Investigating intentional cranial modification in 3rd to 7th century CE Japan

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289219

by diodorus • 3 years ago

48 16 3 years ago

journals.plos.org

As previously mentioned, beyond cranial morphology, another unique characteristic of the Hirota people is that they had extraordinary accessories made of shells. As these shells could not be collected from their region of residence, the Hirota people must have traded shell accessories and products from the south of Tanegashima Island toward the Ryukyu Islands (Kinoshita, 1996). It is possible that cranial deformations were performed to create a group identity and facilitate trade of these shell goods. Such results would not be uncommon among prehistoric cultures that practiced ICM, and due to the absence of other possible reasons for ICM practices, we hypothesize that the Hirota people did so for this purpose; however, this could change if future excavations of the region were to provide evidence of either a rice cultivation or stratified society.

... OK? I still have a really hard time pinning down a causal link between shellfish trade getting a boost and head flattening. Feels like the authors latching on to one notable fact about this group (they traded shellfish) and using it to whip up a motive for head flattening, because they had nothing else.

c420• 3 years ago

Archeology isn't a hard science so causal links are the exception, not the rule. But they may be extrapolating from the classic period Maya who used cranial deformation to differentiate the ruling and spirit classes.

rgrieselhuber• 3 years ago

I kept waiting for some mention of ritual use.

smogcutter2• 3 years ago

Some version of this comes up at every thread touching on archaeology, and frankly it’s tired.

The authors are professionals, deeply embedded in a body of knowledge and practice, making a conjecture for an audience of their peers. They take for granted information, context, and training that most of us do not have.

Am I saying their credentials mean they’re right? Of course not. I have no idea.

What I’ve got instead is the epistemic humility to recognize that just because I am unqualified to evaluate this evidence doesn’t mean everybody is.

Hey, if turns out you’re an archaeologist I’ll happily eat crow. But somehow I think the local birds are safe tonight.

Sometimes, you don’t know something. Sometimes, you don’t even really want to know (or you’d ask a question)! When those times come around, and they will, it’s okay to just… not post.

(Edited to soften tone slightly)

hnfong• 3 years ago

If you read carefully the GP is just paraphrasing the quoted paragraph in a different tone.

Disclaimer: not an archeologist of course.

kergonath• 3 years ago

Eloquently put, thank you.

That said, I’d like some context about the link between trading and flat heads, because it’s really not obvious to me either.

Chris2048• 3 years ago

Yeah, isn't it tiring when mere plebs question the academia class?

robertlagrant• 3 years ago

I'm not an archeologist, but I've just use a mallet to deform my cranium in the hopes that that qualifies me to comment on this article as I would be able to on any other on HN without being berated for my lack of humility.

Amezarak• 3 years ago

Archaeology, like many fields, is chock-full of bunk. Of course you're right we shouldn't immediately dismiss it or assume we know more than they do. But neither should we trust-by-default, either. The GP is asking a perfectly reasonable question about whether or not the hypothesis is at all justified. Even the authors phrase the question in such weak terms and so provisionally it seems almost like filler text.

In general, we should recognize experts, but not everyone in their field is an expert and expertise should not be overrated, either - expertise overrating is a major cultural problem we have today.

goodbyesf• 3 years ago

Some version of this comes up at every thread touching on archaeology, and frankly it’s tired.

Even more tiring are people trying to silence discussion.

it’s okay to just… not post.

Why not take your own advice?

Why are you here then? Don't read the comments and just read the articles. It's exhausting reading intentionally manipulative comments like yours.

otabdeveloper4• 3 years ago

...latching on to one notable fact about this group (they traded shellfish) and using it to whip up a motive for head flattening, because they had nothing else.

Well, that's exactly what they said themselves, if you translate from scientifese.

daem• 3 years ago

The abstract says “the Hirota people may have deformed their crania to… possibly aid in the long-distance trade of shellfish”.

A future equivalent could be deforming our crania in the form of invasive BCI to aid in different things.

The abstract also says “the Hirota people may have deformed their crania to preserve group identity”.

It’s also possible in the future that those who install invasive BCI could form a group identity.

quickthrower2• 3 years ago

ELI5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

Paul_S• 3 years ago

How does a flat head help you to trade? They obviously flattened their heads in order to be able to squeeze through narrower cracks. At least that's my engineer's interpretation.

smegsicle• 3 years ago

not sure how much it shows up on the skeleton but chinese babies are still often kept on their backs which results in a visibly flat back to their heads

Investigating intentional cranial modification in 3rd to 7th century CE Japan

Related Stories