Two neolithic cases of Hyperostosis frontalis interna

Hyperostosis Frontalis Interna and sex identification of two skeletons from the Early Middle Ages necropolis of Vicenne‐Campochiaro (Molise, Italy)

“…Ferembach et al, 1980;Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994). Age at death was estimated from Homo erectus Sangiran 2-1 adult female (Antò n, 1997) Neanderthal Gibraltar 1-1 female (>60 y) (Antò n, 1997) Neanderthal Shanidar 5-1 adult male (Antò n, 1997) Boileau, France (Neolithic)-2 females (>50 y) (2/189: 1%) (Devriendt et al, 2004) Naga ed-Deir, Egypt (2200-1800 BC)-1 female (aged) (Watrous et al, 1993) Giza, Egypt (2630-2350 BC)-2 males (35 and 45 y), 1 female (30 years) (Watrous et al, 1993) Kolbino, Russia (IV c. BC)-5 females (middle-aged), 1 male (middle-aged); 19% (6/32) (Buzhilova & Kozlovskaya, 2001) Isola Sacra, Italy (I-III c.)-1 female (50-60 y) (1/83: 1.2%) (Sperduti & Manzi, 1990) Sudanese Nubia (300 AD)-1 female (40 y) (Armelagos & Chrisman, 1988 (Angel et al, 1987) the degree of cranial suture fusion (Olivier, 1960;Meindl & Lovejoy, 1985;Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994) and dental wear (Brothwell, 1981;Smith, 1984;Lovejoy, 1985) for both specimens.…”

“…In particular, the radiographic examinations involved in standard autopsy procedures do not reveal the mildest cases of HFI (Hershkovitz et al, 1999;Devriendt et al, 2005). In general, HFI is observed more frequently in females and is considered to progress with age (Hershkovitz et al, 1999;Devriendt et al, 2004;Devriendt et al, 2005). In fact, 90% of the clinical cases of HFI have been observed in post-menopausal women (Salmi et al, 1962;Watrous et al, 1993;Devriendt et al, 2005).…”

“…This lesion is generally bilateral and the apposition can involve small areas the size of a grain of rice or even the entire internal surface of the frontal bone, which assumes a smooth, wavy or 'choppy sea' appearance (Mann & Murphy, 1990;Devriendt et al, 2005). In some cases, the hyperostosis extends to other bones, such as parietals, temporals and squamous part of the occipital (Ortner & Putschar, 1985;Antò n, 1997;Devriendt et al, 2004), without involving the outer table (Watrous et al, 1993). Despite the vast literature on HFI, ambiguity exists as to its aetiology, demography and history (Hershkovitz et al, 1999).…”

“…A particular case is that of Hyperostosis Frontalis Interna (HFI), documented in many osteoarchaeological cases (Hahn & Czarnetzki, 1980;Armelagos & Chrisman, 1988;Gladykowska-Rzeczycka, 1988;Sperduti & Manzi, 1990;Watrous et al, 1993;Antò n, 1997;Buzhilova & Kozlovskaya, 2001;Rü hli et al, 2004;Devriendt et al, 2004) and the subject of clinical studies in modern populations (Devriendt et al, 2005). The prevalence of HFI is age-and sex-specific, and thus could help in age and sex determination in osteological materials (Ortner & Putschar, 1985;Devriendt et al, 2005).…”

“…It should be underlined that the lack of the total number of observations in some cases, the presentation of severe cases of HFI rather than milder forms, and the poor preservation of specimens (which hinders age and sex determination) make it difficult to compare and interpret these data. Nevertheless, according to some authors, HFI is a relatively uncommon finding (Armelagos & Chrisman, 1988;Watrous et al, 1993;Devriendt et al, 2004). This may be due to different menstrual and ovulatory patterns, as well as different ages at menarche and menopause, in past populations (implying minimal oestrogen exposure) (Hershkovitz et al, 1999), the difference in longevity between past and current populations (Armelagos & Chrisman, 1998), sampling bias and inadequate sample size (Antò n, 1997), and different study methods (direct examination, radiography) (Barber et al, 1997).…”