This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Artificial cranial deformation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Yeah, me too. Except the other article is actually at Artificial cranial deformation 192.104.39.2 ( talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'm a bit sceptical about citing a book published by a company, Adventures Unlimited Press, which according to its own website specialises in:
Is there anything published in more reputable sources which confirm the claims? If nothing else, it needs some improved references.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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". [1]
Jessamyn ( talk) 02:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
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". [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Artificial_cranial_deformation&diff=next&oldid=598264589 - 2 years ago. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
References
MeiklejohnSolecki92
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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. [1] -- Chinchaycamac ( talk) 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
"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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
User:LlywelynII you might be interested. [9] Detailed text tracing it from the 14th century. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)