Are the possible effects of elongated skulls more than just a “status” symbol?
A Scientific Op-ed by Austin M. J.
This report is to provide the findings made in addressing the correlation between enlarged cranial capacity, and the allowance of potential increased brain function and intelligence.
This above is the type of question that could quite easily slide into a plethora of open topics regarded as either controversial, pseudo-science, or conspiracy theory. Due to the condition that an overwhelming amount of information available today has become so hard to siphon through as to its legitimacy, it is nearly impossible to discern what is factual or even begin to understand a coherent direction on analysis.
With that thought in mind, I believe it is worth a careful investigation into the facts available and see what insights can in fact be made. I have spent time researching current academic articles and reports on related archeological discoveries as well as case studies on a broad spectrum of intelligence and proposed factors of its determination. I have collaborated this research with various associated fields, which until now have not explicitly been connected. It is my hope that this research will help open individuals’ current views, beliefs, and assumed understandings on the matter.
Specifically, and to bypass the aforementioned rabbit holes of pseudo-science as much as possible, I intend to stay strictly on verifiable material and sidestep the more “creative” side of previous research and debatable resolutions.
The specific hypothesis that has been propositioned is as follows:
Do the effects of Elongated Skulls that result in increased cranial capacity create an exploitable avenue for increased brain function and or higher intelligence, and if so, would these effects be noticeable in a society without our modern testing?
I have examined and researched the subject and associated domains on this topic quite deeply over the last 18 months and have found viable correlations. However, it has been difficult to accurately scrutinize these connections as they quickly branch out through multiple avenues of study, many of which lose relation to the primary subject at hand. The question itself seems direct, but the theory proliferates rapidly in many directions. Due to modern skeptics and conspiracists, this one question alone segues through aliens, the occult, sexism, racism, and everything in between. Breaking down the rational and factual based information buried in my research, I have found the following provides at least an optimistic view of evidence to further confirm the proposed connection.
Though it may seem redundant, I am going to further state this clarification with this: I am not correlating any of this info to races, sexes, religion, etc. This is simply looking to verify if there is a probable chance that increased brain size can affect intelligence in a perceptible way.
Without further ado, here are eleven points that I believe one can find viable with backed research, though, each currently independently operating without regard to each other.
Point 1, Archaeological findings:
There have been archaeological sites that have surfaced human skulls with larger cranial capacity then current human skulls.
Looking at cranial deformation and natural formation specific to elongated skulls resulting in increased cranial capacity, (Not regarding head binding, and the deformation that does not increase cranial capacity) and bypassing for now the discussion on genetic differences vs ACD development; It appears with some certainty that skulls have been found with cranial capacities of 1700 cubic centimeters up to 2000 cubic centimeters. (Lynch, 2009, Suzuki 1970)
I am circumventing outliners larger than that due to circumstantial reporting. I am not dismissive of it, just not discussing that research here.
Point 2, Brain to body mass:
There is a known correlation between mammals’ brain to body mass ratios with intelligence.
(Pontarotti, 2016)
Though that has been criticized as being not as accurate as “whole brain size” it is still clearly a utilized estimator in determining species intelligence. When the correlation is utilized in human intelligence classifications, it is often rebuffed or criticized. However, at least on a broader spectrum of analysis there is a known affiliation between intelligence and brain size.
Point 3, Decreased cranial capacity:
Over time, and at least since the Upper Paleolithic period, brain size has decreased.
(Cartmill, 2009)
Cranial capacity in men have decreased from cubic volume of a approx. 1,550 cm2 (30,000 years ago +/-) to around 1280-1,440cm2 in today’s current average.
Likewise cranial capacity of women has decreased from approx. 1,500cm2 (again, 30,000 years ago +/-) to around 1130-1,230 cm2 in today’s current average.
To hold a contextual understanding here, please note the differences in capacity of men vs women are a proportional decrease in men to women per their average body mass. Again, this is comparing brain to mass. Additionally, the numbers vary per source, but this is a close average determined from several reviewed sources.
With the assumed understanding of correlated differences in sexes, we are looking at an average size of approx. 1525cm2 nearly 30k years ago to an average size of 1270cm2 today. This size change could furthermore be taken as an exponential decrease regarding size-to-mass considering the average human mass has increased in unison. Albeit there is quite a bit of conflicting information as well, however, I again will not digress into that portion too deeply.
Point 4, Brain size and intelligence:
Brain size does correlate at least in some regard with intelligence, but there appears to be even more to that. There have been several tests done over the years that put the correlation coefficient value between 0.3 and 0.4. This is a weak to moderate association. (Koch, 2015)
This one point alone is such a crucial part of this subject that it is worth diving into deeper. To help with the takeaway here, I will outline it through 5 separate points of insight.
4A:
Graphing Scatter plots and determining their correlation coefficient is straight forward pre-calculus; but utilizing Pearson’s correlation coefficient to establishing the actual meaning of that r-value in this scenario is a bit deeper than that. Determining the r-value of something that is a tangible and accountable entity is as simple as counting, recording, and then inserting the numbers. But here we have a part that is not as easily counted with a universal and accepted accuracy.
The x,y, graph in the above referenced scatter plot consists of two parts to determine correlation. Looking at the y value first, this would be the cranial capacity, which is now the more direct portion here as it can be determine reasonably accurately with MRI’s. The second part, which would be our x value, is intelligence. At this point the plot becomes subject to deeper questions. I am not against using IQ tests to help initially and “roughly” determine a person’s IQ level, but one must understand there is an extensive and ongoing debate about the value of this current approach to IQ determinants. Still, the given is that people who are clearly intelligent statistically do well in IQ testing, and those below average, statistically do below average. Again, ignoring the outliners, and how accurate it is per the individual, this is still a decent way to measure and “ballpark” estimations for intelligence.
4B:
The variables introduce in the testing process make all the difference in the accuracy of the results. The current correlations that are being derived are not a simple a ‘1 variable’ to ‘1 variable’ chart like basic investment plots. There are other noticeable variables that affect this correlation in brain size to intelligence which are pretty easily deduced as well. These are the testing methods for which the people were tested, the span of intelligence for the people measured, the category of the people themselves that subjected themselves to the testing, and the background of people that were measured.
4C:
The human brain in a variety of ways organizes and operates like a computer CPU. A person for instance could mentally have Intel’s 10th generation i7 processor, meaning their brain should be capable of processing in the top tier of all applications. Nevertheless, due to secondary hardware support of that CPU and programing of its applications, it will not reach its full potential. On the other hand, a person could have a 7th generation i5 CPU, which is statistically inferior. However, that person’s i5 is overclocked, relying higher on secondary harware support, and geared specifically to software it is interacting with. In turn, that CPU is processing high above benchmarks of others in its same class. The i7 should have been the better performing CPU, its capacity was there, but it was not fully utilized. The i5 on the other hand is a lower-end CPU but was running above its typical average, allowing it to compete above where it should be statistically.
The same can go for the brain, two people with similar brain capacities, same average size and speed of neurons, could, and more than likely will, score different on IQ test. This is due to environmental development, and or even lack of the individual’s self-determined mental fortitude. Meaning, when it comes to the efforts of life, the individual him/herself does not care to apply their max potential toward them.
To get clearer results it may in this case be ideal to work at the outliners here, and those who are outliners without being affected by personal cognizance or their individual will. Staying with the same analogy, ideally, this would warrant a test to see which brains are running i7’s at their full capacity, and which are running i3 or i5’s at their respective full capacity. These results would then be compared against their brain size.
4D:
Ideally one would want to measure people of the same known higher mental aptitude against people with a known lower mental aptitude minimizing other variables.
The thing is, due to a person’s will dictating a portion of this, their will needs to first be evaluated before the equation. One might consider testing people for instance who excelled in advanced mathematics e.g., Real Analysis, Algebraic Number Theory, Multivariable Calculus, or sciences like Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and Organic Chemistry. Additionally, people with advanced understandings in computer sciences like Data Structures Algorithms, and AI Development would be a clear choice as well. These would be people that had no problem understanding the work and did so in classes that fundamentally are known to be ‘top tier’. Once that list was compiled, they would be the ideal candidates to test.
Next, take people that failed out of school not because of lack of interest, drugs, or change in plans or life events. But quite literally, could not mentally understand any of it before giving up. These individuals could have been motivated to do well, but could not process, visualize, or rationalize any true understanding of the course concepts, and then test these people.
This above would greatly open the extremes up before determining the r-value. This could be done with courses that require a long train of dedicated thought processes. Those that really show how your brain capacity is truly bench-marking. The thing is, this test will need to be accomplished with a sample size large enough to provide scalability. At this current time, no such testing or research appears to be in place.
4E:
In reference to the range in size of the cranial capacities, I have yet to see any multi-sourced specific data that could be confirmed one way or another in regard to how broad the span actually was. My hypothesis here is that without a very diverse range with proportional testing in each sizing, you are predetermining the plot to have less of a correlation as the y values will have a closer grouping. Grant it, these tests are for averages which would make sense here. But in my research I am specifically looking for the outliers to determine predictions about much larger capacities.
Ideally again here you want numbers that are spanned further apart. Adults of similar age with cranial capacities of 800cm-1000cm-1200cm-1400cm-1600cm. This would help determine an estimated value to scale out to the 1700, or even 2000 cubic centimeter range. Additionally, these adults would need to have their skull proportions not affected by birth defects, or infections/diseases that have caused swelling or inflation in infancy.
Point 5, Microcephaly:
Microcephaly is where the skull and likewise brain size is at 3 or less percentile at birth. That is approx. 25% or smaller than average. (Mai, 2013)
This would in turn be an average adult cubic cranial capacity of approx. 950cm or less. There is a known and direct correlation to Microcephaly and reduced IQ. Yet for some reason this does not fall into the realm of discussion that cannot be evaluated. It is clear and easy to confirm that if your brain is 25% or more reduced in size you have a high possibility of reduced IQ down to the point of intellectual retardation.
Point 6, Macrocephaly:
Macrocephaly on the other hand, is inversely where the skull and brain size are at the 97 percentile or greater. However, this is not typically diagnosed at birth and develops through the child’s adolescence. This is broken into two parts for the purpose of this discussion. One, where the brain and head swell to an enlarged size due to an increase in cerebrospinal fluids and two, where the person’s head is quite simply large for no scientifically apparent reason. In this case, and unlike that with Microcephaly, these tests do not dig deep into the IQ results, only stating no correlation. However, testing has been done and accepted that Macrocephaly has been detected in ~20% of people with Autism. That may sound like a low number but being that only ~2 percent of people have Macrocephaly, and only ~2 percent of people have Autism, there is a noticeably strong correlation between the two. (Redcay, 2005)
Point 7: Understanding Autism:
Autism itself has a broad range of IQ levels across its spectrum. From intellectually disabled, to genius; and all aspects in between. Currently we have yet to scientifically find any direct association between how Autism and IQ are linked, if at all. Current research documentation appears to hold the understanding that it’s less a link, as much as a random disbursement across the spectrum.
One thing that does not seem random; is that percentage of children with autism exhibiting superior math skills vs other students even at their own IQ level. Meaning even at an average IQ level, their math skills (especially arithmetic) excelled greatly over the child without Autism. This is even further amplified in Autistic subjects with high IQs. (Baron-Cohen, 2001)
For this discussion, let’s assume we ignore the term “Autism” has a name and definition as we currently understand it, and likewise the current negative connotations that goes with it. Instead, we observed it as a way of thinking differently, maybe not even “differently” … but more like specifically.
This is now a person with the ability to tune out social interaction, fixate specifically on certain routines and habits, have elevated and concentrated perception of touch, light, and sound, and a heightened numerical and arithmetic ability.
Point 8: Selective population:
It appears, at least from the view of archeologist and from the direction of some of the reporting historians, those individuals found with enlarged cranial capacities were in fact a small portion of the cultural area’s indigenous populations and perceived to be members of nobility within their tribes and cultures.
It is also accepted historically, there were not whole tribes or populations groups found to have enlarged heads. I was unable to find reliable information stating how they determined that the fossils found were in fact members of royalty vs another high stature position. But it appears, due to the assumed process required and the minimal number of findings often in close burial to each other, those record the results assumed they must have been royalty. (Vekasco, 2018)
Point 9, Historic coverage:
The period of elongated skulls which had measurable increased cranial capacity appear at least from current evidence to have started 12,000 years ago. Elongated skulls are not subject to one race or region, or even time period; but instead traverse the world in 4D up to about 2000 years ago. Head binding has continued up until the 20th century, and in a very small percentage of the population is still currently practiced, this practice however is strictly cranial deformation. (Zhang, 2019)
Point 10, Traditions verses initial intentions:
Mimicking something without the understanding of what the intent initially was, has a high chance of becoming superficial and even unrelated by nature. Purposeful habits which are repeated and passed down from generation to generation without context or understanding can become whole new habits, devolved of any benefit that was there as the reason for the process to begin with.
Without going deeper into other subjects, this can be seen in something as simple as holiday celebrations. This is in no way a jab to religious beliefs themselves, but what should be clear is that the current celebrations of many holiday traditions have noticeably drifted far astray from their initial meaning. Through the generational continuation of habits with the majority universal loss in understanding and reason behind their meaning; the collective descendant followers begin to incorporate habits no longer connected to the initial subject at all.
Point 11, Civilizational development:
Elongated skulls have been found in several locations around world. From pre-Incan Peru to predynastic Egyptians, as well as several other outliners in East Asia. These locations during pre-history were advanced civilizations capable of creating megalithic structures and other enormous feats of designs and engineering. Additionally, several other megalithic sites around the world have clear engravings and or sculptures depicting humans with large and or elongated heads. It should not be taken as a coincidence that these advanced civilizations are also the locations where elongated skulls have been found or depicted. (Burger, 2009) (Hawass, 2018) (Zhang, 2019) (Daems, 2007)
To summarize and tie together these points that may have appeared unrelated:
All evidence I have come across, though not applied in the same context due to an apparent stigma of taboo research fields, shows that larger brain size could appreciably result in a higher intellect and IQ. This would be true for the subject compared to the subject’s same group (ethnicity and locality) of people without the increased brain capacity. Although, the increased brain capacity and intellect may divert specifically to a less researched intellect of our time: Autism. Depending on the deliberate raising and nurturing of this child from adolescence with the intention of evolving their intellect further for a specific purpose, this could be a prominent and apparent change. I believe this change would be noticeable even in a society without today’s level of testing for it. This in turn would suggest why it was repeated and even copied, albeit with an eventual loss for the original intended function.
The effects of 25% reduction in brain size can be clearly linked to a dramatic reduction in intellect. An increased in 25% of brain capacity does not appear to have a statistically negative affect on IQ but does have a probable chance of increasing several other aspects of thought which may prove themselves to be beneficial in specific areas. Since these elongated skulls are also found in areas with extremely advanced engineering for their time, there could be a correlation to the society of those builders and the use of specific intellectual minds in the fields of math and science.
The research is lacking in a way towards the direction and limit of this intelligence boast. It appears at least at some level, that the increase moves in a direction outside of our current society’s norm. We attempt to cultivate well rounded societies from youth, chastising those that are bad in one subject while neglecting their advancement in another.
Through my research I have begun to picture a past ancient society wherein the well-rounded mind was not the desired outcome of every citizen. Instead, a hyper-specialized advanced intellect was a wanted and utilized part. I believe there needs to be room for consideration that prior to the status symbol that enlarged skulls through deformation had become, there was a society which these ancient people helped create.
These may not have been “nobility” in the way we currently see it, but Architects, Engineer’s, and Astronomers even beyond that which we have today.
Since the evidence is still inconclusive to say the least, I want to wrap this up and caveat with a riddle; that hopefully will not only make you smile, but make you think:
What is something most people would not mention that Albert Einstein, Magnus Carlsen, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Michael Langan, Edward Witten, & Elon Musk all have in common?
Genius? Yes, but here’s a hint to what you may not have noticed they all have in common:
(1:3 2:2), (3:3 4:2 4:5), (5:1, 6:1), (7:10, 8:5 9:0), (10:2 11:0), & (12:0 13:3)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
References:
Lynch, G., & Granger, R. (2009) Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Suzuki, H. and Takai, F. (1970) The Amud Man and His Cave Site: Academic Press of Japan.
Pontarotti, P. (2016) Evolutionary Biology: Convergent Evolution, Evolution of Complex Traits, Concepts and Methods: Springer.
Cartmill, M., Smith, F. H., & Brown, K. B. (2009) The Human Lineage: Wiley-Blackwell.
Koch, C. (2015) Does Brain Size Matter? Scientific American Mind: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind0116-22
Mai, C., Kucik, J., Isenburg, J., Feldkamp, M. (2013) Selected birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23198
Redcay, E., & Courchesne, E. (2005) When Is the Brain Enlarged in Autism? A Meta-Analysis of All Brain Size Reports. Biological Psychiatry: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.03.026
Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, S. Martin, J. (2001) The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11439754/
Vekasco, M. (2018) A Bioarchaeological Study of Cranial Modification in the Colca Valley, Peru : https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/695986
Zhang, Q., Liu, P., Yeh, H., Man, X, Wang, L. (2019) Intentional cranial modification from the Houtaomuga Site in Jilin, China: Earliest evidence and longest in situ practice during the Neolithic Age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23888
Burger, R. L. (2009) The Life and Writings of Julio C. Tello: America’s First Indigenous Archaeologist: University of Iowa Press.
Hawass, Z., & Saleem, S. (2018). Scanning the Pharaohs: CT Imaging of the New Kingdom Royal Mummies. Cairo, Egypt: American University in Cairo Press.
Daems, A., & Croucher, K. (2007). Artificial cranial modification in prehistoric Iran. Iranica Antiqua: https://doi.org/10.2143/ia.42.0.2017868
