Racial variation in some parts of the skull involved in chewing

At some point, our ancestors made the switch to eating cooked food. This allowed people to get by with a less robust chewing apparatus, and the chewing apparatus did indeed become less robust. Therefore, an examination of racial variation in the chewing apparatus will surely reveal some interesting aspects of racial history.

First, we consider some parts of the skull under selection pressures related to chewing (Figure 1; see legend for details). Selection pressures refer to forces constraining trait variation.

Figure 1: Some parts of the skull under selection pressures related to chewing. The involvement of the teeth should be obvious. The red ellipses mark the regions of attachment of a major muscle involved in shutting the jaw, i.e., the masseter, which attaches to parts of the cheekbones (zygomatic bones; also known as malars), the zygomatic arches (the posterior bony arches attached to the zygomatics) and the mandible (lower jaw). The green outline marks the area over which the temporalis muscle is spread; the temporalis passes underneath the zygomatic arch.

It should be obvious that our primitive ancestors who ate raw food only would have required larger teeth. They would also have needed larger chewing muscles, larger areas for attaching chewing muscles to bones, and thereby larger bones involved in the support of chewing. As should be clear from Figure 1, they would have had larger cheekbones. Additionally, breadth “b” in Figure 1 describes the breadth of the attachment of the masseter to the lower jaw bone (mandible), and this breadth would have been larger to accommodate a larger masseter. Obviously, if one were to increase breadth “b,” the jaw would end up protruding more. Indeed, all apes and monkeys have more protrusive jaws than humans. Further, the zygomatic arches couldn’t be too flattened or else there would not be much space for a large temporalis muscle to pass beneath the arches.

With the background above, we can now address racial variation. Let us consider cheekbones first. I have previously cited formal evidence that the cheekbones of whites are smaller, on average, than those of non-whites, especially Mongoloids, Negroids and Australian aboriginals; see Figures 9 and 10 here, and this should be common observation. Hybrid populations with Caucasian admixture--such as Hindoos--also have more prominent cheekbones than whites, on average, likely due to major Australoasiatic genetic influence among Hindoos.

Next, we consider the mandible (lower jaw). Figure 2 shows mandibular variation across some major races.

Figure 2: Mandibular variation across some major races. [1]

It is clearly seen from Figure 2 that whites have, on average, smaller mandibles than Negroes and Mongoloids. Australian aboriginals also have larger mandibles than whites; see, for example, the two pictures at the bottom right of Figure 7 here. Figure 2 also shows that the order of jaw protrusion is Negro > Mongoloid > white. Although the lower jaw is smaller in whites than in other races, whites have better chin development than non-whites, and this is something that I will properly address later on.

In Figure 3 below, note that although the woman on the left has a small lower jaw, the shape of her lower jaw is not very European-looking due to a weak chin and a strong angle of the mandible. The angle of the mandible is formed by the vertical and horizontal parts of the mandible at the gonion (labeled in Figure 5); see Figure 2 for racial variation in the angle of the mandible.

Figure 3: Small but not very European-looking mandible of the woman on the left. The woman on the right is Natalie Portman, and I have pictured her because Arcane posted two of the same pictures of her in a previous post of mine, with hair covering her facial breadth. See how feminine Natalie Portman is from the side and also contrast her mandible with that of the woman in Figure 4.

In Figure 4 below, note that the angle of the mandible is so altered that the jawline approaches a smooth curve, and the chin is better developed than that of the woman on the left in Figure 3.

Note angle of the mandible in the white woman.
Figure 4: Note angle of the mandible. A slightly sharper angle of the mandible would look better on her, but this image is offered as an example of an extreme within the normal, non-malformed mandible range among whites.

Next, we apply the knowledge above to European aesthetics; see Figure 5 in this regard.

Figure 5: Some structures that should be observed in regard to mandible attractiveness in the images below.

Attractive whites should have chin length greater than the average for non-whites; mandibular body length shorter than the average for non-whites; the angle at the gonion, also known as the angle of the mandible, less sharp than the average for non-whites; and cheekbones that are smaller than the average for non-whites. In the event that these requirements are not obvious, the following images should suffice to convince.

In Figure 6 below, contrast the beastly appearance of Maria Shriver--thanks to her remarkably primitive mandible and zygomatics--to that of the fine-featured woman on the right and the fine-plus-soft-featured woman at the bottom. Primitive means ancestral, not inferior.

Figure 6: The beastly appearance of Maria Shriver contrasted with that of a fine-featured woman and a fine-plus-soft-featured woman.

Figure 7 shows cheekbone variation among white women, ranging from the extremely primitive to the normal.

Cheekbone variation. The first and second rows show primitive cheekbones. The third row shows mildly primitive to borderline primitive cheekbones. The last two rows show normal cheekbone variation, including aesthetic range.
Figure 7: Cheekbone variation. The first and second rows show primitive cheekbones. The third row shows mildly primitive to borderline primitive cheekbones. The last two rows show normal cheekbone variation, including aesthetic range.

Figure 8 shows mandible variation, ranging from the extremely primitive to the normal.

Figure 8: Top row shows extremely primitive mandibles that may also be accompanied by primitive cheekbones. Middle row shows mandibles that border on the primitive, and the rightmost approaches normal. The bottom row shows normal and classic European mandibles.

Artists often possess a sophisticated aesthetic sense, and when asked to sketch realistic portraits of attractive white women, do not sketch cheekbones and jawlines that look primitive (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Paintings of white women by the great artist Hajime Sorayama.

Since there is a normal range of mandible variation among whites (Figure 2), the aesthetic range of mandible variation among whites is the subset of the normal range that is less primitive and thereby more European. It is easy to picture that if one were to extend the “Europeanization” of the mandible to a point where the mandible goes outside the normal range of mandible variation among whites, then the mandible will become less attractive, and a similar idea applies to zygomatic variation. Therefore, one of the selective forces constraining skeletal size and shape variation is sexual selection, which refers to the tendency to mate with partners that one finds sexually appealing and avoid partners that one finds sexually unappealing.

Compared to apes, the gracilization in humans of the skeletal structures that support chewing has a straightforward explanation. Before the transition to eating cooked food, those with less robust chewing structures would have a more difficult time obtaining adequate nutrition, but the transition to cooking made it easier for these individuals to obtain adequate nutrition. Add in the possibility of a greater prevalence of some Darwinian-fitness-enhancing factors among those with less robust chewing structures and a visual aesthetic bias toward less robust facial features, then given enough generations, one will obtain a more gracile chewing apparatus. However, how does one explain the racial differences? One possibility is that the ancestors of whites made the transition to eating cooked food before the ancestors of non-whites did. Another possibility is that all human populations made the transition to eating cooked food at the same time, but either sexual selection operated more strongly among Europeans or sexual selection operated equally strongly among all human populations but the non-Europeans had less of a visual aesthetic bias toward less robust facial features. Looking at racial variation in overall tooth size will partly help address this question since one does not normally examine tooth size before mating with someone. Figure 10 shows population variation in overall tooth size.

Figure 10: Overall tooth size across different human populations, both present and ancestral. [2] Historical samples from Europe: Ensay (Late Medieval to Postmedieval periods, Scotland), Repton/Poundbury (Late Roman period, Southwest England), Spitalfields 1 (Mid-Victorian period, London) and Spitalfields 2 (Pre-17th century, London). The early S.E. Asian samples come from: Mesolithic Malay, Gua Cha; Neolithic Vietnam and Laos; and Bang Chang site, early Iron age, Thailand.

Figure 10 shows that the smallest teeth are present among whites, Ainus and Negritos. Since the Negritos are practically dwarves compared to whites, their teeth are larger than whites relative to body size. Hindoo tooth size lies toward the higher end of white tooth size, but then Hindoos have Caucasian admixture and are physically smaller than whites, and Hindoos in southern India are smaller than Hindoos in Northern India; i.e., Hindoos have larger teeth--with respect to body size--than whites, on average. Since a major contribution to the Hindoo gene pool is Australoasiatic and S.E. Asians and Australian aboriginals have larger teeth than Hindoos (except Negritos), the smaller teeth among Hindoos compared to their Asiatic neighbors appear to be a result of Caucasian admixture. The smaller teeth of the Somalis among black Africans appear to be a result of non-Negroid admixture. Indeed, the residents of Eastern Africa thousands of years ago were not a Negroid people. [3]

Figure 10 strongly suggests that Europeans and the Ainus of Japan were the first people to transition to eating cooked food, which is confirmed by archeological evidence. [4] The question of the intensity of sexual selection across different populations cannot be answered within this post, but one can likely rule out the possibility than non-whites have less of a visual aesthetic bias toward gracile facial features. Indeed, Negroids and Mongoloids passed off as attractive by Negroids and Mongoloids, respectively, are farther removed--in the direction of gracility--from the average of jaw and cheekbone structures in their respective populations than attractive whites are with respect to the average of these structures in Northern Europe.

Therefore, it appears that a major factor that explains the racial differences in some parts of the skull involved in chewing is that Europeans made an earlier transition to cooking food than non-Europeans did (except the Ainus, who have more Caucasoid facial features than the typical Japanese), likely because they along with the Ainus were the first people to produce humans intelligent enough to tame fire and put it to practical use.

The discussion above allows us to partly answer a question previously asked by Svigor:

Can one of the luminaries here or perhaps a lurking GnXp type explain that I consistently see a masculinity in non-white women that I don’t in white women? This may be accepted as a loaded question, but it isn’t offered as one; I genuinely see it and I’d like to know what the thinking is, whether it’s a chimera of bias or a function of kinship or ev psych or a combo or what.

Well, masculinization sharpens the angle of the mandible, [5] and a sharper angle of the mandible is also a primitive trait (Figures 1 and 2). Additionally, more robust zygomatics/zygomatic arches and more robust mandibles (excluding the chin) add ruggedness to the face, happen to be more primitive traits and are disproportionately more characteristic of non-whites. Therefore, part of what appears to be greater facial masculinity among non-white women to Svigor and undoubtedly many others is not higher masculinization among them but simply greater retention of primitive and thereby robust facial features.

Once again, it should be clear that race mixing will not be enhancing the beauty of the most attractive whites; see Figure 11 in this regard and think about the possibility of race mixing producing the facial structures shown in Figure 9.

Figure 11: Mixing whites and Negroids produces intermediate types, but hair dyes or hair straightening notwithstanding, the presence of primitive Negroid mandibular and zygomatic structures cannot be disguised. Primitive means ancestral, not inferior. By the way, contrast the white woman with Natalie Portman in Figure 3.

Literature cited:

1. Bastir M, Rosas A, Kuroe K: Petrosal orientation and mandibular evidence for an integrated petroso-developmental unit. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2004, 123:340-350.
2. Hanihara T, Ishida H: Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20080.
3. Howells WW: Skull shapes and the map. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 1989, 79:1-189.
4. Brace CL, Rosenberg KR, Hunt KD: What big teeth you had grandma! Human tooth size, past and present. In Advances in dental anthropology. Edited by Kelly MA, Larsen CS. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1991: 33-57
5. Rosas A, Bastir M: Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2002, 117:236-245.

Posted by J Richards on Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 09:25 AM in Anthropology, Race realism
Comments (31) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 16, 2005, 11:36 AM | #

J Richards: have u considered submitting your work to the TOQ? They’re magnificent and deserve the widest audience possible.

Posted by Pericles on June 16, 2005, 12:19 PM | #

Heather Locklear. Mmmmmm.

http://www.undying.com/celeb/Heather_Locklear/12.htm

Interesting Lumbee background.

Pericles

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 16, 2005, 12:51 PM | #

J Richards, a really fascinating post. It explained why I find the “gonion” area (I’d never heard that word before) of the girl at the bottom left in figure 8 particularly attractive. It seems beautifully soft and feminine. Presumably my attraction is based at least partly on the fact that it is a particularly “gracile” feature of European women.

BTW a question. If women like rugged square jawed men, then why hasn’t this been a counter tendency to “gracilization”?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 16, 2005, 12:53 PM | #

A couple of things:

Is this paragraph a potential weakness?:

“Therefore, it appears that a major factor that explains the racial differences in some parts of the skull involved in chewing is that Europeans made an earlier transition to cooking food than non-Europeans did (except the Ainus, who have more Caucasoid facial features than the typical Japanese), likely because they along with the Ainus were the first people to produce humans intelligent enough to tame fire and put it to practical use.”

Will critics say that human mastery of fire and, with it, cooking, occurred before the differentiation of humans into the races predominant today?

The other thing is, I believe one of the differences between the Negro and European face is the Negro’s face is just bigger overall: for the same size head a Negro man’s or woman’s entire face will on average be bigger—will simply cover a larger area—than a European man’s or woman’s entire face. I personally see this as an esthetic problem for the Negro race; others of course don’t (and some of course will see it as the opposite—an esthetic problem for the European race).

Posted by Pericles on June 16, 2005, 01:18 PM | #

This on neoteny at Nusapiens.

http://nusapiens.blogspot.com/2005/02/neoteny-and-human-evolution.html

Pericles

Posted by john fitzgerald on June 16, 2005, 01:38 PM | #

Rushton, in a lecture, spoke of the jaw changing to accomodate a larger brain, which as it increased in size had a cascading effect on the jaw.

Posted by J Richards on June 16, 2005, 03:13 PM | #

Tournament of Champions,

Thank you for suggesting TOQ. I may consider contacting the editors at TOQ over some issues such as the notion of race. I plan on a line-by-line refutation of the absurdities of the American Anthropological Association’s position statement on race, something that will require massive documentation, and I suppose that I can use a combination of multi-part postings at MR and a possible review in the TOQ. Besides, posting at MR certainly helps disperse interesting ideas to a wide audience. MR’s star is rising, which translates to gradually improving exposure to others.

Mark Richardson,

You will have noted my comment on the fact that the entire jaw except the chin has become smaller in Europeans, and the chin is actually better developed among Europeans. You have correctly pointed out that masculinization is in conflict with gracility. Thus, if there are preferences for gracility among both sexes and adequate masculinization in males, then guess what this conflict will do? It will alter the shape of various structures such that some parts more strongly reflect the preference for gracility and other parts more strongly reflect selection for masculinization/other factors. Apes do not have a true chin, or you can simply consider that apes have a very weak chin. Thus, better chin development in humans is something that is specifically human and not primitive, and more robust development of the chin corresponds to a less ape-like or more human-like trait, whereas more robust development in the gonial region corresponds to a more ape-like and less human-like trait. Thus, a preference for adequate masculinization in males and a preference for gracility of facial features can be realized if these preferences affect different structures to different degrees. Addressing the human chin requires a separate post by itself, which I will eventually come up with.

Posted by J Richards on June 16, 2005, 03:15 PM | #

Fred Scrooby,

See citation #4 for archeological evidence that Europeans and the Ainu transitioned to cooking before other human populations; the archeological evidence also reveals these populations to be the first ones to use pottery. Now, you do realize that pottery requires the ability to have mastered fire, and both these items are relevant to cooking. Besides, variation in overall tooth size across different populations speaks for itself. If anyone insists that cooking/pottery predates human racial differentiation, the burden of proof is on him, and I will be very interested in seeing such proof.

Regarding your comment on overall facial size, many parts of the Negroid face are larger than that of whites, but the shape is different, too.

Pericles,

Since you link to a post on neoteny by Nusapiens, some comments on neoteny are pertinent. For those unfamiliar with this term, neoteny refers to the retention in the adult of physical traits that characterized the juvenile/earlier stage of development of one’s ancestors. Nusapiens makes a reference to the work of Stephen J. Gould on neoteny, but several of Gould’s ideas on this topic have been debunked. It has been shown that overall facial size in humans can be considered neotenous since our ape/ape-like ancestors undoubtedly had a larger face as adults and a more human-sized face as juveniles. However, the shape of the human face is not neotenous; it is a separate development. I will specifically address the issues of neoteny and its cousin--i.e., pedomorphy--later on. Besides, Nusapiens interestingly mentions Arnold Schwarzenegger, who in his estimate should have an easy time obtaining women due to his muscularity. I wonder why Schwarzenegger ended up with a woman who looks like a beast. He probably has strange interests. Someone of his stature and finances should not have any problems obtaining plenty of women on the sly, yet there have been several charges against him of having groped uninterested women, and he is even alleged to have engaged in group sex with a black woman.

John Fitzgerald,

Your point is relevant to speciation, i.e., the transformation of apes to humans, but not racial differentiation among humans. Rushton has extensively documented brain size differences across major human populations, and shown that Mongoloids have slightly larger brains than whites, yet they also have a more massive jaw (less developed chin, though) than whites.

Posted by JW Holliday on June 16, 2005, 04:20 PM | #

JR,

I presume Arnold’s interest in Shriver is based upon her Kennedy family connections. Although Arnold is a Republican (meaningless) it’s a big step up for this Austrian immigrant/bodybuilder/action film star to marry into America’s “royal family”, such as it is.

I do not think the marriage was based on her physical attractiveness, which, as you point out, is rather limited.

Posted by Amman on June 16, 2005, 08:29 PM | #

Somalis among black Africans appear to be a result of non-Negroid admixture. Indeed, the residents of Eastern Africa thousands of years ago were not a Negroid people.

Hmm...this actually ties into something I’ve wanted to ask for for a while, JR. African history’s not my forte, but I’m wondering, do you know anything about the old kingdom of Ghana and its later successor, Mali? Specifically, was there a great deal of Caucasian admixture in the populations of either of those two kingdoms? All I’ve heard is that Ghana’s administration consisted of Arabs, but for the Mali and its Mandinke populace, I’m not so sure. Was Mansa Musa Caucasian or anything? This is something I’ve really been wondering about for a while, I’d be much obliged to anyone with a better grasp of African history if they could help me out.

Posted by J Richards on June 17, 2005, 08:48 PM | #

JW Holliday,
Thank you for your note. I had previously come across information on Schwarzenegger’s ambition to marry into the Kennedy clan, but still, one has to wonder about the psychology of a man who has riches and can have plenty of attractive women, yet sidesteps genetic considerations to marry into a famous clan.

Amman,
I am not aware of how Mansa Musa looked like, and if what is said about him is true, then I’d be pretty impressed if he was a black man without significant non-Negroid genetic admixture. Anyway, skulls found in East Africa from thousands of years ago are non-Negroid, as extensively documented in W. W. Howells’ collection. Other than this, I do not know more about these non-Negroid people, but I will find out more and post any interesting information that I may come across.

Posted by katerina on August 07, 2005, 04:27 AM | #

what can u do to get the zygomatic bone to enable /form the
> > > > >>>prominences of
> > > > >>>the cheeks “
> > > >

Posted by J Richards on August 27, 2005, 06:21 AM | #

Katerina,

I am not so sure that I understand your question. If you have regressed cheekbones and a narrow face and want to know how to make your face broader, I am afraid that you are looking at some surgical implants to improve the aesthetics of your face. The right hairstyling is a reasonable non-surgical alternative that you should consider. Avoid having your hair drawn back (in a ponytail or equivalent) since this will clearly point out facial narrowing; you may consider parting your hair in the middle and letting your hair cascade over your cheekbones on either side. I hope this helps.

Posted by Duval on October 07, 2005, 05:53 PM | #

Hi,
I find this topic really interesting.

However, some points require some refinements.

Part of your theory relate face robustness with hierarchy on the evolution scale.

However, I can show countless examples of very robust face, very square gonial and cheekbones among white people. An example would be male actor, scandinavian actor Dolph Lundren: VERY square jaw and cheekbones, yet, you can handly find more “white” than this man.

One the other side, I can show you countless examples blacks with very soft gonial angle and cheekbones.

You didn’t mention in your article the relation between bones extremities and levels of hormones. High level of testosterone AND growth hormone will promote larger jaw, squarer gonial, longer chin. These are mostly male traits… women are more gracile, and I don’t think that women are more “evolved” than men.

Also, you should realize that high cheekbones in women, are mostly due to FAT deposit there. In your figure 7, I can guarantee you that the woman on the upper left corner has its cheek full of fat, not bone. And I don’t think that she is less evolved (more primitive) than the one on the lower right corner. Actually, high cheekbones are usually a sign of beauty, because it reflects fat (feminity)in woman, and testosterone in men. Gracil chin is desirable in woman, because it reflects low testosterone level. My point is that in the case of these women, you chose wrong examples.

I agree primitiveness and robustness equate, BUT, wide zygomatic arch is not as easy to determine from a picture. Caucasian usually have more pronounced cheekbones than negroid. The all winner are Mongoloid, with broadest cheekbones. Yet I’m not sure that Mongoloid are more “primitive” than mongoloid.

I think there is much more than “race” in the condition of the face robustness. Hormones play a role. Sex plays a role also.

I think that your overall thinking is good, but is weak on some aspects because it didn’t integrate some essential notion in face craniometry.

Cordially,
Duval

Posted by Duval on October 07, 2005, 06:03 PM | #

Artists often possess a sophisticated aesthetic sense, and when asked to sketch realistic portraits of attractive white women, do not sketch cheekbones and jawlines that look primitive

This is because soft jawline, round cheeks are a sign of feminity, and has nothing to do with race: the artist would draw the opposite features for an attractive white male: strong, square jawline, square cheekbones.

Cordially,
Duval

Posted by J Richards on October 08, 2005, 10:28 AM | #

Duval,

Here is part 1 of my reply to your comments.

Part of your theory relate face robustness with hierarchy on the evolution scale.

This is not true. I have not talked about some groups being more evolutionary advanced than others. I have talked about differential retention of primitive traits across races and the underlying reasons.

However, I can show countless examples of very robust face, very square gonial and cheekbones among white people. An example would be male actor, scandinavian actor Dolph Lundren: VERY square jaw and cheekbones, yet, you can handly find more “white” than this man.

One the other side, I can show you countless examples blacks with very soft gonial angle and cheekbones.

What you have stated is a different way of pointing out what is clearly shown in Fig 2 above, i.e., an overlap between races. I have also shown pictures of white women with primitive-looking cheekbones and lower jaws, and it would be incorrect for you to assume that I am not aware of non-white women with more gracile cheekbones and lower jaws than these white women. However, the point is that on average, the chewing apparatus found among whites is more gracile than what is observed in other populations. Alternatively, if you were to rank individuals based on how gracile their chewing apparatus is, the great majority of people with the most gracile chewing apparatus will also be white.

You didn’t mention in your article the relation between bones extremities and levels of hormones.

Factors behind variation in the chewing apparatus include factors that differ between races (the race factor) and factors that are common to the races (such as the influence of testosterone and growth hormone, as you have mentioned). If you read the title, my article is concerned with the race factor, not other factors behind trait variation. Now, there is racial variation in regard to hormone levels such as testosterone, but the major factors behind central tendency differences between the races in regard to the chewing apparatus are genes, not hormone levels, and I am talking about genes other than those that determine hormone levels.

These are mostly male traits… women are more gracile, and I don’t think that women are more “evolved” than men.

Nowhere have I said that those that have retained more primitive-looking traits are somehow less evolved, and I am addressing race differences, not sex differences.

Also, you should realize that high cheekbones in women, are mostly due to FAT deposit there.

Fat tissue is not firm enough to provide the right shape. There is not enough fat over the cheekbones to notably add to its prominence. Fat deposits are found in the fleshy portion of the cheeks below the cheekbones. Besides, men have higher cheekbones [stacked vertically higher] than women.

In your figure 7, I can guarantee you that the woman on the upper left corner has its cheek full of fat, not bone.

You are mistaken. Look carefully and you will notice that the woman’s cheeks, right below the cheekbones, are sunken in, i.e., the woman has little fat in her cheek region, and the prominence of her cheeks is due to massive cheekbones.

And I don’t think that she is less evolved (more primitive) than the one on the lower right corner.

Once again, you are assuming something that has not been implied. More primitive does not mean less evolved, it means more ancestral. Within the biological sciences, it is not meaningful to talk about a gorilla being less evolved than humans, even thought gorillas have been around longer than humans and retain more primitive traits than humans do.

Posted by J Richards on October 08, 2005, 10:30 AM | #

Duval,

Here is part 2 of my reply to your comments.

Actually, high cheekbones are usually a sign of beauty, because it reflects fat (feminity)in woman, and testosterone in men.

You appear to be confounding vertical placement of the cheekbones with the horizontal placement of the cheekbones. High cheekbones as in greater height compared to the rest of the face reflect masculinization and therefore look good in men but not in women. A broader face shape due to bone structure reflects feminization and looks good in women but not men.

Caucasian usually have more pronounced cheekbones than negroid.

Blacks, on average, have broader faces (more pronounced cheekbones) than whites:

American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2002) 117, 37-48.

Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (1989) 79, 1-189.

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery (2001) 3, 191-197.

I think there is much more than “race” in the condition of the face robustness. Hormones play a role. Sex plays a role also.

Non-racial factors are not relevant to my article.

This is because soft jawline, round cheeks are a sign of feminity, and has nothing to do with race: the artist would draw the opposite features for an attractive white male: strong, square jawline, square cheekbones.

Once again, my article does not focus on sex differences, but race differences, instead. If artists tried to draw black or Asian women with the gracile cheekbones and lower jaws of the women drawn in Fig 9 above, they would hardly look Negroid or Mongoloid, respectively.

Posted by Mirek on January 05, 2006, 07:27 PM | #

Great article, i was searching it everywere.

Women hava a more progressive temperament than man but ban have more progressive mind and his emotions are stable

Posted by chatty on January 05, 2006, 07:28 PM | #

sorry for mistake
Women hava a more progressive temperament than man but MAN have more progressive mind and his emotions are stable

Posted by Notorious Hovani on April 03, 2006, 09:19 PM | #

I like the pornstar mandibles you have on this site.
HAUGHT!!!!!!!!

Posted by Masu on May 26, 2006, 03:07 AM | #

very very interesting. my skull is very very thin and small, so this helped me learn why people’s faces are different overall. but while a lot of it has to do with bone structure, facial muscles play an immense role. there are facial exercises both men and women can perform to drastically change their appearance to look like any of the women up here. also, i disagree with the whole primitive and european ideas of looking aesthetically better. i myself tend to care more about eyes than jaw and cheeks.

Posted by Mantis on November 27, 2006, 01:17 PM | #

Is there such an article for men too ?
It is really interesting, I have found a similar article, http://www.beautyanalysis.com/mba_normalfacevariations_page.htm

If you have a link with such a study on men’s face variation I would be happy to read it.
It’s a treasure for artists

Posted by J Richards on December 01, 2006, 04:12 AM | #

Mantis,

There is no similar article focusing on men’s faces here, but similar variation will be found in men, too.

The beauty analysis site that you have referred to has a problem. The author is pushing a mask that is not valid; I have addressed it here.

Posted by MC on January 01, 2007, 12:36 PM | #

Why do I get the feeling that some of these shots were lifted from porno?

Posted by Robert on May 15, 2007, 07:27 PM | #

it would be interesting to post this study looking at the male facial structure, with photographic examples.

thanks

Posted by MCCM on May 15, 2007, 08:03 PM | #

“Why do I get the feeling that some of these shots were lifted from porno?

Because they were?

Posted by stangg on July 11, 2007, 03:16 AM | #

OK, I just have 1 thing to say about this:
Look at the pictures, note that the “extremely primitive” features are taken from MODELS like Kate Moss whereas the “normal” “fine-plus-soft” are taken from pornmodels.
What does that tell you?
What the author calls “extremely primitive” is in fact considered to be beautiful by most people and model agencies.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2007, 03:33 AM | #

No Stangg, it tells you that 1) what’s phylogenetically primitive in women is considered attractive by homosexuals in the fashion industry and, as a result, by the eleven-to-sixteen-year-old girls whom they decisively influence, and 2) that normal men with normal tastes who look at porn prefer their women to be the “normal, fine-plus-soft” variety, not the mannish, primitive Kate-Moss/Grace-Jones variety who are the only ones Eighth-Avenue homos are capable of finding attractive. Looks as if you got that one-hundred-percent wrong, doesn’t it Stangg, but that’s OK — as Humphrey Bogart said, in this life you win some and you lose some, but it all comes out even in the end ... So don’t lose heart ... just smarten up a little ...

Posted by stangg on July 11, 2007, 03:53 AM | #

Smarten up a little?
YOU need to do that my primitive homophobic (and probably racist too?) friend.

Posted by justin on July 27, 2007, 05:35 PM | #

why can nobody state the obvious without the liberal/marxist/left-wing goons attacking ,insulting and muddying the water with the predictable terms; racist,sexist homophobic et al?
all normal people feel an aversion to those that are different to them. thats the protection thats built in,to keep a reasonable social order. not the artificial social order imposed by a socialist/communist state.

Next entry: Why I am a Monarchist

Previous entry: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa