| Revision as of 04:54, 20 February 2009 edit99.147.165.253 (talk) 'man' -> 'humans'← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:06, 27 April 2009 edit undoRadagast83 (talk | contribs)18,709 edits from Bio-mechanical model for brow ridge formationNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ==In modern humans== | ==In modern humans== | ||
| Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "''with moderate to large supraorbital arches''"<!--pg87-->.<ref name=Wilkenson /> Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "''moderate supraorbital ridges''"<!--pg 84-->.<ref name=Wilkenson /> Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "''undulating supraorbital ridge''".<ref name=Wilkenson /> Mongoloids are "''absent browridges''"<!--pg86-->, so they have the smallest brow ridges.<ref name=Wilkenson>Wilkenson, Caroline. Forensic Facial Reconstruction. Cambridge University Press. 2004. ISBN 0521820030</ref> | Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "''with moderate to large supraorbital arches''"<!--pg87-->.<ref name=Wilkenson /> Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "''moderate supraorbital ridges''"<!--pg 84-->.<ref name=Wilkenson /> Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "''undulating supraorbital ridge''".<ref name=Wilkenson /> Mongoloids are "''absent browridges''"<!--pg86-->, so they have the smallest brow ridges.<ref name=Wilkenson>Wilkenson, Caroline. Forensic Facial Reconstruction. Cambridge University Press. 2004. ISBN 0521820030</ref> | ||
| ==Bio-mechanical model== | |||
| Research done on this model has largely been based on earlier work of Endo (1965, 1966, 1970, and 1973). By applying pressure similar to the type associated with ], he carried out an analysis of the structural function of the supraorbital region on dry human and gorilla ]s. His findings indicated that the face acts as a pillar that carries and disperses tension caused by the forces produced during mastication. Russell (1982, 1985) and Oyen et al. (1979a) elaborated on this idea, suggesting that amplified facial projection necessitates the application of enhanced force to the anterior dentition in order to generate the same bite power that individuals with a dorsal deflection of the facial skull exert. In more prognathic individuals, this increased pressure triggers bone deposition to reinforce the brow ridges, until equilibrium is reached. | |||
| In their 1979(a) publication, Oyen et al. conducted a cross-section study of Papio anubis in order to ascertain the relationship between palate length, incisor load and Masseter lever efficiency, relative to torus enlargement. Indications found of osteoblastic deposition in the glabella region were used as evidence for supraorbital enlargement. Oyen et al.’s data suggested that more prognathic individuals experienced a decrease in load/lever efficiency. This transmits tension via the frontal process of the maxilla to the supraorbital region, resulting in a contemporary reinforcement of this structure. This was also correlated to periods of tooth eruption. | |||
| In a later series of papers, Russell (1985, 1986a, and 1986b) developed aspects of this mode further. Employing an adult Australian sample, she tested the association between brow ridge formation and anterior dental loading, via the craniofacial angle (prosthion-nasion-metopion), maxilla breadth, and discontinuities in food preparation such as those observed between different age groups. Finding strong support for the first two criteria, she concluded that the supraorbital complex is formed as a result of increased tension due to the widening of the maxilla, thought to be positively correlated with the size of the messeter muscle, as well as with the improper orientation of bone in the superior orbital region. | |||
| In short, the Bio-Mechanical model predicts that morphological variation in torus size is the direct product of differential tension caused by mastication, as indicated by an increase in load/lever ratio and broad craniofacial angle (Oyen and Russell, 1984, p.368-369). | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 45: | ||
| {{Refimprove|date=September 2008}} | {{Refimprove|date=September 2008}} | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| *Endo, B (1965) Distribution of stress and strain produced in the human face by masticatory forces. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon. 73:123-136. | |||
| *Endo, B (1970) Analysis of the stress around the orbit due to masseter and temporalis muscles. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon. 78:251-266. | |||
| *Endo, B (1973) Stress analysis of the gotrilla face. Primates 14:37-45 | |||
| *Russell, MD (1985) The supraorbital torus: “A most remarkable peculiarity.” Current Anthropology. 58:59-65. | |||
| *Oyen, OJ, Rice, RW, and Cannon, MS (1970a) Browridge structure and functionin extant primates and Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 51:88-96. | |||
| ==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 04:06, 27 April 2009
The supraorbital ridge, or brow ridge, refer to a bony ridge located above the eye sockets of all primates. In Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) the eyebrows are located on their lower margin.
Other terms in use are:
- supraorbital arch
- supraorbital torus
- superciliary ridge
- arcus superciliaris (Latin, meaning "superciliary arch")
- supraorbital margin and the margin of the orbit
Anthropological concept
The size of these ridges varies also between different species of primates, either living or fossil. The closest living relatives of humans, the great apes, have relatively pronounced supraorbital ridges, while in modern humans it is relatively reduced. The fossil record indicates that the supraorbital ridge in early homo was reduced as the cranial vault grew and became positioned vertically, above the face.
Some paleoanthropologists distinguish between torus and ridge. In anatomy, a torus is a projecting shelf of bone. Fossil hominids, in this theory, have the torus, but modern humans only have the ridge.
Purpose
The brow ridge is a thick piece of bone on top of the eyes. Its purpose is to reinforce the weaker bones of the face in much the same way that the chin of modern humans was developed to reinforce their comparatively thin mandibles. This was necessary in pongids and early hominids because of the tremendous strain put on the cranium by their tremendous chewing apparatuses, which is best demonstrated by any of the members of the genus Paranthropus. The brow ridge was one of the last traits to be lost in the path to modern humans, and only disappeared with the development of the modern pronounced frontal lobe. This is one of the most salient differences between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The name for this theory is the Bio-mechanical model for brow ridge formation.
Myths
The folk-myth that the size of the ridges is a mark of the degree of development of rationality has no basis in fact. There is no link between the size of the ridges and any other anatomical trait, including intelligence, in modern humans.
In modern humans
Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "with moderate to large supraorbital arches". Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "moderate supraorbital ridges". Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "undulating supraorbital ridge". Mongoloids are "absent browridges", so they have the smallest brow ridges.
Bio-mechanical model
Research done on this model has largely been based on earlier work of Endo (1965, 1966, 1970, and 1973). By applying pressure similar to the type associated with chewing, he carried out an analysis of the structural function of the supraorbital region on dry human and gorilla skulls. His findings indicated that the face acts as a pillar that carries and disperses tension caused by the forces produced during mastication. Russell (1982, 1985) and Oyen et al. (1979a) elaborated on this idea, suggesting that amplified facial projection necessitates the application of enhanced force to the anterior dentition in order to generate the same bite power that individuals with a dorsal deflection of the facial skull exert. In more prognathic individuals, this increased pressure triggers bone deposition to reinforce the brow ridges, until equilibrium is reached.
In their 1979(a) publication, Oyen et al. conducted a cross-section study of Papio anubis in order to ascertain the relationship between palate length, incisor load and Masseter lever efficiency, relative to torus enlargement. Indications found of osteoblastic deposition in the glabella region were used as evidence for supraorbital enlargement. Oyen et al.’s data suggested that more prognathic individuals experienced a decrease in load/lever efficiency. This transmits tension via the frontal process of the maxilla to the supraorbital region, resulting in a contemporary reinforcement of this structure. This was also correlated to periods of tooth eruption.
In a later series of papers, Russell (1985, 1986a, and 1986b) developed aspects of this mode further. Employing an adult Australian sample, she tested the association between brow ridge formation and anterior dental loading, via the craniofacial angle (prosthion-nasion-metopion), maxilla breadth, and discontinuities in food preparation such as those observed between different age groups. Finding strong support for the first two criteria, she concluded that the supraorbital complex is formed as a result of increased tension due to the widening of the maxilla, thought to be positively correlated with the size of the messeter muscle, as well as with the improper orientation of bone in the superior orbital region.
In short, the Bio-Mechanical model predicts that morphological variation in torus size is the direct product of differential tension caused by mastication, as indicated by an increase in load/lever ratio and broad craniofacial angle (Oyen and Russell, 1984, p.368-369).
See also
References
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Brow ridge" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
- For some basic English definitions refer to the American Heritage Dictionary online under supraorbital and torus. Webster's Third New International Dictionary also does not make the distinction.
- ^ Wilkenson, Caroline. Forensic Facial Reconstruction. Cambridge University Press. 2004. ISBN 0521820030
- Endo, B (1965) Distribution of stress and strain produced in the human face by masticatory forces. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon. 73:123-136.
- Endo, B (1970) Analysis of the stress around the orbit due to masseter and temporalis muscles. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon. 78:251-266.
- Endo, B (1973) Stress analysis of the gotrilla face. Primates 14:37-45
- Russell, MD (1985) The supraorbital torus: “A most remarkable peculiarity.” Current Anthropology. 58:59-65.
- Oyen, OJ, Rice, RW, and Cannon, MS (1970a) Browridge structure and functionin extant primates and Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 51:88-96.
External links
- The Frontal Bone, California State University at Chico site.
- ARCUS SUPERCILIARIS, Webster's Online Dictionary.