The long-headed, high-sided skulls recovered in Baja California during the late 1800 brought on some spirited discussions when scientists got together
for a Happy Hour. In those days a great deal of serious effort was focused on identifying the major traits of the three dominant "races of
man"--Caucasoid, Negroiod and Mongoloid (or white, black, and Asian).
Skulls, unlike religions and many other subjecive aspects of human life, could be measured, described, illustrated, classified, and neatly plotted in
graphs and tables--providing just the kind of statistics needed to establish anthropology, then in its infancy, as a legitimate field of study.
One measurement that came to be considered of great importance--the cephalic index--was obtained by dividing the width of a skull or a head by its
length, and multiplying the result by 100. (A width just short of 6 inches and a length of 7.2 has a cephalic index of 83.)
An index above 80 is considered broad-headed [brachycephalic]; 76 to 80 [mesacephalic] is in mid-range; below 76 is longheaded [dolichocephalic]. The
hypsodolichocephalic applied to the skulls from the peninsula's Cape Region indicates they're really, really long-headed.
There was a time when many respected researchers were convinced that the shape and size of a human skull was an indication of what could be expected
of the brain within it.
In several widely accepted studies published around 1840, a male Caucasian scientist presented statistics proving that Caucasian males, with their
larger heads and larger brains, were intellectually and morally superior to males of other races, and to Caucasian females as well.
This belief lingered on here and there, propping up the biases of assorted racists and sexists until 1989, when the famed Harvard intellectual Dr.
Stephen Jay Gould published a careful re-examination of the evidence.
The superior Caucasian male scientist had, Gould discovered, committed some gross sampling errors in his selection of skulls. And had also fudged a
bit in interpreting his own data.
Today, head size is no longer held to be a valid measure of either intelligence of the lack of it. If shape is mentioned at all in college textbooks
at all, it's usually to point out that broad heads lose heat more slowlythan long, narrow ones, so Eskimos tend to have higher cephalic indices than
Melanesians.
Although the idea that bigger heads hold brighter brains has been scuttled, the people whose brains were larger than those of any other known human
groups are no longer around to complain that their intellectual status has been downgraded.
That would be our distant cousins: the Neanderthals.
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by bajalera]Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 08:18 AM
It ain't the size of the box but what you put in it.
Thanks for the interesting post. My Caucasian head swells just thinking about it.
IflyfishwitharathersmallhatsizeDavid K - 10-20-2009 at 08:24 AM
Is it not also true that just part of the brain is used? We have yet to fully utilize all that God/ Nature has given us...
READING THE BUMPS
bajajazz - 10-20-2009 at 09:33 AM
Interesting post, bajalera.
The study and practice of measuring skull size and shapes to determine issues of race and capability was still in use during WWII. The Japanese used
Phrenologists (bump readers) to determine which of their pilots would reliably go to their deaths in the Kamikaze corp, and the N-zis used skull and
facial measurements to determine who was "Aryan" and who was "Jewish," although how such measurements could possibly be used to determine the religion
of the individual so measured has never been made clear.
Phrenology, I've heard, is not completely discredited, and may still be in use, despite reports of a surviving Kamikaze pilot named Chicken Teriyaki
who somehow slipped through the screening process.
Since the Indians of the Baja were not nearly as advanced as the Indians on the mainland (mainland tribes had a mathematics-based astronomy when Baja
Indians were still picking seeds out of their poop) I suppose it's safe to say that the greater skull size of the Baja Indians was inconsequential so
far as intelligence was concerned.
Do you suppose that the isolation of life on the Baja Peninsula was the reason for the tremendous disparity between the accomplishment levels of the
two cultures?
I'm looking forward to seeing you and reading more of your scholarly pieces on the Baja Indians when the La Paz Writers' Group reconvenes.David K - 10-20-2009 at 10:06 AM
The Indians who painted the giant murals in the mountains of Baja were NOT the same natives the Jesuits found and utilized, according to what they
were told.
I think there is more to be discovered of the people of Baja California who lived there before 1500 AD.JESSE - 10-20-2009 at 10:22 AM
"some of their genes may survive in local populations of mixed descent" i have noted in La Paz, that there are some locals who have very distinct
physical features from any other native american or mestizo i have seen in many other parts of Mexico. They are big, big long arms, big torsos, big
legs and heads. Very similar to what you see in Samoans. Another interesting and perhaps unrelated observation, is that Paceņos are considered the
strangest or most different people in all of Mexico as far as their customs and way of thinking. Its almost like they are from another country. I been
here for years and still find many of their ways very very strange.Osprey - 10-20-2009 at 10:45 AM
As far as I know brain functions follow gray matter which is measured by the convolutions, the "wrinkles" --- more wrinkles, more surface, more
suface, more cells, etc. etc. That model does not compute, support using the outside of the brain box or by measurement (up to a point) of interior of
the cranium. From chimps to dichlocephalic the more the wrinkles the closer to homo habilis and us. After that the wrinkles count even more. I'm
really old so my brain must be all wrinkled up ... I'm just saying.Iflyfish - 10-20-2009 at 10:58 AM
Jesse,
That is an interesting observation. In Rutherford's book Sarum, a history of England, he reports similar observations of "ancient" peoples who have
bred their characteristics into the new population. He discribes these characteristics in various geographical areas in England.
I have observed in my travels in Mexico that there are clear "phenotypes" of people. Mexico has 56 distinct language groups which evidences the
existance of populations remote from each other and thereby different genetic characteristics.
I wonder if you could post a link to a photo this phenotype? It would be interesting to see the characteristics that bajalara discribes.
Osprey;s convoluted observation is true. The convolutions of the brain create a larger surface area and it is primarily the surface area of the brain
where cognitive processing occurs.
IflyfishJESSE - 10-20-2009 at 11:36 AM
This is a photo of the last Guaycura Indian (same as Pericu) circa 1892.
As you can see, this is the exact same type of people i am talking about. You can see similar features in a few individuals in and around La Paz.Skipjack Joe - 10-20-2009 at 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bajajazz
Phrenology, I've heard, is not completely discredited, and may still be in use, despite reports of a surviving Kamikaze pilot named Chicken
Teriyaki who somehow slipped through the screening process.?
True he survived, but it may have been due to his predisposition to being cowardly.
Quote:
Originally posted by bajajazz
Do you suppose that the isolation of life on the Baja Peninsula was the reason for the tremendous disparity between the accomplishment levels of the
two cultures?
You can convince yourself of this truth by driving from california to the midwest.Bajahowodd - 10-20-2009 at 01:30 PM
Seems to me that the Maya accomplished a great deal. And who would not have considered them isolated prior to the Europeans invading?Osprey - 10-20-2009 at 01:42 PM
Jesse, everything I've read said the Pericue were not Yuman, were unique, not a part of Guayacura or Cochimis. Not "same as Pericue"JESSE - 10-20-2009 at 01:57 PM
The Pericu-Guaycura-Monqui belonged to the same group of people, but where separated in 3 different tribes.
"It is estimated that the Pericu-Guaycura-Monqui group consisted of around 4,000 persons in 1734 and 400 1772. In other words, disease had reduced the
population to 10% of its former strength within less than 40 years. The rapidity of their decline is an indicator that the Pericu and their nearest
neighbours had been completely isolated from the outside world at the tip of their peninsula for a very long time and that in consequence they had
fewer immune defences even than the "normal" Amerind populations of the Americas."
Osprey - 10-20-2009 at 03:09 PM
Jesse, I would suggest the info in the map and legend you bring forth here has been eclipsed a hundred ways in the last 5 years by discoveries all
over Southern Baja and Mexico City (Pinon woman, example). Read this link http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-209782.html. I have read scores of other sources that back this up.
That's what this thread is all about. The Pericue have elongated skulls and all the northern Amerindians don't.
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Osprey]David K - 10-20-2009 at 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
Jesse, I would suggest the info in the map and legend you bring forth here has been eclipsed a hundred ways in the last 5 years by discoveries all
over Southern Baja and Mexico City (Pinon woman, example). Read this link http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-209782.html. I have read scores of other sources that back this up.
That's what this thread is all about. The Pericue have elongated skulls and all the northern Amerindians don't.
[Edited on 10-20-2009 by Osprey]
What a great link! Thanks!bajalera - 10-20-2009 at 03:27 PM
I go along with Historia Natural y Cronica de la Antigua California (edited by Miguel Leon-Portilla), written by Miguel del Barco, who spent 30 years
on the peninsula. He says the Pericu weren't affiliated with any other group, especially the Cora. The fact that the Venegas/Burriel history did so
really annoyed him.
The two other language groups of the south, Guaycura and Huchiti, appear to have been related, but there isn't enough info available to figure out
just how. The southerners had become extinct by 1800, before anybody got around to seriouos study of their languages.
The Prehistory of Baja California, by Don Laylander and Jerry Moore--published 2006--is a good source of current research in ethnography and
archaeology. It includes an article by Mauricio Mixco, the linguist who has done more work with B.C. languages than anyone else.
When a news story mentions "tribes," you know it was written by a journalist and not a scientist. Anthropologists avoid that term in classifying the
peninsula's nomads-- identifying them instead according to their languages, because there's no evidence that they had the socio-political structures
that define tribes.
