CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetry

Bite force production capability and efficiency in Neandertals and modern humans

O'Connor, Carol F., Franciscus, Robert G., Holton, Nathan E.·2005·American Journal of Physical Anthropology
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although there is consensus that Neandertal craniofacial morphology is unique in the genus Homo, debate continues regarding the precise anatomical basis for this uniqueness and the evolutionary mechanism that produced it. In recent years, biomechanical explanations have received the most attention. Some proponents of the "anterior dental loading hypothesis" (ADLH) maintain that Neandertal facial anatomy was an adaptive response to high-magnitude forces resulting from both masticatory and paramasticatory activity. However, while many have argued that Neandertal facial structure was well-adapted to dissipate heavy occlusal loads, few have considered, much less demonstrated, the ability of the Neandertal masticatory system to generate these presumably heavy loads. In fact, the Neandertal masticatory configuration has often been simultaneously interpreted as being disadvantageous for producing large bite forces. With rare exception, analyses that attempted to resolve this conflict were qualitative rather than quantitative. Using a three-dimensional digitizer, we recorded a sequence of points on the cranium and associated mandible of the Amud 1, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, and La Ferrassie 1 Neandertals, and a sample of early and recent modern humans (n = 29), including a subsample with heavy dental wear and documented paramasticatory behavior. From these points, we calculated measures of force-production capability (i.e., magnitudes of muscle force, bite force, and condylar reaction force), measures of force production efficiency (i.e., ratios of force magnitudes and muscle mechanical advantages), and a measure of overall size (i.e., the geometric mean of all linear craniofacial measurements taken). In contrast to the expectations set forth by the ADLH, the primary dichotomy in force-production capability was not between Neandertal and modern specimens, but rather between large (robust) and small (gracile) specimens overall. Our results further suggest that the masticatory system in the genus Homo scales such that a certain level of force-production efficiency is maintained across a considerable range of size and robusticity. Natural selection was probably not acting on Neandertal facial architecture in terms of peak bite force dissipation, but rather on large tooth size to better resist wear and abrasion from submaximal (but more frequent) biting and grinding forces. We conclude that masticatory biomechanical adaptation does not underlie variation in the facial skeleton of later Pleistocene Homo in general, and that continued exploration of alternative explanations for Neandertal facial architecture (e.g., climatic, respiratory, developmental, and/or stochastic mechanisms) seems warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajpa.20025

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • H. sapiens facial skeletons show increased bite force relative to Middle Pleistocene hominins, which could be an advantage in fracturing hard objects.

    “it has been argued 71 that H. sapiens facial skeletons show increased bite force relative to MP hominins 72,73 , which could be an advantage in fracturing hard objects”

    From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [73]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
O'Connor, C. F., Franciscus, R. G., & Holton, N. E.
Affiliations
  • Renton Technical College (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Franciscus, Robert G.
ORCID
Holton, Nathan E.
Venue
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06
Volume
127
Issue
2
Pages
129-151
ISSN
  • 0002-9483 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-8644
DOI
10.1002/ajpa.20025
OpenAlex
W1966603114
Cited by
120
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
19.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3744 d)
Locations
  • American Journal of Physical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
Keywords
Neanderthals, bite force, masticatory biomechanics, muscle force, tooth wear
MeSH terms
Animals, Anthropometry, Biomechanical Phenomena, Bite Force, Fossils, Humans, Models, Biological, Regression Analysis, Skull, Stomatognathic System, Hominidae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review