In The New York Times article, written by C. Claiborne Ray, "How does the Shape of a Head Affect the Brain?" the question of cranial deformation in various cultures is analyzed. Ray questions the long-term effects of these traditions in cultures, specifically Mayan artificial cranial deformation practices such as flattening the frontal bone and how this would affect brain development since these practices are performed in infancy up to four years of life. Ray, as well as researchers, is interested in this practice because during this time in life the brain is still rapidly developing, specifically the frontal lobe.
Several researchers have inquired about this practice and published articles in the Journal of Neurosurgery, The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, and The Journal of Anthropology as mentioned in the article. There are varying view points on the harm physical mutilation does to the brain. Some researchers think it could have lead to developmental delays, vision impairment, or object recognition impairments, such as those in The American Journal of Physical Anthropology journal entry listed in Ray's article. Others believed the flattening of the skull did more damage to the bone and face structure than the brain itself. These researchers believed practices like these would not have produced any impairments, such as the journal entry in Anthropology also listed in Ray's article. It is interesting the fascination with the skull ancient cultures had like some people had in the 19th century with the popular practice of phrenology invented by Franz Joseph Gall.
Phrenology is the study of the shape of the skull being linked to traits about the person, like truthfulness, wit, and individuality to name a few. The places where the skull was bumpier had a direct correlation with the prevalence of that trait in the individual. This was a very popular practice in the 19th century and individuals would pay large sums of money to get their skull read. Although phrenology is more concerned with personality traits whereas cranial deformation is concerned with physical appearance and beauty, it is interesting to see the connection between times and cultures trying to make sense of the brain or mind with physical representation. Although ancient cultures would use the skull more for beauty purposes, the fascination with the the skull and the connection to the outside world, be it physical beauty or personality trait, crosses time and culture.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/science/head-shape-brain.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FBrain&action=click&contentCollection=health®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=collection
It is interesting how the deformation of the frontal area of the skull has no effect on the cognitive function and ability of the individual. I wonder if this is connected to the neural plasticity of the brain and the ability for the brain to conform to cranial and lesions of certain areas of the brain. Overall this was a great blog post!
ReplyDeleteI think it is fascinating how the shape of the skull has been thought to directly influence the shape of the brain across cultures. Since the frontal lobe is important during human development, I think it is impossible to assume that head flattening had no affect on these brains. It is also an interesting point that head flattening was a sign of high status/rank. If we (today) assume that head flattening had even a small negative effect on these brains, these members of high society would had a lower brain capacity than those of lower status (which is ironic).
ReplyDeleteI found this article interesting because the first thing I assume when talking about canal deformation is that it would have to cause some sort of impairment. I was surprised that some researchers found no impairments, just damage to the bone structure. If that is the case, that cranial deformation does not cause brain impairments, then I would love to see some studies on how the brain develops and adapts compared to someone without cranial deformation. I also like how you related it to phrenology because that was the first thing I thought of when I read the title of your post!
ReplyDeleteI did not know that ancient cultures attempted to flatten the head. At the time, I'm sure they never even thought about the effects it would have on the person, they simply sought after the beauty of it. However, with the knowledge we know today, it is be hard to believe that the flattening of a skull had no effect on brain function. It would be interesting to see how the brain reacts to the flattening of the skull. I really liked how clear and descriptive your writing was!
ReplyDeleteMy primary thought after reading this was, although head flattening was the norm for ancient cultures, how could there have not been any noticeable impairment to cognitive function? If physical altering of the skull still allowed people to lead normal lives then there must be some explanation of the brain's doing. Maybe the frontal lobe damage was not severe enough and the brain's ability to change enabled it grow around it. I think it is difficult for many of us to process how researchers believed that the bone and face structure were more susceptible to damage than the actual brain. This is because today, knowing the critical roles that the parts of the brain play, we see that protecting every aspect of the brain is more important than ever. Of course now it would be hard to study and observe the brain of someone with intentional head flattening. However, I would be intriguing to see the results of a quasi-experiment based research. That way, even though it may not be observing a person with an exact representation of psychically altered skull of ancient times, but can allow researchers to compare brain development of those without skull deformation and those with it. This could be the closest way of getting our answer of if head flattening impacted cognitive function at all.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked this article and your reflection because it went against my initial gut feeling when I thought about the effects bone flattening might have. Before reading this, I would have assumed that flattening of bone would cause at least some minimal impairment to the brain and its cognitive functioning. I think one way that this argument could have been strengthened is to incorporate a demonstration of an empirical study with statistical analysis as support. After reading this and understanding that there is a lack of direct evidence to uphold this conclusion about brain flattening, I am left wondering how researchers arrived at that conclusion in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHumans have been tinkering with their skulls long before we probably ought to have been. What's surprising is the perceived lack of harsh consequences of doing so. It wasn't just the Mayans - from Bavarian skulls dating back to 500 A.D. (according to an article by the Smithsonian), to Australian skulls estimated to be over 9,000 years old (according to BBC), it's clear that skull modification was no rare practice for cultures (and throughout history) around the globe. It could strike us as mind-boggling today, but back then, without the information we have now, and without clear signs of potential damage, what reason would they have had to stop these practices?
ReplyDeleteAnother article from the Smithsonian revealed that the practice of trepanation - brain surgery minus the meds - was also undertaken by ancient civilizations in the west and continued up until the arrival of the Spaniards in the 16th century. Although casualties happened (predictably), enough people survived to justify the practice. We haven't entirely changed our ways in this regard. Clearly even today, if popular science is convinced that the nature of our risky forays into unfamillar territories (GMOs are one controversial example) aren't harmful off the bat, we keep furthering them until better science proves us wrong.
Perhaps early changes to brain shape don't have as many of the adverse effects as they would later in life. And after all, even the soft skull of a baby provides some buffer to mediate how much pressure can be exerted on the brain at once. However, even if we can't completely understand it, we can admire the true resilience of the brain to adapt to relatively rapidly changing surroundings and the whims of our culture's fashion trends.
Evolutionally, early hominins had a smaller brain size than Homo Sapiens. And it is vastly speculated that this change in brain proportion is responsible for the higher executive functions that homo sapiens are able to detect, process, and act on. It would be interesting to see if there is any proportional or linear relationship between the skull and brain size of Homo sapiens. And if there is such a relationship relative to the skull and brain size of today humans, can there also exist such a relationship between brain size and intelligence?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how the Mayans as well as other early human civilizations practiced cranial deformation in order to be perceived as more attractive and thus increase their probality to reproduce as a result. Today we engage in similar kinds of behaviors; for instance, tattoos, pearcings, and plastic surgeries, perhaps with the same goal in mind. I wonder how long did Mayans conducted this practice of cranial deformation within their culture and if any significant consequence can be expressed genetically to Mayans decedents today as a result ?
This is very interesting because you can see the change in the understanding of the brain through the times in this article and it shows just how much times have changed and how advanced we have gotten in our knowledge of how the brain works. I find the argument of the effects of the deformation interesting because my initial thought is that it would give the brain trouble in trying to develop if it is done earlier because the brain needs room to grow in the skull but it was interesting to think about the effects on just the skull as well.
ReplyDelete