Theory

cfuserkildare

Just throwing this out there,
Any interest greatly appreciated

Would anyone else see a connection between Skull Binding by several ancient races,
And the look of a Neanderthal profile?

Opinions please.

Wibbs

Not even close IMH. The Neandertal skull and the Modern are very different across the board and not just in areas where traditional skull binding or bone pathology would effect.

It's a suite of features overall outside the range of moderns. Though some features might have some overlap. EG the largest Sub Saharan African noses of today might overlap with the smallest Neandertals kinda thing*. Their cheekbones are quite different. More swept back and less bulky at the front. Then they have their brow ridges which are way larger and of a different layout to moderns. Their eyes are larger too. And they have an occipital bun and these external skull features are mapped internally.

It's not just the upper skull either CF. Their lower jaw morphology is different. Their chins are almost entirely absent(though some later Neandertal folks have some suggestion of one), they generally have a post molar gap thingy and the rear end of the jawbone curves differently to moderns.

That's just the really obvious features. Going more into smaller detail and they are clearly different to moderns, to the degree that a single tooth can usually mark out the species involved(though IMH that can be a bit of a fudge too as older versions of "us" had more overlap and it depends what the researcher is looking for).






*ASIDE one reason I don't buy their "big noses as adaptation to cold climates" theory. In every single mammal out there, including modern humans, noses get smaller the colder the environment. Makes sense as big sticky out things tend to get frost bitten.

cfuserkildare

Hey Wibbs,

Cheers for the input,

It was just a passing thought as I was watching a program where the 2 fellas were swimming in a Cenote in Mexico, and the floor of same was littered with Skulls, some of which had obviously been bound.

Was just wondering if it was some sort of Social Memory that led civilizations to bind the skulls.

baaba maal

Wibbs wrote: »

Not even close IMH. The Neandertal skull and the Modern are very different across the board and not just in areas where traditional skull binding or bone pathology would effect.

It's a suite of features overall outside the range of moderns. Though some features might have some overlap. EG the largest Sub Saharan African noses of today might overlap with the smallest Neandertals kinda thing*. Their cheekbones are quite different. More swept back and less bulky at the front. Then they have their brow ridges which are way larger and of a different layout to moderns. Their eyes are larger too. And they have an occipital bun and these external skull features are mapped internally.

It's not just the upper skull either CF. Their lower jaw morphology is different. Their chins are almost entirely absent(though some later Neandertal folks have some suggestion of one), they generally have a post molar gap thingy and the rear end of the jawbone curves differently to moderns.

That's just the really obvious features. Going more into smaller detail and they are clearly different to moderns, to the degree that a single tooth can usually mark out the species involved(though IMH that can be a bit of a fudge too as older versions of "us" had more overlap and it depends what the researcher is looking for).






*ASIDE one reason I don't buy their "big noses as adaptation to cold climates" theory. In every single mammal out there, including modern humans, noses get smaller the colder the environment. Makes sense as big sticky out things tend to get frost bitten.

The mammoth being the exception that proves the rule!

Wibbs

Maybe. Though Mammoths had smaller ears and tails and slightly shorter trunks than modern elephants(and were covered all over in hair). I'd actually add that I'd not be surprised to find Neandertals to be much hairier than currently reconstructed.

cfuserkildare

I don't mean like a genetic throw-back,
But a Social Memory.
If someone from basically a Neolithic society had a dream or a Fancy to look like a half remembered ancestor, perhaps this was the oppurtunity to creat that image??

Cianmcliam

cfuserkildare wrote: »

I don't mean like a genetic throw-back,
But a Social Memory.
If someone from basically a Neolithic society had a dream or a Fancy to look like a half remembered ancestor, perhaps this was the oppurtunity to creat that image??

I think it is more likely a signifier of high social status that is too hard/too intense to be worth faking. You can trade/steal for fine clothes in later life but you'll never change the shape of your head.

dubhthach

Skull binding was also carried out in Africa, where there is next to no Neanderthal admixture, which is generally found in all non-Africans. Where some african populations have small levels of Neanderthal admixture it's due to Eurasian back-migration, for example during the Neolithic etc. Leaving that aside the admixture event occurred probably on order of 45-50k years ago, so it's hard to believe any folk memory could persist up to even the Neolithic.

Wibbs

dubhthach wrote: »

Leaving that aside the admixture event occurred probably on order of 45-50k years ago, so it's hard to believe any folk memory could persist up to even the Neolithic.

True, though we and they did hang around together in the same areas for thousands of years until they went extinct/were absorbed into the population. In Australian Aboriginal culture there are quite detailed and accurate folk memories that specifically refer to sea level changes going nearly that far back, so it's not beyond the bounds.

For me personally I would be inclined toward the notion that European folk tales of wild men in the forest and trolls and a fear of the deep forest itself(even folks stories like yetis and the like) as maybe being a folk memory of them(or other archaic hominids). Look at trolls, they are described as ugly extremely strong, slow witted compared to us, very territorial people who live in small family groups in the deep forest/caves/wild places, keeping away from humans most of the time, having huge appetites for food, a penchant for cannibalism from time to time and occasionally stealing small children and young women. Though generally mostly harmless if left alone. Some of that could well be a thumbnail sketch of some aspects of what we know of Neandertals. Such "wild men" are to be found in many cultures but mostly Eurasian and not so much beyond that.

Mostly absent as an idea in Africa. EG AFAIK there are no African "Yetis", even though that continent has its fair share of deep forested areas and a history of having many upright apes and hominids going back millions of years. Maybe because - and if this "theory" has any legs - by the time we evolved as full moderns there we were the only ones left on the continent. It was only after we left there in the last 50-60,000 years we encountered older previous humans in such inland places and these became engrained in folk memories.

What is often if not usually left out/forgotten of our modern human out of Africa migration story are the pre existing peoples in the lands we started to colonise. With the exception of the Americas, Australia and distant islands these places were not uninhabited. It's notable for me that when we made those migrations we almost always ran along the coasts and quite quickly too. Australia was inhabited remarkably quickly after those first forays. Now coasts are natural corridors and with plenty of food for such movements, but it's possible we initially stuck to the coasts because inland there were these other humans and we sought to avoid each other, only moving inland as time went on, our tech got better and our need for resources for our increasing population made it more appealing to do so.

dubhthach

Wibbs wrote: »

True, though we and they did hang around together in the same areas for thousands of years until they went extinct/were absorbed into the population. In Australian Aboriginal culture there are quite detailed and accurate folk memories that specifically refer to sea level changes going nearly that far back, so it's not beyond the bounds.

For me personally I would be inclined toward the notion that European folk tales of wild men in the forest and trolls and a fear of the deep forest itself(even folks stories like yetis and the like) as maybe being a folk memory of them(or other archaic hominids). Look at trolls, they are described as ugly extremely strong, slow witted compared to us, very territorial people who live in small family groups in the deep forest/caves/wild places, keeping away from humans most of the time, having huge appetites for food, a penchant for cannibalism from time to time and occasionally stealing small children and young women. Though generally mostly harmless if left alone. Some of that could well be a thumbnail sketch of some aspects of what we know of Neandertals. Such "wild men" are to be found in many cultures but mostly Eurasian and not so much beyond that.

Mostly absent as an idea in Africa. EG AFAIK there are no African "Yetis", even though that continent has its fair share of deep forested areas and a history of having many upright apes and hominids going back millions of years. Maybe because - and if this "theory" has any legs - by the time we evolved as full moderns there we were the only ones left on the continent. It was only after we left there in the last 50-60,000 years we encountered older previous humans in such inland places and these became engrained in folk memories.

What is often if not usually left out/forgotten of our modern human out of Africa migration story are the pre existing peoples in the lands we started to colonise. With the exception of the Americas, Australia and distant islands these places were not uninhabited. It's notable for me that when we made those migrations we almost always ran along the coasts and quite quickly too. Australia was inhabited remarkably quickly after those first forays. Now coasts are natural corridors and with plenty of food for such movements, but it's possible we initially stuck to the coasts because inland there were these other humans and we sought to avoid each other, only moving inland as time went on, our tech got better and our need for resources for our increasing population made it more appealing to do so.

They could also be folk memory of Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers though. I mean evidence at moment is pointing at clear seperation between Neolithic and Mesolithic populations (on genetic level within same geographic range) with only later do we see Mesolithic component increasing in the Neolithic population. (eg. admixed into the settled Neolithic population)

One theory been push is that the surving Mesolithic population was restricted to poorer (upland?/forested?) territory during Neolithic expansion, and that after several hundred years of living in proximity to each other that gradual mixture occurred. Result is that "Late Neolithic" genomes so far sequenced have higher level of Mesolithic European ancestry percentage wise than early/middle Neolithic remains.