English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Beginning in the Paleolithic and continuing through the present, a Pleistocene through Holocene trend within the human dentition has been recognized. Dental reduction, a reduction in tooth crown diameter, dramatically changed the morphology of teeth. Though Europe demonstrated a dramatic form of this trend between the Early and Late Upper Paleolithic, other areas expressed this change as well, including Nubia where dental reduction occurred most dramatically from 12,000-10,000 B.P. and 5,300-3,000 B.P. (Calcagno, 1986; Hillson, 1996). Dental reduction is a clear representation of morphological change seen within the fossil record, the cause of which has been debated. Many scholars have attempted to explain dental reduction (Armelagos et al., 1989, Bailit and Friedlaender, 1966; Brace and Mahler, 1971; Calcagno, 1986, Calcagno and Gibson, 1988, 1991; Frayer, 1977, 1978; Smith 1982; Smith et al., 1986; Greene, 1970) without agreement. One possible explanation lies within the archaeological record. Increased tool quality during the Upper Paleolithic reduced the masticatory demand on teeth (Frayer, 1978; Brace and Mahler, 1971; Brace, 1963). Because no selective pressures existed to maintain large tooth size, reduction resulted from the Probable Mutation Effect (PME), which suggests that, “through random mutations, the developmental processes controlled by complex genetic mechanisms will be disrupted with the final result being an incomplete or simplified structure” (Brace and Mahler, 1971:192). This theory became quite controversial because of its rejection of the selection-based synthetic theory of evolution, which remains the accepted mode (Bailit and Friedlaender, 1966). Another explanation for crown size reduction also relates to changes seen within the archaeological record (Calcagno and Gibson, 1991), changes resulting from The Relationship between Crown Size and Complexity in Two Collections