Brock McCloy

Anthropology 1050-006
11/26/15
Evolution of the chin
For my project I decided to research the evolution of the chin. It is an interesting topic
that hasnt been covered in class yet. Our ancient ancestors arent known for having chins.
Modern man, however, is well known for his chin. The question is, as time moved on what
caused the development of the chin? One theory is that as we developed the ability to speak in a
more complex way our chin developed. Another theory is that as our teeth got smaller the jaw
got smaller creating the chin.
First to help clarify Ill define what is meant by chin. The chin is the projection or point
on the under jaw, below the mouth (Waterman Pg. 237). Dr. Louis Robinson M.D. wrote an
article titled The Story of the Chin in this article he talks about how the chin developed as
humans learned and expanded their ability of complex speech. The genio-glossus muscle
connects to the inner portion of the jaw, it connects to the tongue and is fan shaped. This muscle
plays a key role in our ability to speak. Dr. Robinson claims that this muscle is, (Waterman Pg.
238). As man called upon this muscle more and more to create more complex speech it caused
the chin to develop. This idea is one that has been around for a long time. Walkhoff brought this
theory forward in 1901 (Waterman Pg. 283). One issue found with this theory is that some
animals have a chin. Most notably is the elephant. We all know that elephants dont have a
complex language like humans do. The chin and speech did develop together. However, given
the example of the elephant we can assume that speech did not cause the formation of the chin.
The question remains, how did the human chin develop? The other theory Ive already
mentions is the reduction in tooth and mouth size. As the human diet changed the tooth changed
along with it. The teeth became smaller the canine tooth also dramatically decreased in size. As
the teeth became smaller the alveolar process, a piece of bone the tooth connects to, became
smaller as well. This could be for multiple reasons, too accommodate the smaller tooth size and
an unnecessary need to spend energy on the construction of that bone (Oetteking Pg. 566). The
lower jaw could be divided into two sections an upper section, the teeth and alveolar process, and

the bottom sections. Ancient man has been found to have a much larger jaw than we have today.
As those teeth decreased it size in directly influenced the alveolar process. The bone immediately
reacted to the change and got smaller as well. Meanwhile the bottom part of the lower jaw was
not directly affected by the change in tooth size. There was no need to the bottom part to react as
fast (Waterman Pg. 241). Now W.D. Wallis stated, The various portions of the skull are so
closely interrelated, either structurally or functionally, that any considerable change in a given
region is apt to be reflected by corresponding or compensating changes throughout the entire
skull (Oetteking Pg. 567). This state could possibly bring in a third option to answer the
question. Helmut Hemmer talks about the correlation between the braincase and the facial
skeleton. As the Australopithecus evolved into the Genus Homo it is important to note that the
facial skeleton began to get smaller and the braincase began to get bigger as the brain size began
to change. If what Wallis stated is true, the change in brain case could have caused the changed
in the facial skeleton. What Hemmer talks about in his article is that change in braincase size
over time. As the braincase because increasing the facial skeleton began to shrink (Hemmer Pg.
179). As the bottom section of the jaw is the furthest away from the braincase it could possibly
be less effected by the shrinkage found in the facial skeleton.
Weve explored many different options in answering our question. As time moved on
what caused the development of the chin? Though the idea of speech being the primary cause for
the development of the chin is an old idea it is still being disputed today (Oetteking Pg. 566). The
idea that the change in tooth size directly effecting the bone its attached to makes a lot of sense
and seems to be most logical. The idea that there is a correlation between braincase size and the
facial skeleton makes sense but I think more proof should be provided as to what the correlation
really is. This information helps to build a basic foundation or idea as to what are some of the
major answers to the question.

Bibliography
Hemmer, Helmut. A New View of the Evolution of Man. Current Anthropology 10.2/3 (1969):
179180. Web...
Oetteking, Bruno. American Anthropologist 19.4 (1917): 565568. Web...
Waterman, T. T.. Evolution of the Chin. The American Naturalist 50.592 (1916): 237242.
Web...