Boards and Cords: Discriminating Types of Artificial Cranial Deformation in Prehispanic South Central Andean Populations

Abstract

For over a century, a number of ambiguous typologies have been employed to distinctly categorise types of artificial cranial deformation. This paper provides a quantitative method, based on multiple dimensions and discriminant function analysis, by which to assign skulls not only into discrete categories: deformed or not, but also by type: annular or tabular. A series of prehispanic, adult, human crania (n=469) from archaeological sites in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru represented by both normal and artificially deformed specimens, provide craniometric data for four measurements across the vault: maximum cranial length, breadth and height and the frontal chord. These data are used to develop three indices which in turn are used to compute two discriminant functions. Results are plotted on a territorial map whereby the type of deformity can be determined. When these methods were applied to a comparative cranial sample of nondeformed skulls from South America, 100% of the samples was found to be nondeformed. When these methods were applied to the samples which were subjectively classified a priori by the first author as nondeformed, 81.3% of the samples were found to be nondeformed. This study demonstrates the value of a more objective and quantitative method by which to classify artificial cranial deformation, and thus provides a new approach.

Artificial deformation versus normal variation: re-examination of artificially deformed crania in ancient Korean populations

“…Our results correspond with previous studies (Antón, 1989;Kohn et al, 1993;O'Brien and Stanley, 2013) that reported shorter cranial length and broader cranial breadth in the anteroposterior cranial modification group than in the normal group. In this regard, the two deformed crania from Yean-ri in this study can be allocated to the anteroposterior cranial modification type based on the flatter frontal and occipital bones and superoposteriorly developed parietal bones.…”

“…Artificial cranial deformation has been considered 'nature's experiment,' allowing the examination of the association of cranial parts and cranial development by dividing the cranium into vault, face, and basicranium (Antón, 1989;Cheverud et al, 1992;Meiklejohn et al, 1992;Kohn et al, 1993;Lieberman, 2011;O'Brien and Stanley, 2013). It was hypothesized that vault modification affected both the basicranium and the face as they share several functions such as accommodation and protection of the brain.…”

“…Artificial cranial deformation occurred throughout the Old and New Worlds as a cultural phenomenon, and studies have largely focused on the effect of deformation on skull growth and form (Antón, 1989;Cheverud et al, 1992;Meiklejohn et al, 1992;Kohn et al, 1993;O'Brien and Stanley, 2013). Artificial cranial deformation has been considered 'nature's experiment,' allowing the examination of the association of cranial parts and cranial development by dividing the cranium into vault, face, and basicranium (Antón, 1989;Cheverud et al, 1992;Meiklejohn et al, 1992;Kohn et al, 1993;Lieberman, 2011;O'Brien and Stanley, 2013).…”

Integrating Identities: An Innovative Bioarchaeological and Biogeochemical Approach to Analyzing the Multiplicity of Identities in the Mortuary Record

“…Practitioners of cranial vault modification intentionally reshape the head using binding fabrics and/or stiff pads during the first years of life, when the bones of the skull are malleable (Blom 2005;O'Brien and Stanley 2013;Tiesler 2014;Torres-Rouff 2008). Cranial modification is an ascribed symbol of group identity and a permanent signifier of social identity imposed upon children; it reflects a decision made by community members and likely represents Wiessner's (1983) emblemic style.…”

Neurocranial shape variation among Tarascan populations: Evidence for varying degrees in artificially modified crania in pre‐Hispanic West Mexico (1200–1400 AD)

“…Other studies address the issue of classification of artificially modified cranial forms by using linear measurements, as well as indices and angles, to reliably evaluate cases of ACM (e.g., Clark et al, ; Falkenburger, ; O'Brien & Stanley, ; Pomeroy, Stock, Zakrzewski, & Lahr, ; Romano, , ). Although combinations of these metric traits allow for the identification of major ACM forms to a certain extent (e.g., Falkenburger, ; O'Brien & Stanley, ), the limited number of recordable variables on the cranial vault prevents clear discrimination among certain types and is inadequate for accurately describing fine shape changes between individuals.…”