Dr. Bhadreshkumar P Vaghela, Dr. Deepak S. Howale, Dr. Jayeshkumar P Vaghela


Introduction: Measurements of the skull are important in certain neurological conditions, grossly misshapen cranium and abnormally large heads.
A science which deals with study of the quantitative physical differences is called as “Anthropometry”. Craniometry is concerned with the
measurement on the cranium and skeleton of the face. The Facial angle measurement technique used to know evolutionary base of humans and
primates. A Facial angle is the angle that is formed between a line passing form a base of nose the upper border of external acoustic meatus and
another line passing from the most prominent part of the forehead to base of nose.
Aim: To study the facial angle in dried skull in south Gujarat region and to compare with facial angle of different races in world. To compare
evolution of prefrontal cortex in association with increase in the facial angle from animals to humans.
Material and Method: A total 75 number dried skull collected from South Gujarat. We have measured this skulls for the Facial angle during the
period of April 2015 to September 2016. The facial angle measured by skulls placed in Frankfurt's plane. The Facial angle is measured with two still
protractor and two still scales by placing one scale in Frankfurt plane and another in vertical from nasion to prosthion and angle was measured with
instrument called protractor.
Results: Out of 75 dried skull, minimum Facial angle measured is 84° and maximum is 90°. The average Facial angle measured is 87°. In view of
type of skull 70 number of skull (94.66%) are Orthognathous type, 4 number of skull (4.0%) are Mesognathous type, 1 number of skull (1.33%) are
Prognathous type.
Conclusion: The facial angle of an orthognathous skull is large (measured by whichever method), the term being more or less definitely employed
as the opposite of prognathous where the angle is small, or as the mean between prognathous and hyperorthognathic or opisthognathous, where the
angle is excessively large. As the increase in Facial angle also there is considerably increase in the size of prefrontal cortex in different races of
humans and also from primate to humans.
If we compare the size of the human brain with primates, the human brain is 3 times larger. Also in comparing proportions of individual parts, they
are also different. So logically to accommodate this enlarged prefrontal cortical area of the brain frontal bone of the skull must be enlarged and
forehead become prominent and chin placed backwards to form flat splanchnocranium. So on this evolutionary basis due to enlargement of
prefrontal cortex and frontal lobe we found increased facial angle in humans compared to other species.


Nasion,prosthion, Facial Angle, Anthropometry, South Gujarat Region

Full Text:



Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

Comas Jaun. Manual of physicalanthropology, 1960:316-318 & 407-412

Cunningham Appedixied. Measurements & Indices Empyoed.InPhysical Anthopology; 286-289.

Garson JG. The Journal of theAnthropological Institute of GreatBritain and Ireland, 1885:14; 64-83

Comas Jaun. Manual of physicalanthropology, 1960:316-318 & 407-412.

Ashley Montagu MF. An Introductionto Physical Anthroplogy, 1960:3; 458- 461 & 594-606.

Paysan P,Lüthi M .Albrecht T,LerchA, Amberg B, SantiniF,VetterT ."Face reconstruction from skull shapes andphysical attributes”. Lecture Notes inComputer Science PatternRecognition, 2009: 5748; 232-241.

Bunn DIG ,Turner P. Measurementofskulls shape and size. J.Ana.London ,1960: 94; 82-87.

Ashton EH, and Zuckerman S. CranialIndices of Plesianthropus and otherPrimates. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology, 1951: 9; 283-296.

Camper P, Meijer MC. Facial angle inSpencer F History of physicalAnthropologyand EncyclopediaGarland New York, 1997 : 373.

Green JC. The Death of AdamEvolution and Its Impact on Western Thought.The Iowa State UniversityPress Ames, 1959:19.

Lawrence W, Foote and Brown, SalemMA.Lectures on Physiology,Zoologyand the Natural History of Man,1828:115, 146–147, 289–291.

Jay Sigh P. Craniometric study volumes as an estimate of cranialcapacity. L Am. J. of PHS Anthro,1979.

Gobineau, A. The Inequality of HumanRaces, Collins A. The Noontide Press,Los Angeles, CA, 1966

Dexter R. The facial angle, PopularScience Haller J, Outcasts fromEvolution, University of Illinois PressMonthly,1874: 4; 588.- 589

Jeffries JP. The Natural History of theHuman Races, Edward O. Jenkins,New York, 1869; 347.

Haller J. Outcasts from Evolution,University of Illinois Press, Chicago,IL, 1971; 9.

Talbot, ES. Degeneracy: Its Causes,Signs, and Results, Walter Scott,Paternoster Square Charles Scribner’sSons, London, 1898: 182.

Jordan, WD. The White Man’sBurden, Oxford University Press, NewYork,1974.

Kennedy J. The Natural History ofMan; or Popular Chapters onEthnography, John CassellLondon,1860; 17–18.

Paysan P, Lüthi M, Albrecht T, LerchA, Amberg B, Santini F, Vetter T."Facereconstruction from skull shapesand physical attributes." Lecture Notesin Computer Science,2009: 5748; 232-241.

Adolphs R (2009): The social brain: neural basis of social knowledge. Annu Rev Psychol 60:693–716.

Petrides M, Cadoret GV, Mackey S (2005): Oro-facial somato-motor responses in the macaquemonkey homologue of Broca’sarea.Nature 435: 1235–1238


  • There are currently no refbacks.