments used in the arts and industry to study and represent the form of the objects can be applied to man” (Broca 1865, p. 38). Indeed, the practice of craniometry and anthropometry adopted instruments used by the craftsmen who were most familiar with the forms of the human body -tailors, hatters, and shoemakers- or by craftsmen involved in the building industry. Such was the case with compasses, also called callipers.

In the virtual catalogue of the Museo Galileo (2010-2015) in Florence (Italy) a compass is defined as an instrument consisting of two bars of equal length, articulated together, so that they can adopt any relative inclination. There are different kinds of compasses for different operations, from drawing to calculating proportions, from measuring gauges to determining positions at the sea. One of them is known as the spherical or spreading calliper and is characterised by its curved bars -together with a graduated scale- which allow measuring the external diameters of objects, being useful when these do not present a uniform shape. This type of calliper was used by sculptors, architects and builders, to execute columns and other works with precision and to reproduce similar shapes; by the military, to measure the calibre of artillery; also by metal or wood turners, locksmiths, and mechanics.

The spreading calliper was used to measure the cranial maximum length and breadth, in order to calculate the cephalic index, in the inhabitants of different places and times. This index had been proposed in 1842 by the Swedish anatomist Anders Retzius (1796-1860), allowing skulls to be classified as dolichocephalic (long and narrow), mesocephalic and brachycephalic (short and wide) (Blanckaert 2009). It became a racial indicator and was widely adopted by scholars who, inspired by growing feelings of nationalism, searched to know which races had populated a nation (Luyendijk-Elshout 1997). This index was used as a method of personal identification, such as that of Alphonse Bertillon (1893), and was also adopted in the field of criminal anthropology, to explain the greater or lesser development of certain cranial parts that would explain the reasons for criminality. All this suggests that the instruments and measurements not only served science but also political interests, as in the case of instruments for medical use (Cházaro 2017).

As the 19th century progressed, manufacturers in collaboration with scholars in different countries added dozens of instruments for orienting and drawing skulls or bones and for measuring skulls, bones and living persons, many of which served the same function as the thickness calliper, such as the cadre à maxima, proposed by Broca and sold by Mathieu in Paris.

At the end of the 19th century, there was such a diversity of measurement methods that scholars considered that the lack of agreement was detrimental to the advancement of the discipline. Thus, in 1906 and 1912 the Monaco and Geneva Agreements were reached, respectively, reducing the number of measurements to be surveyed with a few instruments: the anthropometer (to measure the body), the tape measure and the sliding and spreading callipers. Callipers, then, have always been part of the basic kit recommended for use in those instructions written for travellers and in manuals for the teaching of physical anthropology.

In the museum system of the University of Turin (Italy), there are instruments, which were, most of them, made by Italian, French and German makers. Spreading callipers are among them and their study allows us to trace some histories of anthropology in Italy and the itineraries of these objects. First, the instruments of the Museum of Human Anatomy “Luigi Rolando”, mostly manufactured by Mathieu, seem to be related to one of the great cranial collections that are housed there, which belonged, until 1913, to the Craniological and Phrenological Museum of the Royal Academy of Medicine (Mangiapane et al. 2017).[i] This museum was the first craniological museum in Italy, created in 1866, due to the efforts of the physician Antonio Garbiglietti (1807-1877), one of the pioneers of Italian anthropology[ii]. Garbiglietti was interested in phrenology, but over the years, with the decline of these theories and the installation in Turin of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) in 1876, he focused on anthropological studies, more precisely on the skulls of famous people (Giacobini et al. 2023). By that time, the collection was enriched with archaeological -e.g. Etruscan, Roman- and extra-European -e.g. from Patagonia- skulls as well as plaster casts of famous people – e.g. Napoleon I – and some criminals.  Garbiglietti was succeeded by Alberto Gamba (1822-1901), who strongly promoted this museum through craniological studies. When Gamba died, interest in craniology declined and the museum was transferred in 1913 to the Anatomical Institute (Giacobini et al. 2023). The transfer was accompanied by a “List of the skulls and other material belonging to the Craniological Museum of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Turin, now consigned and arranged in the Institute of Normal Human Anatomy of the Royal University of Turin”, compiled in 1913 and written by Alfonso Bovero (Giacobini et al. 2023). This document gives an account of the instruments that were present at that time; among them, spreading callipers (Fig. 1)


Figure 1. Spreading callipers belonging to the Museum of Human Anatomy “Luigi Rolando”, University of Turin.

Secondly, Cesare Lombroso’s instruments for medical-clinical, stesiological, physiological and anthropometric studies are also housed in the museum system of the University of Turin (Galloni 2009); among them, the calliper this physician used to discern whether “criminals”, “lunatics” and “honest” persons differed in their skulls (Fig. 2). In addition to observing the “cranial anomalies” that would predominate in criminals, Lombroso’s method included similar measurements to those taken by physical anthropologists (Lombroso 1876, 1878). In the archives of the Museum of Criminal Anthropology “Cesare Lombroso” (Turin, Italy) it is possible to detect the measurement of maximum length and breadth, obtained on the skulls of his collection, in order to elucidate whether criminals were brachycephalic or dolichocephalic.

Figure 2. Cesare Lombroso’s spreading calliper, built by Tecnomasio Milano. Museum of Criminal Anthropologia “Cesare Lombroso”, Università degli Studi de Torino.

These files also reveal the strategies applied for data collecting, which required people working in the judicial or hospital system to send lists of numbers or forms with observations made on numerous people. What is remarkable in these files is the enormous amount of blank data. This would result from the fact that the system proposed by Lombroso lacked precision, in which many observations could be made without the use of instruments. However, among the few data recorded, we can observe that the length and breadth of the skull, together with the cephalic index, measured on living and dead people, are frequently given. This tells us that many people in judicial and hospital institutions manipulated a spreading calliper. Returning to Lombroso, his calliper is currently exhibited in the Museum of Criminal Anthropology, in a vitrine dedicated to the numerous scientific instruments used by this researcher (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Vitrine devoted to the Lombroso’s instruments. Note that the calliper is in the centre of the lowest shelf; to the right, in the adjacent room, it is possible to observe Lombroso’s skeleton. Museo di Antropologia Criminale Cesare Lombroso”, Università degli Studi de Torino. Source: https://www.museolombroso.unito.it/visita/pianta-museo/sala-2/

In Turin, the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography is another place that houses instruments. An important part of them belonged to the physician and Egyptologist Giovanni Marro (1875 – 1952), who founded this museum. Other instruments were added in further years, including two sliding callipers with curved branches, one with a graduated scale of 30 cm and the other of 60 cm, more suitable for body measurements (Fig. 4). These would have entered the museum in the 1950s and no further information is available. Finally, the Scientific and Technological Archive of the University of Turin also has three instruments that a doctor surnamed Reginato had in his house and that his family donated, without any additional information. Among them, there is a spreading calliper, manufactured by the German company Zimmerman.

Figure 4. Callipers belonging to the Museo di Antropologia e di Etnografia, Università degli Studi de Torino, fabricados por Luigi Corino. Cortesía de Gianluigi Mangiapane.

These “cose di scienza” (Mangiapane et al. 2017) have been, in the case of physical anthropology, necessary elements in the production of knowledge and the shaping of the disciplinary identity. Their study allows us to think about the relevant role of instruments in the standardisation of methods, how they circulated across places far from those in which they were created, who were their users, and how they mobilised data.

Scientific instruments are cultural assets, although they have not always been treated as such in museums. In some places they were distinguished as specific research objects; in others, they were juxtaposed with workshop tools; or abandoned in toolboxes; in others, they were associated with the name of a prestigious researcher who acquired and used them. Many scientific instruments are preserved and often exhibited in science museums to represent technological progress; but, if there is no explicit conservation policy, they may end up dismantled or in pieces, often occupying marginal spaces in an institution. Conversely, the instruments may not be in warehouses or vitrines, but be in use in laboratories, as is the case of many spreading callipers from the Anthropology Division of the Museo de La Plata (Argentina) that are used for the numerical survey in biological anthropology research projects. These callipers are, in fact, still for sale by many specialised instrument makers.

In sum, the spreading calliper, without having undergone too many changes in its construction or even the addition of digitising devices, has moved through various social worlds and is still useful for scientific measurement. It allows us to tell different stories, but not only that. Its versatility, precision, easy handling and lower cost -compared to other complex instruments- ensure its validity for measurement.

Credits to: Cristina Cilli, Giacomo Giacobini, Gianluiggi Mangiapane and Mara Fausone.

[i] Another part of the collections are derived from the ex-Anatomical Institute of Torino.

[ii] Garbiglietti believed that the progress of science was due to the foundation of museums and the creation of collections of all nations (Giacobini et al. 2023).

References

Blanckaert C. 2009. De la race à l’évolution. Paul Broca et l’anthropologie française (1850-1900). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Broca P. 1865. Instructions Générales pour les recherches et observations anthropologiques. Paris: Victor Masson et fils.

Cházaro L. 2017. Trade in medical instruments and colonialist policies between Mexico and Europe in the nineteenth century”. In Morrison-Low AD, Schechner SJ, Brenni P eds. How Scientific Instruments Have Changed Hands. Leiden: The Netherlands: Brill, pp. 212-226. doi: 10.1163/9789004324930_010

Galloni MR. 2009. Gli strumenti scientifici. In Montaldo S, Trappero P eds. Il Museo di Antropologia criminale “Cesare Lombroso”. Turin, UTET, pp. 153-167.

Giacobini G, Mangiapane G, Picco A. 2023. Alle Origini Della Museologia Antropologica Italiana. Il Museo Craniologico Della Reale Accademia Di Medicina Di Torino. Scientia 1. doi: 10.53134/2974-9433-202301-101

Lombroso, C. 1876. L’uomo delinquente studiato in rapporto alla antropologia, alla medicina legale ed alle discipline carcerarie. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli.

Lombroso, C. 1878. Cranio. In Albertini et al. eds. Enciclopedia medica italiana diretta per le singole specialità dai dottori. Milan: F. Vallardi, vol. 2, parte 2, pp. 1813-1900.

Luyendijk-Elshotu AM. 1997. Opening address: The magic of the skull. “Commercium craniorum” in the nineteenth century. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7, 571-574.

Mangiapane G, Giacobini G, Malerba G, Cilli C. 2017. La collezione osteologica del Museo di Anatomia umana “Luigi Rolando” dell’Università degli Studi di Torino: un esempio di riordino di “cose di scienza”. Museologia Scientifica Memorie 17, 66-70.

Museo Galileo. 2010-2015. Museo Virtuale. Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza. Accessed April 1th 2024 en: https://catalogo.museogalileo.it/approfondimento/Compasso.html


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
natrichard (April 18, 2024). Crossing centuries, trades, arts and sciences. SciCoMove — Scientific Collections on the Move. Retrieved April 28, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/w8r3


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.