Authors
Dr. Preeti Singh
Abstract
Since the very beginning of anthropology, anthropometry has played a vital role in acknowledging human evolution and variations. It is a technique used to measure somato-metric dimensions of a body whether living, dead or a cadaver. Anthropometry had its importance in population variation and racial classification, but its newer applied magnitudes have gained heights in various other fields ergonomically. The present study focuses on the cephalo- facial aspects of two group of females- the Brahmin and the Rajput of Lucknow district which are endogamous in nature, having common gene pool. Thus, are Mendelian populations. 600 individuals were randomly selected as sample for the study (300 for each group). These types of studies are significant in India because India exhibits varied forms of castes, creeds, religions, culture, customs. It is seen that the two group of females under study have more differences for their cephalo- facial measurements. The similarities or say insignificant differences in two endogamous groups can be attributed to parallelism and their adaptive environments.. Keywords: Anthropometry, Mendelian population, Cephalometry, Females, Brahmin and Rajput.
Introduction
Populations are organized with a definite form and are not merely clusters of individuals, and this change is dynamic as it has continuity. Thus, each population itself is structured having a definite form, manifested in a series of biological and cultural characteristics. This uniqueness of a population may be ascribed to the uniqueness of its individuals. Each population has specific structure, some resemble each other due to biological and cultural exchange on account of physical and cultural contacts. However, according to Harrison and Boyce (1972) it must be recognized that a complex interplay between biological and cultural factors can and probably does occur in the organization of human populations and that biological and social structure should not be seen as independent but as having broad interphase (Agnihotri, 1996). Populations are recognized on the basis of some particular components depending on the interest example- demographic, genetic, social, ecological, odontometeric, morphological etc.
Among all the attributes within human body, head and face have always been considered the most important. Besides their significance in the study of population classification and variation, these are equally important in individual identification. Head and face measurements provide important imprints which make an individual distinct from others and hence they are the best markers and indicators of phenotypic variability in humans.
The cranial vault, the base and the face are the major regions of growth. The dento-facial forms depend mainly upon the growth of skull from the early fetal life up to adolescence. The way teeth will develop depends largely upon the cephalo-facial structure and vice-versa. The reduction in the teeth size and the number of cusps will directly affect the cephalic structures. Similarly, greater reduction in the size of alveolar process with less of prognathism and increasing tendency for crowding of teeth in the jaws, reduction in the Supra orbital form and general robustness of the facial structure – especially mastication and development of chin, will also affect the jaw and cephalic structures.
Today it is a known fact the somatic measurements and observations are plastic in nature, hence flexible and are affected by environmental conditions and cultural heritage, and as such exhibit differential trends in their external phenotypic morphology.
Some of the anthropometric studies conducted on populations include that of Agnihotri (1996), Farkas et al. (2005), Pandey (2006), Ngeow et al. (2009), Khan et al. (2018), Chandna et al. (2010), Staka et al. (2013), Akhter et al. (2013), Chakravarty (2015), Kataria et al. (2015), Shinde et al. (2016), Gupta et al. (2019), Wibneh et al. (2020).
References
Agnihotri, V. Demo-genetic and morphological variations among five endogamous groups of U.P. Brahmins, (Ph.D. Thesis), 1996.
Akhter, Z et al. “Photo-anthropometric study on face among Garo adult females of Bangladesh.” Bangladesh Medical Research Council bulletin vol. 39,2 (2013): 61-4. doi:10.3329/bmrcb.v39i2.19643
Chandna, Pankaj, et al. “An anthropometric survey of industrial workers of the northern region of India”. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, vol. 6, nr. 1, 2010, p. 110. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1504/ijise.2010.034000.
Farkas, Leslie G., et al. “International Anthropometric Study of Facial Morphology in Various Ethnic Groups/Races”. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, vol. 16, nr. 4, 2005, pp. 615–46. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.scs.0000171847.58031.9e.
Gupta, Shruti, e.a. “Baseline data of facial parameters in the population of Haryana: An anthropometric study”. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, vol. 11, nr. 1, 2019, p. 28. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_12_19.
Harrison, Geoffrey Ainsworth, and A. Boyce. The Structure of Human Populations. Amsterdam University Press, 1972.
Kataria, Deepu Singh et al. “Study of Variation in Total Facial Index of North Indian Population.” International Journal of Health Sciences and Research 5 (2015): 122-127.
Khan, Kamil, et al. “Adult Stature Reconstruction from Cephalo-Facial Dimension in Indian Females.” International Journal of Anatomy and Research, vol. 6, no. 2.1, 2018, pp. 5104–09. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2018.129.
Lillian Cohen; 1955- Statistical Methods for social scientists. prentice- Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Ngeow, WC, and ST Aljunid. “Craniofacial Anthropometric Norms of Malaysian Indians.” Indian Journal of Dental Research, vol. 20, no. 3, 2009, p. 313. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.57372.
Pandey, Ashok K. “Cephalo-facial Variation Among Onges”. The Anthropologist, vol. 8, nr. 4, 2006, pp. 245–49. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2006.11890971.
Shinde, SA, et al. “Craniofacial Anthropometric Measurements of Adult Indians in Angles Class I Malocclusion.” International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation, vol. 7, no. 4, 2016, p. 130. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4103/2349-5243.197459.
Singh, Indera, and M. Bhasin. A Laboratory Manual of Biological Anthropology. Delhi, Kamla-Raj Enterprises, 1989, www.krepublishers.com/amanualbiologicalanthropology.html.
Singh, K S. People of India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
Spielman, R S, and P E Smouse. “Multivariate classification of human populations. I. Allocation of Yanomama indians to villages.” American journal of human genetics vol. 28,4 (1976): 317-31.
Staka, Gloria, et al. “Cephalic and Facial Indices Among Kosovo-Albanian Population.” International Journal of Morphology, vol. 31, no. 2, 2013, pp. 468–72. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-95022013000200017.
Wibneh, Amare, et al. “Anthropometric Measurement and Comparative Analysis of Ethiopian Army Personnel Across Age, Ethnicity, and Nationality.” Defence Science Journal, vol. 70, no. 4, 2020, pp. 383–96. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14429/dsj.70.15435.
Wilder, Harris Hawthorne. “A Laboratory Manual of Anthropometry, by Harris H. Wilder ... with 43 Illustrations.” A Laboratory Manual of Anthropometry, 1920. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.17476.
How to cite this article?
| APA Style | Singh, P. (2022). A Comparative Study of Anthropometric Variations of Cephalo-Facial Dimensions. Academic Journal of Anthropological Studies, 5(1), 15–22. |
| Chicago Style | |
| MLA Style | |
| DOI | |
| URL |