Migrating Huns and modified heads: Eigenshape analysis comparing intentionally modified crania from Hungary and Georgia in the Migration Period of Europe

Abstract

An intentionally modified head is a visually distinctive sign of group identity. In the Migration Period of Europe (4th– 7th century AD) the practice of intentional cranial modification was common among several nomadic groups, but was strongly associated with the Huns from the Carpathian Basin in Hungary, where modified crania are abundant in archaeological sites. The frequency of modified crania increased substantially in the Mtskheta region of Georgia in this time period, but there are no records that Huns settled here. We compare the Migration Period modified skulls from Georgia with those from Hungary to test the hypothesis that the Huns were responsible for cranial modification in Georgia. We use extended eigenshape analysis to quantify cranial outlines, enabling a discriminant analysis to assess group separation and identify morphological differences. Twenty-one intentionally modified skulls from Georgia are compared with sixteen from Hungary, using nineteen unmodified crania from a modern population as a comparative baseline. Results indicate that modified crania can be differentiated from modern unmodified crania with 100% accuracy. The Hungarian and Georgian crania show some overlap in shape, but can be classified with 81% accuracy. Shape gradations along the main eigenvectors indicate that the Hungarian crania show little variation in cranial shape, in accordance with a two-bandage binding technique, whereas the Georgian crania had a wider range of variation, fitting with a diversity of binding styles. As modification style is a strong signifier of social identity, our results indicate weak Hunnic influence on cranial modification in Georgia and are equivocal about the presence of Huns in Georgia. We suggest instead that other nomadic groups such as Alans and Sarmatians living in this region were responsible for modified crania in Georgia.

Generalized Procrustes analysis of an ontogenetic series of modified crania: Evaluating the technique of modification in the Migration Period of Europe (4th–7th century AD)

“…Using surface landmarks and semi‐landmarks from three dimensions, we were able to show that crania from Hungary during the Migration Period were modified in a uniform manner compared with modified crania from Georgia. This result reinforced our previous findings from two‐dimensional outline analysis (Mayall et al, ).…”

“…Combined with the finding of bronze mirrors, which Werner () suggested are Hunnic cultural artifacts, we postulated a Hunnic link to the region (Sagona et al, ). To test the hypothesis that Huns were present in Georgia we subsequently used eigenshape analysis to compare adult modified crania from the Mtskheta region of Georgia with modified crania from the Carpathian basin around Hungary, where Hunnic presence was unambiguous (Mayall, Pilbrow, & Bitadze, ). From two‐dimensional analysis of the sagittal outline of the cranium, we found that the Hungarian crania were far more constrained in shape during the Migration Period, whereas modified crania from Georgia from the same time‐period displayed a variety of shapes.…”

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

“…In addition to the type of device used, the age at which it was affixed and the duration of its application are two other factors that may explain variation among the shapes of artificially modified crania (Tiesler, ; Tiesler & Cucina, ). The cultural etiology of ACM are multiple including esthetics (e.g., Dingwall, ), religious (e.g., Fletcher, Pearson, & Ambers, ; Houston, ; Tiesler & Cucina, ), the statement of a social status (e.g., Geller, ; Khudaverdyan, ; Okumura, ; Sharapova & Razhev, ) and ethnic identity (e.g., Blom, ; Hakenbeck, ; Lozada, ; Mayall, Pilbrow, & Bitadze, ; Ozbek, ; Tiesler, ; Torres‐Rouff, ).…”

“…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. More recently, geometric morphometrics has been used to quantify ACM diversity among modern humans (Cheverud, Kohn, Konigsberg, & Leigh, ; Friess & Baylac, ; Gómez‐Valdés, Bautista Martínez, & Romano Pacheco, ; Kohn, Leigh, & Cheverud, ; Kuzminsky, Tung, Hubbe, & Villaseñor‐Marchal, ; Manríquez, González‐Bergás, Salinas, & Espoueys, ; Mayall et al, ; Mayall & Pilbrow, ; Perez, ; Perez et al, ). Those studies have measured the shape changes among different ACM variants and highlighted how effective geometric morphometrics can be when applied to the issue of discriminating among various ACM techniques.…”

“…Nevertheless, numerous studies have highlighted that the morphological differences among ACM types do not have clear‐cut boundaries. Some morphological overlaps are observable between individuals belonging to different ACM types, as well as between individuals with ACM and control group individuals (Clark et al, ; Kuzminsky et al, ; Mayall et al, ; Pomeroy et al, ). Because cranial modification is a complex and dynamic integrated system, several factors can influence the final form a skull takes, including the type of cephalic device used to modify the skull, its placement on the skull, the magnitude of the pressure it applies to the skull, the length of its application and the age of the individual when initially exposed to modification.…”