Chapter XV: Part 15

Text size

-----------+-------+--------+-------+------+--------+-----------+--------
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Point| Barrow| Old| Point|Northern|Southampton| Hudson
| Hope| and|Igloos,|Barrow| Arctic| Island| Bay and
| |vicinity| north| | | |vicinity
| | | of| | | |
| | | Barrow| | | |
| | | | | | |
-----------+-------+--------+-------+------+--------+-----------+--------
Vault: | (92)| (36)| (25)| (52)| (10)| (6)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Length | 17.5 7| 17.77| 18.11| 17.91| 18.21| 18.17| 17.55
| | | | | | |
| (92)| (36)| (25)| (52)| (10)| (6)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Breadth | 13.43| 13.23| 12.72| 13.32| 13.36| 13.70| 13.60
| | | | | | |
| (89)| (34)| (24)| (52)| (10)| (6)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Height | 13.20| 12.97| 13.21| 13.03| 12.99| 13.69| 12.55
| | | | | | |
| (89)| (34)| (24)| (52)| (10)| (6)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Cranial | 14.72| 14.66| 14.72| 14.75| 14.85| 15.18| 14.57
Module | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (89)| | | (3)| | (6)|
| | | | | | |
Capacity | 1,316| | | 1,235| | 1,443|
| | | | | | |
| (92)| (36)| (_25_)|(_52_)| (_10_)| (_6_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Cranial | _76.4_| _74.5_| _70.2_|_74.4_| _73.4_| _75.4_| _77.5_
Index | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_89_)| (_34_)| (_24_)|(_52_)| (_10_)| (_6_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Mean | _85.2_| _82.9_| _86.4_|_83.4_| _82.3_| _85.9_| _80.6_
height | | | | | | |
Index | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_89_)| (_34_)| (_24_)|(_52_)| (_10_)| (_6_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Height- | _98.2_| _98.1_|_104.6_|_97.8_| _97.2_| _99.9_| _92.3_
breadth | | | | | | |
index | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Face: | (2)| | (15)| | (1)| (3)|
| | | | | | |
Menton- | 12.05| | 11.21| | 12.7| 11.7|
nasion | | | | | | |
height | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (78)| (22)| (18)| (40)| (7)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Alveolar | 7.06| 7.18| 7.01| 7.22| 7.43| 7.14| 6.95
point- | | | | | | |
nasion | | | | | | |
height | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (84)| (23)| (24)| (46)| (7)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Diameter- | 13.32| 13.16| 13.08| 13.06| 12.96| 13.82| 12.65
bizygomatic| | | | | | |
maximum | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_2_)| | (_15_)| | | (_3_)|
| | | | | | |
Facial | _88.3_| | _86.8_| | | _84.8_|
Index, | | | | | | |
total | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_77_)| (_21_)| (_18_)|(_39_)| (_6_)| (_5_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Facial | _53.1_| _54.7_| _53.8_|_55.3_| _57.8_| _51.7_| _54.9_
Index, | | | | | | |
upper | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Basio- | (76)| (22)| (15)| (37)| (6)| (4)| (2)
facial: | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Basion- | 9.72| 9.85| 10.13| 9.77| 10.03| 10.02| 9.4
alveolar | | | | | | |
point | (83)| (27)| (21)| (46)| (10)| (4)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Basion- | 8.72| 8.86| 9.12| 8.73| 8.85| 9.02| 8.35
subnasal | | | | | | |
point | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (89)| (34)| (24)| (52)| (10)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Basion- | 9.89| 10.01| 10.18| 9.94| 10.07| 10.34| 9.75
nasion | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_75_)| | |(_37_)| (_6_)| | (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Facial | _70_| | | _69_| _68_| | _71.5_
angle | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_75_)| | |(_37_)| (_6_)| | (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Alveolar | _56.5_| | | _55_| _54_| | _54.5_
angle | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Orbits: | (83)| (25)| (18)| (42)| (10)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Mean height| 3.54| 3.61| 3.47| 3.55| 3.50| 3.64| (3.60)
| | | | | | |
| (83)| (25)| (18)| (42)| (10)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Mean | 3.90| 3.88| 4.01| 3.90| 3.83| 4.05| (3.80)
breadth | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (_83_)| (_25_)| (_18_)|(_42_)| (_10_)| (_4_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Index | _90.8_| _93_| _91_|_90.7_| _91.4_| _86.6_|(_94.7_)
| | | | | | |
Nose: | (86)| (27)| (21)| (46)| (9)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Height | 5.04| 5.19| 5.02| 5.11| 4.83| 5.06| 4.90
| | | | | | |
| (86)| (27)| (21)| (46)| (9)| (5)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Breadth | 2.28| 2.32| 2.23| 2.29| 2.14| 2.21| 2.15
| | | | | | |
| (_86_)| (_27_)| (_21_)|(_46_)| (_9_)| (_5_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Index | _45.3_| _44.7_| _44.4_|_44.9_| _44.4_| _43.7_| _43.9_
| | | | | | |
Palate: | (73)| (23)| (16)| (33)| (6)| (4)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Length | 5.21| 5.22| 5.34| 5.25| 5.38| 5.50| 4.85
| | | | | | |
| (73)| (23)| (16)| (33)| (6)| (4)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Breadth | 6.19| 6.13| 6.29| 6.01| 6.22| 6.60| 5.85
| | | | | | |
| (_73_)| (_23_)| (_16_)|(_33_)| (_6_)| (_4_)| (_2_)
| | | | | | |
Index | _84.3_| _85.1_| _84.9_|_87.4_| _86.5_| _83.3_| _82.9_
| | | | | | |
| (3)| (3)| (17)| | (1)| (2)| (2)
| | | | | | |
Lower jaw: | 3.38| 3.27| 3.38| | 3.7| 3.20| 3.15
Height at | | | | | | |
symph. | | | | | | |
-----------+-------+--------+-------+------+--------+-----------+--------

-----------+--------+------+---------
| | |
| | |
| Baffin| Smith|Greenland
| Land,| Sound|
| North| |
| Devon,| |
| and| |
|vicinity| |
-----------+--------+------+---------
Vault: | (17)| (2)| (52)
| | |
Length | 18.33| 18| 18.04
| | |
| (17)| (2)| (52)
| | |
Breadth | 13.44| 13.80| 12.98
| | |
| (17)| (2)| (52)
| | |
Height | 13.34| 13.65| 13.12
| | |
| (17)| (2)| (52)
| | |
Cranial | 15.04| 15.15| 14.72
Module | | |
| | |
| | (1)| (43)
| | |
Capacity | | 1,510| 1,324
| | |
| (_17_)| (_2_)| (_52_)
| | |
Cranial | _73.3_|_76.7_| _72_
Index | | |
| | |
| (_17_)| (_2_)| (_52_)
| | |
Mean | _84_|_85.8_| _84.6_
height | | |
Index | | |
| | |
| (_17_)| (_2_)| (_52_)
| | |
Height- | _99.3_|_98.9_| _101_
breadth | | |
index | | |
| | |
Face: | (5)| (2)| (5)
| | |
Menton- | 11.60| 11.20| 11.52
nasion | | |
height | | |
| | |
| (12)| (2)| (45)
| | |
Alveolar | 7.10| 6.80| 7.05
point- | | |
nasion | | |
height | | |
| | |
| (14)| (2)| (50)
| | |
Diameter- | 13.27| 13.20| 13.03
bizygomatic| | |
maximum | | |
| | |
| (_5_)| (_2_)| (_5_)
| | |
Facial | _86.6_|_84.9_| _85.7_
Index, | | |
total | | |
| | |
| (_11_)| (_2_)| (_45_)
| | |
Facial | _53.9_|_51.5_| _54.1_
Index, | | |
upper | | |
| | |
Basio- | (12)| (2)| (45)
facial: | | |
| | |
Basion- | 10.13| 9.35| 10.09
alveolar | | |
point | (13)| (2)| (50)
| | |
Basion- | 9.05| 8.35| 8.94
subnasal | | |
point | | |
| | |
| (17)| (2)| (52)
| | |
Basion- | 10.11| 9.65| 10.13
nasion | | |
| | |
| | | (_45_)
| | |
Facial | | | _70_
angle | | |
| | |
| | | (_45_)
| | |
Alveolar | | | _54_
angle | | |
| | |
Orbits: | (13)| (2)| (47)
| | |
Mean height| 3.53| 3.51| 3.55
| | |
| (13)| (2)| (47)
| | |
Mean | 3.88| 3.96| 3.85
breadth | | |
| | |
| (_13_)| (_2_)| (_47_)
| | |
Index _91.3_|_88.6_| _92.4_
| | |
Nose: | (13)| (2)| (50)
| | |
Height | 4.98| 5.30| 4.99
| | |
| (13)| (2)| (50)
| | |
Breadth | 2.20| 2.32| 2.20
| | |
| (_13_)| (_2_)| (_50_)
| | |
Index | _44.3_|_43.9_| _44_
| | |
Palate: | (12)| (2)| (45)
| | |
Length | 5.44| 5.20| 5.35
| | |
| (12)| (2)| (45)
| | |
Breadth | 6.22| 6.20| 6.16
| | |
| (_12_)| (_2_)| (_45_)
| | |
Index | _87.6_|_83.9_| _86.8_
| | |
| (5)| (2)| (13)
| | |
Lower jaw: | 3.46| 3.42| 3.40
Height at | | |
symph. | | |
-----------+--------+------+---------

FOOTNOTES:

[156] Compare writer's Variation in the dimensions of lower molars in man and anthropoid apes, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., VI, 423-438, Washington, 1923.

[157] Rivet, P., Recherches sur le prognathisme. L'Anthropologie, XX, pp. 35, 175; Paris, 1909. XXI, pp. 505, 637, 1910.

[158] Cat. Crania, U. S. Nat. Mus., etc., No. 3. Washington, 1928, 88, 105, 139.

[159] Lower angles mean higher, higher angles lower facial or alveolar protrusion.

SKULLS OF ESKIMO CHILDREN

A special effort in our work has been made to secure well-preserved skulls of children. As elsewhere, so among the Eskimo, more children die than adults, but conditions are not favorable for the preservation of their skeletal remains. Most of the bones are done away with or damaged by animals (foxes, dogs, mice, etc.), while others decay, so that generally nothing remains of the youngest subjects and but a few bones and a rare skull of the older children. The total number of such skulls in our collection now reaches 25. They are all of children of more than 2 but mostly less than 6 years old, and are all normal specimens. The principal measurements of their vault--a study of the face is a subject apart and needing more material--are given in the following tables.

CRANIA OF ESKIMO CHILDREN

SOUTHWESTERN AND MIDWESTERN ESKIMO

---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------
| | | | Vault
---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------
Catalogue|Collector| Locality |Deformation| Length|Breadth| Height
No. | | | | | |
| | | | | |
U.S.N.M. | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------
339172 | H. B. | Nunivak | | 16.9| 12.6| 12
|Collins, | Island | | | |
|jr., and | | | | |
| T. D. | | | | |
| Stewart | | | | |
| | | | | |
339153 | do | do | | 17.4| 13.4| 12.4
| | | | | |
339198 | do | do | | 16.6| 12.8| 12.7
| | | | | |
339222 | H. B. | Nunivak | | 16.8| 13.4| 12.2
|Collins, | Island | | | |
|jr., and | | | | |
| T. D. | | | | |
|Stewart. | | | | |
| | | | | |
339197 | do | do | | 17| 13.6| 12.4
| | | | | |
339199 | do | do | | 16.1| 13.3|
| | | | | |
339152 | do | do | | 17| 14.5| 12.6
| | | |=======+=======+=======
| | | | (7)| (7)| (6)
| | | | | |
Total | | | | 117.8| 93.6| 74.3
| | | | | |
Average | | | |_16.83_|_13.37_|_12.38_
| | | |=======+=======+=======
279569 | R. D. | St. | | 17.6| 13.4| 12.2
| Moore | Lawrence | | | |
| | Island | | | |
| | | | | |
279568 | do | do | | 17.1| 13.2| 12.8
| | | | | |
279495 | do | do | | 16.8| 13.1| 12.6
| | | | | |
279479 | do | do | | 16.8| 13.2| 12.8
| | | | | |
279462 | do | do | | 16.2| 13| 12.8
| | | | | |
279421 | do | do | | 16.4| 13.4| 12.1
| | | | | |
279448 | do | do | | 16.4| 13.5|
| | | | | |
279591 | do | do | | 14.7| 12.4|
| | | | | |
279443 | do | do | | 16.4| 13.9| 12.4
| | | |=======+=======+=======
| | | | (9)| (9)| (7)
| | | | | |
Total | | | | 146.4| 119.1| 87.7
| | | | | |
Average | | | |_16.27_|_13.23_|_12.53_
| | | |=======+=======+=======
99-4106 |G. Comer |Southampton| | 17.4| 13.3| 12.8
| | Island | | | |
| | | | | |
4657 | do |Hudson Bay | | 16.9| 13.2| 12.2
| | | | | |
7690 | Capt. | Etah, | | 16.6| 13.4| 12.7
|Bartlett |Smith Sound| | | |
---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-------+-------+-------

---------+-------+------+-------+-------+--------
| | | | |
---------+-------+------+-------+-------+--------
Catalogue|Cranial| Mean|Height-|Basion-| Basion-
No. | index|height|breadth| nasion| nasion
| | Index| index| |diameter
U.S.N.M. | | | | | vs.
| | | | | length
| | | | |of skull
---------+-------+------+-------+-------+--------
339172 | _74.6_|_81.4_| _95.2_| 9.1| _53.8_
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
339153 | _77_|_80.5_| _92.5_| 9.2| _52.9_
| | | | |
339198 | _77.1_|_86.4_| _99.2_| 8.6| _51.8_
| | | | |
339222 | _79.8_|_80.8_| _91_| 9| _53.6_
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
339197 | _80_| _81_| _91.2_| 9.1| _53.5_
| | | | |
339199 | _82.6_| | | |
| | | | |
339152 | _85.3_| _80_| _86.9_| 8.7| _51.2_
+=======+======+=======+=======+========
| (7)| (6)| (6)| (6)| (6)
| | | | |
Total | | | | 53.7|
| | | | |
Average | _79.5_|_81.6_| _92.5_| _8.95_| _52.8_
+=======+======+=======+=======+========
279569 | _76.1_|_78.7_| _91_| 9.3| _52.8_
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
279568 | _77.2_|_84.5_| _97_| 9.3| _54.4_
| | | | |
279495 | _78_|_84.3_| _96.2_| 9.1| _54.2_
| | | | |
279479 | _78.6_|_85.3_| _97_| 9| _53.6_
| | | | |
279462 | _80.3_|_87.7_| _98.5_| 9.2| _56.8_
| | | | |
279421 | _81.7_|_81.2_| _90.3_| 8.4| _51.2_
| | | | |
279448 | 82.3| | | |
| | | | |
279591 | 84.3| | | |
| | | | |
279443 | _84.8_|_81.8_| _89.2_| 8.6| _52.4_
+=======+======+=======+=======+========
| (9)| (7)| (7)| (7)| (7)
| | | | |
Total | | | | 62.9|
| | | | |
Average | _81.4_|_84.1_| _94.1_| _8.99_| _54.5_
+=======+======+=======+=======+========
99-4106 | _76.4_|_83.4_| _96.2_| 8.8| _50.6_
| | | | |
| | | | |
4657 | _78.1_|_81.1_| _92.4_| 9.1| _53.8_
| | | | |
7690 | _80.7_|_84.7_| _94.8_| 9.2| _55.4_
| | | | |
---------+-------+------+-------+-------+--------

PRINCIPAL CRANIAL INDICES IN CHILDREN COMPARED WITH THOSE IN ADULTS

-----------+---------+-------+------+-------+------
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------+---------+-------+------+-------+------
| |Cranial| Mean|Height-| BN-
| | index|height|breadth| skull
| | | index| index|length
| | | | | index
| | | | |
South |Children | 84.4| 82.5| 89.6| 54
western | | | | |
and | | | | |
Midwestern | | | | |
Eskimo[160]|Adults | 79.3| 82.3| 93| 56
|(both | | | |
|sexes) | | | |
| | | | |
Nunivak |{Children| 79.5| 81.6| 92.5| 52.8
Island | | | | |
|{Adults | 75.6| 83.3| 96.7| 56
|(both | | | |
|sexes) | | | |
| | | | |
St. |{Children| 81.4| 84.1| 94.1| 54.5
Lawrence | | | | |
Island |{Adults | 77.3| 84.1| 96.5| 56.2
|(both | | | |
|sexes) | | | |
| | | | |
All |{Children| _81.8_|_82.7_| _92.1_|_53.8_
| | | | |
|{Adults | _77.4_|_83.2_| _95.4_|_56.1_
| | | | |
-----------+---------+-------+------+-------+------

-----------+------+-------+------+--------
| Percentage relation of
| dimensions of the vault in
|adults and children (adults =
| 100)
-----------+------+-------+------+--------
|Length|Breadth|Height| Basion-
| | | | nasion
| | | |diameter
| | | |
| | | |
South | | | |
western | | | |
and |} 90.1| 96.7| 93.2| 86.5
Midwestern | | | |
Eskimo[160]| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Nunivak | | | |
Island |} 91.7| 96.4| 92.3| 87.1
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
St. | | | |
Lawrence |} 90.2| 95.2| 93.2| 88.6
Island | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
All | | | |
}|_90.8_| _96.1_|_92.9_| _87.4_
-----------+------+-------+------+--------

The main interest centers in the comparison of the relative proportions of these skulls with those of the adults from the same localities. These comparisons, given in the smaller table, are of considerable interest.

The cranial index is considerably higher in the children. On analysis this is found to be due almost wholly to a greater relative breadth of the child's skull. During later growth the Eskimo cranium advances materially more in length than in breadth. A further expansion in breadth is evidently hindered by some factor outside of the bones themselves, for nothing appears in these that could constitute such a hindrance. And the only evident outside factor capable of producing such an effect are the strong pads of the temporal muscles.

The mean height index (H × 100/(mean of L + B)) remains much the same in the children and adults, indicating that the relative increase during growth in skull length compensates for the lagging increase in breadth, while the proportion of the height to the mean of the length and breadth remains fairly stable.

The much greater growth in length than in breadth of the Eskimo skull from childhood onward is shown even better in the second part of the table by a direct comparison of the mean dimensions. The length of the adult skull is by over 9 per cent, the breadth by less than 4 per cent, greater than that in childhood in the same groups.

The adult Eskimo skull has also grown very perceptibly more in height than in breadth, though somewhat less so than in length. The result is a notably higher height-breadth index in the adult. Compared to that in childhood the adult Eskimo skull is therefore relatively markedly longer, higher, and narrower.

These facts are probably of more significance than might seem at first glance; for it is precisely by the same characters, carried still further, that some of the Eskimo differ from others. Let us compare two of our largest and best groups, those of St. Lawrence Island and Greenland:

---------------------+---------+--------+---------+---------
| Number | Skull | Breadth | Height
|of skulls| length | |
| (both | | |
| sexes) | | |
---------------------+---------+--------+---------+---------
St. Lawrence Island | (293) | 18.05 | 13.90 | 13.45
Greenland | (101) | 18.51 | 13.30 | 13.54
---------------------+---------+--------+---------+---------

The Greenland skull is longer, narrower, and somewhat higher. The differences are less than those between a child and an adult western Eskimo, but of the same nature. This apparently speaks strongly for the development of the Greenland type of Eskimo cranium from the western. On the other hand, the type of skull shown by the Eskimo child approaches much more closely than that of the Eskimo adult to the type of the skull of the Mongol.

The above are mere observations, not theories, and they carry a strong indication that mostly we are still floundering only on the borders of true anthropology, embracing all phases of life and development, which, if mastered, would give us with beautiful definition many now vainly sought or barely glimpsed solutions.

A highly interesting feature is the relatively great development in the Eskimo, between childhood and the adult stage, of the anterior half of the skull or basion-nasion dimension. This augments, it is seen, by even 3.4 per cent more than the length. This growth must involve some additional factor to those inherent in the bones themselves and in the attached musculature, and this can only be, it seems, the development of the anterior half of the brain. Evidently this portion of the brain between childhood and adult life grows in the Eskimo more rapidly than that behind the vertical plane corresponding to the basion. It is a very suggestive condition calling for further study, and thus far almost entirely wanting in comparative data on other human as well as subhuman groups.

FOOTNOTES:

[160] Same group for adults as for children.

THE LOWER JAW

The lower jaw of the Eskimo deserves a thorough separate study. For this purpose, however, more jaws in good condition are needed from various localities, and particularly more jaws accompanying their skulls. As it is, a large majority of the crania are without the lower jaw, or the alveolar processes of the latter have become so affected in life through age and loss of teeth that their value is diminished or lost. Still another serious difficulty is that the measuring of the lower jaw is difficult and has not as yet been regulated by general agreement, so that there is much individualism of procedures with limited possibilities of comparison.

One of the principal measurements taken on the available Eskimo mandibles was the symphyseal height. This is taken by the sliding calipers and is the height from the lower alveolar point (highest point of the normal alveolar septum between the middle lower incisors) to the lowest point on the inferior border of the chin in the median line.[161] The results are given in the following tables.

ESK̅IMO LOWER JAW: HEIGHT AT SYMPHYSIS

---------+------------------------+------------------------
| Male | Female
---------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------

Groups | South-|North- |Northern| South-|North- |Northern
(main) |western|western| and|western|western| and
| and| | eastern| and| | eastern
| mid-| | | mid-| |
|western| | |western| |
| | | | | |
| (9)| (5)| (5)| (9)| (5)| (5)
| | | | | |
Specimens| (116)| (143)| (40)| (121)| (134)| (25)
| | | | | |
Average | 3.75| 3.76| 3.67| 3.38| 3.34| 3.39
| | | | | |
General | 3.76 | | 3.36 |
mean in | | | |
western | | | |
Eskimo | | | |
| | | |
Percental| _89.4_
relation |
of |
female |
to male |
(M = 100)|
---------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------

------------------------------------------------------+------+--------
|Males,|Females,
| 19 | 19
|groups| groups
| (399 | (280
|jaws) | jaws)
------------------------------------------------------+------+--------
General mean for all Eskimo (approximate) | 3.73 | 3.37
| |
Percental relation of female to the male | | _90.4_
| |
General mean of total facial height |12.47 | 11.60
| |
Percental relation of height of jaw to total facial | _30_ | _29_
height | |
| |
General mean of upper facial height | 7.76 | 7.20
| |
Percental relation of height of jaw to upper facial | _48_ | _47_
height | |
------------------------------------------------------+------+--------

Just what these figures mean will best be shown by a table of comparisons.[162] All these are my own measurements.

LOWER JAW OF VARIOUS RACES: HEIGHT AT SYMPHYSIS

-------------------------+------+------+-------------
| | |Female versus
| Male |Female| male
| | | (M = 100)
-------------------------+------+------+-------------
| (399)| (280)|
Eskimo (all) | 3.73| 3.37| _90.4_
North American Indians: | (36)| (26)|
Sioux | 3.60| 3.22| _89.4_
| (52)| (50)|
Arkansas | 3.66| 3.24| _88.5_
| (29)| (21)|
Florida | 3.69| 3.38| _91.4_
| (9)| (6)|
Munsee | 3.70| 3.40| _91.9_
| (15)| (14)|
Louisiana | 3.72| 3.29| _88.4_
| (44)| (30)|
Kentucky | 3.49| 3.18| _91.1_

| | |Female versus | Male |Female| male | | | (M = 100) ----------------------------------------+------+------+-------------- | (50) | (30) | U. S. whites (miscellaneous) | 3.29 | 2.87 | _87.2_ | (41) | (8) | Negro, full-blood, African and American | 3.54 | 3.14 | [163]_88.7_ |(261) |(191) | Australians | 3.44 | 3.07 | _89.2_

----------------------------------------+------+------+---------------

The table shows the Eskimo jaw to be absolutely the highest at the symphysis of all those available for comparison, with the female nearly the highest.[164] Relatively to stature it exceeds decidedly all the groups, the Indians that come nearest matching it in the absolute measurement being all much taller than the Eskimo. And the female Eskimo jaw is relatively high compared with that of the male, being exceeded in this respect only in three of the Indian groups, in two of which, however, the showing is due wholly and in one partly to a lesser height of the male jaw. The relative excess of the female jaw in this respect seems particularly marked in the northern and northeastern groups, though it must remain subject to corroboration by further material.

The white, Negro, and Australian data have an interest of their own.

FOOTNOTES:

[161] Should there be a decided notch in the middle, as happens in rare specimens, it is rational to take the measurement to the side of the notch.

[162] From my Phys. Anthr. of the Lenape, etc., the Anthropology of Florida, and the Catalogue of Crania.

[163] Approximately.

[164] Rudolf Virchow, as far back as 1870, in studying some mandibles of the Greenland Eskimo, found that the height of the body in the middle (3.5 centimeters) was greater than that of the lower jaws of any other racial group available to him for comparison. Archiv. für Anthrop., IV, p. 77, Braunschweig, 1870.

STRENGTH OF THE JAW

The Eskimo jaw is generally stout. Barring rare exceptions there is nothing slender about it. The body, moreover, is frequently strengthened by more or less marked overgrowths of bone lingually below the alveoli and above the mylohyoid ridge. These neoformations will be discussed later.

The strength of the mandible may be measured directly in various locations on the body. Due to the peculiar build of the body, however, and especially to its variations, these measurements are by no means simple and wholly satisfactory. It is hardly necessary in this connection to review the various attempted methods, none of which has become standardized. As a result of experience I prefer since many years to measure the thickness of the body of the jaw at the second molars, and that in such a way that either the molars, if the measurement is taken from above, or the lower border of the jaw if it is taken from below, lies midway between the two branches of the sliding calipers with which the measurement is taken. The two methods (from above or below) give results that are nearly alike. In some cases the one and in others the other is the easier, but wherever the teeth are lost the measurement from below is perhaps preferable. The records obtained on the lower jaws of the western Eskimo and other racial groups are given in the next table.

THICKNESS OF THE BODY OF THE LOWER JAW AT THE SECOND MOLARS IN THE
WESTERN ESKIMO AND OTHER GROUPS

----------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------
| Male | Female | Female
+--------------+-------------+versus
|Right |Left |Right |Left | male
| side | side | side | side |(M = 100)
----------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------
| (240) | (243) |
| | |
Western Eskimo millimeters|16.2 16.3|15.1 15.1|_92.9_
| | |
| (29) | (28) |
| | |
Florida Indians do | 16.6 | 15.5 |_93.4_
| | |
| (21) | (16) |
| | |
Louisiana Indians do | 16.3 | 15.3 |_93.9_
| | |
| (58) | (47) |
| | |
Arkansas Indians do | 15.2 | 14.7 |_96.7_
| | |
| (40) | (22) |
| | |
Kentucky Indians do | 14.7 | 14.2 |_96.6_
| | |
| (50) | (20) |
| | |
American whites (misc.) do | 14.5 | 12.8 |_88.3_
----------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------

The figures show that the Eskimo jaw is very stout. It is exceeded in thickness only by the jaws of Florida, which in general are the thickest in America, and in males is about equaled, in females very slightly exceeded by those of the prehistoric Indians of Louisiana, who belong to the same Gulf type with the Indians of Florida. The old Arkansas Indians, though closely related to those of Louisiana, show a very perceptibly more slender jaw, particularly in the males; while in an old Kentucky tribe (Green River, C. B. Moore, collector) the jaws are still less strong. The lower jaws of the American whites (dissecting-room material) are slightly less stout than even those of the Indians of Kentucky in the males, and much less so in the females. The interesting sex differences are shown well in the last column of the above table.

BREADTH OF THE RAMI

Still another character that reflects the strength of the lower jaw is the breadth of the rami. The most practicable measurement of this is the breadth minimum at the constriction of the ascending branches. A great breadth of the rami is very striking, as is well known, in the Heidelberg jaw, and the Eskimo have long been known for a marked tendency in the same direction. The measurements of the lower jaws of the western Eskimo show as follows:

LOWER JAWS OF THE WESTERN ESKIMO AND OTHER RACIAL GROUPS: BREADTH
MINIMUM OF THE ASCENDING BRANCHES

---------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------------
| | |Female versus
| Male | Female | male
| | | (M = 100)
----------------------- |----- -+-------+-------+-------+-------------
| Right | Left | Right | Left |
---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------
| (243) | (240) | (237) | (228) |
Western Eskimo centimeters| 3.99 | 4.03 | 3.68 | 3.70 | _92_
| (20) | (20) | (13) | (13) |
Florida Indians do | 3.82 | 3.85 | 3.39 | 3.34 | _87.7_
| (21) | (19) | (19) | (16) |
Louisiana Indians do | 3.72 | 3.72 | 3.29 | 3.27 | _88.2_
| (62) | (60) | (58) | (61) |
Arkansas Indians do | 3.47 | 3.47 | 3.24 | 3.23 | _93.2_
| (42) | (40) | (30) | (29) |
Kentucky Indians do | 3.44 | 3.44 | 3.18 | 3.21 | _92.9_
| (50) | (50) | (20) | (20) |
United States whites | | | | |
(miscellaneous) centimeters| 3.17 | 3.14 | 2.89 | 2.82 | _90.5_
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eskimo jaws, and particularly that of the female (relatively to other females), have the broadest rami. Otherwise the series range themselves in the same order as under the measurement of the stoutness of the body.

OTHER DIMENSIONS

Four other measurements were taken on the jaws, namely the length of the body (on each side); the height of the two rami; the bigonial diameter; and the body-ramus angle. The results of the first three may conveniently be grouped into one table.

ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE LOWER JAW

MALE

-----------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+--------
|Length of body,|Length of | Height of |Diameter
|each side[165] |body as a | ramus[167] |bigonial
+-------+-------+whole[166] +-------+-------+[168]
| Right | Left | | Right | Left |
-----------------+-------+-------+-----------+-------+-------+--------
| (236) (236) | (100) | (132) (131) | (201)
Western Eskimo | 10.28 10.28 | 8.03 | 6.45 6.38 | 11.42
| | (24) | (18) | (22)
Florida Indian | | 8.45 | 6.72 | 10.75
| | (19) | (15) | (17)
Louisiana Indian | | 8.44 | 7 | 10.67
| | (62) | (52) | (57)
Arkansas Indian | | 7.88 | 6.52 | 10.49
| | (42) | (37) | (38)
Kentucky Indian | | 7.45 | 6.48 | 10.48
U. S. whites | | (50) | (50) | (50)
(miscellaneous)| | 7.57 | 6.53 | 10.11
-----------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+--------

FEMALE

-----------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+--------
| (230) (228) | (100) | (134) (128) | (199)
Western Eskimo | 9.61 9.60 | 7.47 | 5.61 5.57 | 10.57
| | (19) | (18) | (17)
Florida Indian | | 7.72 | 6.02 | 9.70
| | (16) | (15) | (15)
Louisiana Indian | | 7.38 | 5.77 | 9.90
| | (57) | (52) | (56)
Arkansas Indian | | 7.46 | 5.85 | 9.58
| | (30) | (25) | (30)
Kentucky Indian | | 7.12 | 5.64 | 9.45
U. S. whites | | (20) | (20) | (20)
(miscellaneous)| | 7.02 | 5.87 | 9.12
-----------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+--------

FEMALES TO MALES (M = 100)

-----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+---------
| Length | Length | Height | Diameter
| each | as a |of rami | bigonial
| side | whole | |
-----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+---------
Western Eskimo | _93.4_ | _93.0_ | _87.3_ | _92.6_
| | | |
Florida Indian | | _91.4_ | _89.6_ | _90.2_
| | | |
Louisiana Indian | | _87.4_ | _82.4_ | _92.8_
| | | |
Arkansas Indian | | _94.6_ | _89.7_ | _91.3_
| | | |
Kentucky Indian | | _95.6_ | _87.0_ | _90.2_
| | | |
U. S. whites (miscellaneous) | | _92.7_ | _89.9_ | _90.2_
-----------------------------+--------+--------+--------+---------

The Eskimo lower jaw, which, as seen before, is characterized by a high and stout body and the broadest rami, shows further that these rami are remarkably low, and that the bigonial spread is extraordinarily broad. The length of the body, on the other hand, is not very exceptional, being perceptibly exceeded in some of the Indians.

FOOTNOTES:

[165] Sliding calipers: Separate measurement of each half of the body, from the lowest point on the posterior border of each ramus not affected by the angle to a point of corresponding height on the line of the symphysis. The anterior point may, in consequence of a lower or higher location of the posterior point, range from the chin to above the middle of the symphysis, but the results are much alike. The measurement leaves much to be desired, but is the best possible if the two halves of the body are to be measured separately.

[166] The length of the whole jaw is measured on Broca's mandibular goniometer, by laying the jaw firmly on the board, applying the movable plane to both rami, and recording the distance of the most anterior point of the chin from the base of the oblique plane. This measurement is easier than the previous, though on account of the variation in the angles and the lower part of the posterior border of the rami it is also not fully satisfactory, and it does not show the differences in the two halves of the body.

[167] Sliding calipers: One branch applied so that it touches the highest points on both the condyle and the coronoid, while the other is applied to the lowest point of the ramus anterior to the angle, if the bone here is prominent; if receding, the branch of the compass is applied to the midpoint on the lower border of the ramus.

[168] Sliding calipers: Maximum external diameter at the angles; the maximum points may, exceptionally, be either anterior to or a little above the angle proper.

THE ANGLE

The angle between the body and the ramus of the lower jaw is known to differ with the age and sex as well as individually. Not seldom it differs also, and that sometimes quite appreciably, on the two sides. Racial differences are as yet uncertain.

The angle, especially in some specimens, is not easy to measure, and the position of the jaw may make a difference of several degrees. Numerous trials have shown that the proper way is to measure the angle on the two sides separately, and to so place the jaw in each case that there is no interference with the measurement by either the posterior or the anterior enlarged end of the condyle.

Leaving out jaws in which extensive loss of teeth has in all probability resulted in changes in the angle, the western Eskimo material gives the following data:

WESTERN ESKIMO: ANGLE OF THE LOWER JAW

-----------+-------+-------++----------+-------+-------
| Male | Female|| | Male | Female
-----------+-------+-------++----------+-------+-------
| (224) | (217) || | (218) | (207)
Right side | 119.6°| 124.5°||Left side | 119.5°| 124.3°
-----------+-------+-------++----------+-------+-------

In the male Munsee Indians the angle was 118°; in those of Arkansas and Louisiana, 118.5°; in those of Peru (Martin, Lehrb., 884), 119°. In the whites, males, the average angle approximates 122°; in the Negro, 121° (Topinard, Martin).

The angle in the female in the Eskimo is to that of the male as 104 to 100; in the Arkansas and Louisiana series it was 103. In the whites the proportion seems to be a little higher.

There are evidently, if we exclude the whites in whom the shortness of the jaw conduces probably to a wider angle, no marked racial differences, but the subject needs a more thorough study on large series of sexually well-identified specimens, carefully selected as to age.

The average angle on the right differs in the Eskimo but very slightly from that on the left, though individually there are frequent unequalities.

RÉSUMÉ

The Eskimo lower jaw differs substantially in many respects from that in other races, particularly from that of the whites. It is characterized by a high and stout body; by broad but low rami; and by excessive breadth at the angles. The body-ramus angle is moderate. To which may be added that the chin is generally of but moderate prominence, and that the bone at the angles in males is occasionally markedly everted.

MANDIBULAR HYPEROSTOSES

These hypertrophies or hyperostoses are rarely met with also in the jaws of the Indian and other people. They are symmetric and characteristic, though often more or less irregular. They generally extend from the vicinity of the lateral incisors or the canines backward, forming when more developed a marked bulge on each side opposite the bicuspids, which gives the inner contour of the jaw when looked at from above a peculiar elephantine appearance. They may occur in the form of smooth, oblong, somewhat fusiform swellings, or as a continuous more or less uneven ridge, or may be represented by from one to four or five more or less rounded or flattened hard "buttons" or tumorlike elevations. In development they range from slight to very marked.

These hyperostoses have been reported by various observers (Danielli, Søren Hansen, Rudolf Virchow, Welcker, Duckworth & Pain, Oetteking, Hrdlička, Hawkes). They received due attention by Fürst and Hansen in their "Crania Groenlandica" (p. 178). They have been given the convenient, though both etiologically and morphologically inaccurate, name of "mandibular torus"; I think mandibular hyperostoses or simply welts would be better. Fürst and Hansen found them, taking all grades of development, in 182, or 85 per cent, of 215 lower jaws of Greenland Eskimo; in 28 jaws, or 13 per cent, they were pronounced, the remainder being slight to medium. A special examination of 62 lower jaws of children and 710 lower jaws of adult western Eskimo (with a small number from Greenland) gives the following record:

LINGUAL MANDIBULAR HYPEROSTOSES IN THE WESTERN ESKIMO

CHILDREN

[62 mandibles, completion of milk dentition to eruption of second
permanent molar]

----------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+------------
|None or | Slight to | |
|indistinguishable| moderate | Medium | Pronounced
----------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+------------
Specimens | 47 | [169]10 | [170]5 |
Per cent | _75.8_ | _16.1_ | _8.1_ |
----------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+------------

ADULTS

[Both sexes. 710 mandibles]

----------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+------------
Specimens | 215 | 356 | 114 | 25
Per cent | _30.3_ | _50.1_ | _16.1_ | _3.5_
----------+-----------------+-------------+-------------+------------

ADULTS

[Sexes separately. M. 350; F. 360 mandibles]

Column Headings
A:
B:
----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+--------------
|None or | Slight to | |
|indistinguishable| moderate | Medium | Pronounced
----------+--------+--------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------
| Males |Females | Males|Females| Males|Females| Males|Females
----------+--------+--------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------
Specimens | 71 | 144 |193 | 163 | 67 | 47 | 19 | 6
Per cent | 20.3 | 40.0 | 55.1 | 45.3 | 19.1 | 13.1 | 5.4 | 1.7
----------+--------+--------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------

The significance of these hyperostoses is not yet quite clear. Danielli, who in 1884 reported them[171] in the Ostiaks, Lapps, a Kirghiz, a Peruvian Indian, and four white skulls, offered no explanation. For Søren Hansen,[172] who first suggested the resemblance of these formations to the torus palatinus, "the significance of this feature, which also occurs in other Arctic races not directly related to the Eskimos, is not clear." R. Virchow,[173] who reports "wulstigen und knolligen Hyperostosen" on both the upper and lower jaws of a Vancouver Island Indian, restricts himself to a brief mention of the condition with a suggestion as to its causation (see later). Welcker[174] found them in the skulls of a German (Schiller?), Lett, and a Chinese, but has nothing to say as to their meaning. Duckworth and Pain[175] report the "thickening" in 10 out of 32 Eskimo jaws, but do not discuss the causation; and the same applies to Oetteking,[176] who reported on a series of Eskimo from Labrador. In 1909 Gorjanovič-Kramberger[177] somewhat indirectly notes the condition, without a true appreciation of its meaning.

In 1910 I had the opportunity to report on the mandibular hyperostoses in a rare collection of crania and lower jaws of the central and Smith Sound Eskimo.[178] Of 25 lower jaws of adults and 5 of children, 18, or 72 per cent, of the former and 2 of the latter showed distinct to marked lingual hyperostoses, while in the remaining cases the feature was either doubtful (absorption of the alveolar process) or absent. Two of the five children showed the peculiarity in a well-marked degree. A critical consideration of the condition leads me to the conclusion that it is not pathological, and my remarks were worded (p. 211) as follows: "A marked and general feature is a pronounced bony reinforcement of the alveolar arch extending above the mylohyoid line from the canines or first bicuspids to or near the last molars. This physiological hyperostosis presents more or less irregular surface and is undoubtedly of functional origin, the result of extraordinary pressure along the line of teeth most concerned in chewing; yet its occurrence in infant skulls indicates that at least to some extent the feature is already hereditary in these Eskimo."

In 1912, Kajava[179] reported lingual hyperostotic thickenings on the lower jaws of 68 adult Lapps, and found the condition in frequent association with pronounced wear of the teeth. In 1915, finally, Fürst and C.C. Hansen, in their great volume on "Crania Groenlandica," approach this question much more thoroughly. They, as also Kajava, did not know of the writer's report of 1910. They found the "torus" (p. 181), "also in the mandibles of some various Siberian races in a not insignificant percentage * * * and also not infrequently among European races, especially in the Laplanders (30 to 35 per cent)." They also report the presence of the condition "in a Chinaman," and saw indications of a good development of it in 17 per cent of 164 middle ages to prehistoric, and in 12 per cent of later Scandinavian lower jaws. Their interesting comments on its possible causation, though at one point seemingly not harmonizing, are as follows (p. 180): "The possibility is not precluded that we have here a formation which, even though it has at first arisen and been acquired through mechanical causes, has in the end become a racial character, albeit a variable one." And page 181: "There seems to be no doubt whatever that it is a formation connected with Arctic races or Arctic conditions of life; and, accordingly, it can not safely be assumed to be a racial character, however difficult it is to regard it as a formation only acquired individually."

WESTERN ESKIMO AND ALEUT (MIDDLE) LOWER JAWS, SHOWING LINGUAL HYPEROSTOSES. (U.S.N.M.)]

With both the previously published and the present data, I believe the subject of these bony formations may now be approached with some hope of definite conclusions.

These hyperostoses give no indication of being pathological. They are formed largely, if not entirely, by compact bone tissues of evidently normal construction. They never show a trace of attending inflammation or of ulceration or of breaking down. They resemble occasionally the osteomae of the vault of the skull, and more distantly the osteomae of the auditory meatus, but in those cases where the bony swelling is uniform and in many others they show to be of quite a different category. (Pl. 61.)

As a rule these bony protuberances in the Eskimo are not connected with evidence of pyorrhoea, root abscesses, or any other pathological condition of the teeth, for those conditions are practically absent in the older Eskimo skulls; therefore they can not be ascribed to any irritation due to such conditions, and the Eskimo have no habits that could possibly be imagined as favoring, through mechanical irritation, the development of these bony swellings. Wear of the teeth, which has been thought to stand possibly in a causative relation to these developments, is common in many races and even in animals (primates, etc.), without being accompanied by any such formations.

The development of such overgrowths is not wholly limited, as already indicated from the cases reported by Danielli (1884) and Virchow (1889), to the lower jaw, but somewhat similar growths may also be observed, though much more rarely, both lingually and on the outer border of the alveolar process of the upper jaw in the molar region. When present in the latter position they interfere with the measurement of the external breadth of the dental arch.

But, if neither pathological themselves nor due to any pathological or mechanical irritation, then these hyperostoses can only be, it would seem, of a physiological, ontogenic nature; and if so, then they must be brought about through a definite need and for a definite purpose or function.

These views are supported by their marked symmetry, which is very apparent even where they are irregular; by the fact that in general they are not found in the weakest jaws (weak individuals), or again in the largest and stoutest mandibles (jaws that are strong enough, as it is); and by the history of their development.

Our rather extensive present data on children show that these formations are absent in infancy. They begin to develop in older childhood, in adolescence, or even during the earlier adult life; they stop developing at different stages in different individuals, and they never lead to any deformity of the body of the mandible.

These overgrowths are further seen to be more common and to more frequently reach a pronounced development in the males than in the females.

What is the effect of these hyperostoses? They strengthen the dental arch. With them the arch is stronger; without them it would be weaker. The view is therefore justified that they augment the effectiveness of the dental arch; which is just what is needed or would be useful in such people as the Eskimo where the demands on the jaws exceed in general those in any other people.

All these appear to be facts of incontrovertible nature; but if so then we are led to practically the same conclusion that I have reached in the study of the central and Smith Sound Eskimo, which is that the lingual mandibular hyperostoses are physiological formations, developed in answer to the needs of the alveolar portions of the lower jaw. They could be termed synergetic hyperostoses.

The process of the development of these strengthening deposits of bone is probably still largely individual; yet the tendency toward such developments appears to be already hereditary in the Eskimo, as indicated by their beginning here and there in childhood. But their absence in nearly one-third of the Eskimo mandibles, their marked differences of occurrence and development in the two sexes, and their occasional presence in the jaws of various other peoples, including even the whites, speak against the notion of these hyperostoses being as yet true racial features.

Taking everything into consideration, the writer is more than ever convinced that the lingual hyperostoses of the normal lower (as well as the upper) jaw, in the Eskimo as elsewhere, are physiological, ontogenic developments, whose object and function is the strengthening of the lower alveolar process in its lateral portions. Only when excessively developed, which is very rare, they may, mechanically, perhaps cause discomfort and thereby approach a pathological condition.

FOOTNOTES:

[169] None in the younger children.

[170] All in older children or adolescents.

[171] Danielli, J., Arch. p. l'antrop. e l'etnol., 1884, XIV.

[172] Meddel. om. Grønl., 1887, No. 17.

[173] Beitr. Kraniol. d. Insul. w. Küste Amer., 1889, 398.

[174] Arch. Anthrop., 1902, XXVII, 70.

[175] J. Anthr. Inst., 1900, XXX, 134.

[176] Abh. und Ber. Zool. und Anthr. Mus., Dresden, 1908, XII.

[177] Sitzber. preuss. Ak. Wiss., LI-LIII.

[178] Anthrop. Pap's. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., V, pt. II.

[179] Verh. Ges. Finn. Zahnärzte, 1912, IX.

MAIN REFERENCES

Danielli,[180] 1884: "Saw the condition in lower jaws of 1 Swede, 1 Italian, 1 Terra di Lavoro jaw, 1 Slovene, 1 Hungarian, 1 Kirghis, 1 ancient Peruvian."

Found hyperostoses in 9 out of 14 Ostiak lower jaws.

Material: Young 2, adult 6, old 6.

Hyperostoses in young 1, adult 3, old 5.

Mantegazza, at his request, examined some Ostiak and Eskimo skulls in Berlin and found the hyperostoses in 2 Ostiak lower jaws (slight) and in 1 Eskimo skull from Greenland (marked).

Found also smaller hyperostoses in the upper jaw ventrally to the molars ("situate quasi sempre dalla parte interna in corrispondenza dei molari"):

Skulls: 2 Italians, 1 Hungarian, 7 Norwegians, 2 Lapps, 5 Ostiaks.

Plate shows 8 lower jaws, 1 with slight, 7 with marked hyperostoses (1 symphyseal swellings, 3 tumorlike).

Refrains from interpretation (could not reach conclusion).

Previous Next

Comments

Anthropological Survey in AlaskaChapter XV: Part 15

0%34 min left in chapter