Talk:Artificial cranial deformation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BradNorgle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Effect on intelligence?

Does this practise cause damage to the brain? Has anyone studied the effects on learning, speech, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.131.58 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing on the health effects of this... Arny (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read accounts that the Huns in particular, were noted to be 'enraged' as a type of religious aspect. Maybe something to that. 63.135.14.75 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary Practice

I found that some tribes in Vanuatu still practice cranial head deformation (can be seen in this youtube video [2]. This is very interesting, but not discussed very much in the article. Will someone please add a section to this article about the current practices of head deformation across the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.130.22 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This will sound strange, but I've encountered a very weak form of the practice in China. Chinese parents often make their children sleep face-up on books or other hard objects in the hope that this will flatten the back of the child's head and provide a nice touxing (lit. head-form). It's nowhere near as intense as the instances cited in this article, but might be worth looking into. 207.188.232.179 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've looked up touxing (head form) using a Google image search of the Chinese 头型. It mostly means "hairstyle", although there are some links to baby-head-shape-related things - eg, this nice little baby-helmet: http://repat.sfaa.gov.tw/07product/pro_c_main.asp?id=2034

115.64.142.162 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have heard of an old Chinese custom called "northeast head" (东北头, 東北頭). Babies slept on their backs and had a board bound to the back of the head. This produced pronounced flattening in the back of the head and a widening of the sides and face. You used to be able to see people with this head shape in China. Not sure if you still can. I looked in Google images and found only one result for "東北頭" but the image link was dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:8844:CD00:587E:A730:5927:89F0 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Related articles/stuff

Just curious, is this related to trepanning? I'm guessing that the body modification article should probably link [and be linked] here.

And one more thing: does this practice start when a person is in infanthood? I remember my aunt telling me to be careful with my baby cousin, as she said it would have been extremely easy to deform the shape of his head. :O (Or is this an old wive's tale?) Eirein 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! No, this article has nothing to do with trepanning, but sertainly is a body modification and should be linked as such.

The article is about intentional skull deformation in early childhood in some primitive societies. By skull deformation is meant changing the shape of the skull. When I complete the article it will become more clear.Internedko 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:) Alright, I just added a link to it from body modification under 'cranial binding'; I'm assuming that cranial binding is a form of artificial skull deformation. (There's no article for cranial binding, anyway.) Sounds interesting! I'm looking forward to the complete article, and finding out whether my aunt was serious or not. Eirein 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Varied reasons versus varied hypotheses

"The reasons for performing cranial deformation are varied. A prominent hypothesis is that ..."

This is confusing: if the reasons are varied, what are they? If it is not known what they are, how do we know that they are varied? If there are only hypotheses and no accepted theory, then there may not be a variety of reasons, but only (say) one. -Pgan002 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The external link Traditions of Atlantis — is it really necessary?

Does this link to the above mentioned 19th century book with fringe theories about Atlantis add anything substantial to the subject at hand? I would really like to delete it on grounds of WP:EL section 4 "Links normally to be avoided", rationale #2: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. Personally, I'm agnostic vis-a-vis certain fringe theories about UFOs and even Atlantis but this article belongs to neither subjects so we should be able to hold it to a higher standard, yes? —jibun_{≈παντα ρει≈} (keskustele!) 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This article and Head flattening cover the exact same topic (and even share one of the same photos). One should be merged into the other. 192.104.39.2 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How bizzare. --Dangherous 12:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Latino? I think those you call "latino" are , at least, as much native american as Sitting Bull was. Descendants of the Incas or Mayas have same right than the USA indians.

Mexican does not equal native american. Come on, man. --97.125.124.136 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Mexican does equal native american - what would you have it equal? Native African? Native European? Last time I checked Mexico was in the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.127.142 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Prevalent in Europeans?! Tell me one single person in the whole Europe practising such a thing in the last 5000 years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.67.179 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Topic

Shouldn't this article be merged with Artificial Cranial Deformation, seeing as they're the exact same topic?143.236.35.214 (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Came here to say just that. -LlywelynII (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Except the other article is actually at Artificial cranial deformation 192.104.39.2 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

I am hoping that this page can be expanded upon with respect to specific physical changes that occur to the cranium and brain etc. There is a lot of pseudo-junk-scientific statements relating to these skulls and there formation, particularly alien explanations ([3]. It would be idyllic to have this page discuss not just the social reasoning behind cranial manipulation but also the physiological effects. Thank-you. --Quasistellar (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, came to this article hoping to find discussion of the effects upon the brain of this practice. I suspect that brain plasticity might mean that there may not be significant deleterious effects -- also, if there were, would the practice have continued? But I would like something definite.--Jrm2007 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The most recent study I'm familiar with, Klaus Hendricksen et. al. (2007), suggests that the consequent enlargement of the submedular arch, possible as much as 400%, results in a sphigmoidal capacity exceeding that of any earth creature thousandsfold. The most likely use would be transfinite communication with a "mother" brain in the region of Sirius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this Klaus Hendricksen et. al. (2007) reference? I wasn't able to find anything by a couple of Google searches, so what is this supposed Klaus Hendricksen et. al. (2007) study? What is the title? Where was it published? And so on and so forth.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a joke, or a reference to aliens of the extraterrestrial variety. See part about mother brain in the region of Sirius aka The Dog Star.--FeralOink (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

SKULL DEFORMATIONS

One thing that i have not read in here about skull deformations is the relative brain volumes. The skulls are all different is lots of ways. Brain volume is one thing that changes a lot with the skulls. Some have up to 25% higher brain volume. Deformation does NOT account for this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnERUZNqwbc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.53.16 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Skull deformation doesn't change the brain volume or functionality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that's what he meant. Elongated skulls have been found in which cranial capacity was increased in size, and additional blood veins ran through the back of the skull, this all indicated that these cases happened naturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.202.180 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt these claims from Childress and the other dudes at Ancient Aliens and/or Adventures Unlimited Press. They tend not to be specialists in the areas they study and their claims seem to be pure pseudo-science. At least we need some reputable confirmation backing them up as I've also argued in the section below. If no one adds this in the next couple of months, I'm inclined to remove the claim altogether. Mojowiha (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Right but some skulls are visibly far bigger than the others, to an extent which can't be accounted for by simple deformation. The New Age hucksters are disreputable, yes, and we should be sceptical of their work - but where's the evidence that these skulls were deformed, other than that they bear a broad resemblance to skulls which we know were deformed intentionally? It might even be possible that cranial deformation emerged in this region as a means of imitating them. Bermcols1 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So what?. Again misinformation. Just common sense. It should be noted or mentioned.79.151.84.174 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the Childress, Navarro & Foerster claim actual science?

I'm a bit sceptical about citing a book published by a company, Adventures Unlimited Press, which according to its own website specialises in:

"Atlantic Studies, Alternative Health, Alternative Science, Ancient Science, Anti-Gravity, Conspiracy & History, Cryptozoology, Egypt & the Pyramids, Free Engery Systems, Geometry & Math, Holy Grail & Templar Studies, Lost Cities Series, Mysterious Phenomena, Mystic Travelers Series, Native American Studies, Philosophy & Religion, Strange Science, Tesla Technology, UFO's & Extraterrestrial and more." [[4]]

Is there anything published in more reputable sources which confirm the claims? If nothing else, it needs some improved references.

I've posted this question on the talk page of Paracas culture as well, but please add any comments here, just remember to update both articles.

Mojowiha (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

I've just realised that the Childress of the above mentioned book is the same David Hatcher Childress featured in the "Ancient Astronauts" series. Looking over his publications, this does not bode well for using him as a source.

Mojowiha (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I just ran in to that bit about the not-homo-sapiens as well. It´s incredibly cool if true, but it´s an extraordinary claim and need sources to match. I´d also remove "overlooked by most researchers" if it´s not backed by good sources, and I don´t think AUP is one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Specific question

Ignoring the cone, wouldn't some of those specimens be classified as Homo Erectus in the facial area? For example the flaring cheek bones? Thanks for any clarification anyone can give. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

conical, slant or vertical

these shapes facilitate, cause increased mental ability esp also augmenting connections to god/God; and relect the shapes of spirits that appear to those following mental / spiritual enlightenment paths... ; and also e.g. reflect the unnamed wolf shape constellation, which is used in old germanic royal names Godwulf... etc habibee joanz, bainbridge scholar, sr !! 68.195.88.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Sign Your Posts, Please Cite References, Please Don't Inundate Talk Page with "Woo-Woo"

If anyone wants to add various supernatural effects/abilities ascribed to artificial cranial deformation (ACD), please cite your sources and sign your posts. Otherwise, this talk page will become an emporium for all kinds of what James Randi has termed "woo-woo" (collective term for occult, supernatural, paranormal and other such *magic* claims). The same goes for accusations of "satanic" influences/connections. Of course there's nothing wrong with listing such claims as part of the context and beliefs surrounding ACD, but they need sourcing and it should be clear that these are claims and as such no different from other pseudo-scientific claims.

Mojowiha (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It also happens to complicate the worldwide propaganda effort underway that is currently in transition from the old tactic (attempting to obfuscate the facts about the naturally elongated skulls of some of our ancestors) to the new (giving them a spin that will support the pervaisive yet hamfisted United Nations effort to hoax an extraterrestrial presence). Don't muddy the propaganda waters okay folks? It's hard enough to manipulate you clods as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:1C63:C011:6957:77B0 (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed Childress / Paracas section

There may be something to be said about the Paracas culture on this topic in a reliable source, but the material here was solely referenced to a David Hatcher Childress book. He's a career conspiracy theorist and pseudohistorian. He's simply not a reliable source on anything history or medicine related (or, really, on much else, either). And the work in question was self-published, to boot. As a result, I've snipped the paragraph in its entirety. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU. And yes, in this case I am shouting. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Déformation Péruvienne MHNT Noir.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Déformation Péruvienne MHNT Noir.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The skull of a proto-Nazcan person (c. 200-100 BC), which has been artificially shaped. In the proto-Nazcan culture, this was achieved by binding a cushion to an infant's forehead and a board to the back of the head, creating an elongated shape. It is unknown why this was done; theories suggest that this was meant to create an ethnic identity, form the individual into a social being, or illustrate social status.Photograph: Didier Descouens

Edits of 1 August 2015

I am completing citations that earlier used the disparate (Name, Date) citation format as much as I quickly can, moving the rest to inline citations, adjusting tags, and noting when language ("it seems", "as the map shows", etc.) indicates that the student-editor is presenting an original (rather than scholar/source-derived) interpretation). Am also noting the important 1931 Dingwall source and even earlier 19th century sources as being dated (and marking the article accordingly), so that its physical anthropology information is checked against modern scholarship to ensure that the conclusions stated still hold. Cheers, hello to the erstwhile other scholars holding this article to standard, et bonne chance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Done with work for the night. There are many, many inline tags, because the text is in such poor shape with regard to sourcing. The sources that do appear are primary—the original research journals, often first appearances (see Tiesler), and oh so many are very dated, including many 19th century, and the repeat citation of Dingwall.

So as it stands, the aricle is some early anonymous editor's (or set of editors' ) review of the primary literature, and therefore needs several house of expert work, verifying and/or updating the claims that are made from primary sources, and seeing that they actually do reflect the preponderance of current expert opinion based on scholarly secondary sources. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

quote that needs to be resourced to be replaced

This may be a casualty of some of the reworking being done to this article but this line quoted here is nowhere in the source article (the article it points to says the opposite) somaybe needs to be reworked or re-cited? Removed line is as follows"

The view that these were artificially deformed, thus representing the oldest example of such practices (by tens of thousands of years) has since been argued incorrect by Chech, Grove, Thorne, and Trinkaus, based on new cranial reconstructions in 1999, where the team concluded "we no longer consider that artificial cranial deformation can be inferred for the specimen".

Jessamyn (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: That is the result of another editor who can't grasp the concept that the source for a text shouldn't be changed or moved. The actual statement is "We have identified that the left mid-parietal fragment of the Shamdar 5 cranium was incorrectly positioned. The mid-sagittal parietal segment is missing, and we now no longer consider that artificial cranial deformation can he inferred for the specimen. At the same time, the Shanidar Ncandcrtals remain unusual in their extreme frontal flattening. It is hoped that this correction to the reconstruction of the Shanidar 5 cranium will assist with its integration into the later Pleistocene hominid fossil record." and the source is A New Reconstruction of the Shanidar 5 Cranium

The original edit: "

The Neanderthal cranial remains were newly reconstructed in 1999 by the anthropology team of Chech, Grove, Thorne, and Trinkaus, however, in which they discovered the original reconstruction of the skull was in error resulting in the conclusion "we no longer consider that artificial cranial deformation can be inferred for the specimen".http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Artificial_cranial_deformation&diff=next&oldid=598264589 - 2 years ago. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial cranial deformation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912113206/http://www.bioanth.org:80/Dingwall/Dingwell.1931.Chapter.II.pdf to http://www.bioanth.org/Dingwall/Dingwell.1931.Chapter.II.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artificial cranial deformation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706145317/http://www.inquirewithin.biz/history/american_pacific/oceania/dress-ornament.htm to http://www.inquirewithin.biz/history/american_pacific/oceania/dress-ornament.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bioanth.org/Dingwall/Dingwell.1931.Chapter.II.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Germany Conehead not germanic but hunnic or avarian

PNAS published ahead of print March 12, 2018 Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719880115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.50.193.70 (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the article saying the practice developed independently?

Is this article seriously suggesting the practice developed independently , i.e. that several ancient cultures/civilizations came up with the idea all by themselves without outside influence? A common origin seems logical, and would suggest trans-oceanic migration which also "predates written history". 101.184.6.183 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Occam's razor, my friend. Just because modern white people don't do it, doesn't mean it was aliens. Sumanuil (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, this isn't an appropriate discussion, talk pages aren't forums for the discussion of the article's subject. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Are we sure the Paracas Skulls were artificially deformed?

Some of these skulls are visibly far bigger than the average human skull, to an extent which can't be accounted for by simple deformation. The Ancient Aliens types are incompetent, sloppy researchers, and we should be sceptical of their work - but where's the evidence that these skulls were deformed, other than that they bear a broad resemblance to skulls which we do know were deformed intentionally? It might even be possible that cranial deformation emerged in this region as a means of imitating them. Bermcols1 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a definitive source that we can use for this article, and talk pages aren't for discussing the subject of an article. However, I haven't read these pages in detail and there may be something useful:[5][6][7][8] Doug Weller talk 14:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Paracas skulls are definitely artificially modified, just not be aliens like the loonies like to claim. There are a great deal of archaeological articles published by respected scholars on this subject which could be useful for bringing a discussion of Paracas back into this page. --Chinchaycamac (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

More sources: Bulgaria and Inca Peru

"Why Ancient Peruvians Had Elongated Skulls (No, It's Not Aliens)" "Ethnogenesis and Social Difference in the Andean Late Intermediate Period (AD 1100–1450): A Bioarchaeological Study of Cranial Modification in the Colca Valley, Peru" abstract only "Infant skull binding shaped identity, inequality in ancient Andes" "Role of cranial modification in identity formation: Did head shape encourage unity and cooperation in politics?" "Head Shape Variation & Plasticity" (maybe not an RS "Strange, elongated skulls reveal medieval Bulgarian brides were traded for politics"Doug Weller talk 15:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rostam, Iranian hero, mythical king of Zabulistan. Panjikent, 7th century CE.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Schädel der Chongos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Source for France

User:LlywelynII you might be interested. [9] Detailed text tracing it from the 14th century. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)