Test of the relationship between sutural ossicles and cultural cranial deformation: Results from Hawikuh, New Mexico

Abstract

A number of researchers have hypothesized that the biomechanical forces associated with cultural cranial deformation can influence the formation of sutural ossicles. However, it is still difficult to make definitive conclusions about this relationship because the effects appear to be quite weak, and contradictory results have been obtained when specific sutures and deformation types are compared across studies. This research retests the hypothesis using a single archeological sample of lamdoidally deformed, occipitally deformed, and undeformed crania from Hawikuh, New Mexico (AD 1300-1680). Our results show no significant difference in either the prevalence or number of ossicles between deformed and undeformed crania, suggesting that the abnormal strains generated by cranial shape modification during infancy are not a factor in ossicle development for this population. One significant relationship was detected at the right lambdoid suture in crania with asymmetrical occipital deformation. Crania that were more deformed on the left side showed greater numbers of ossicles on the right side, but the effect was small. Furthermore, the relationship may well reflect a sampling error, due to the small number of crania with greater left side deformation and scorable right side lambdoid ossicles (n = 11). Although it is possible that forms of cranial deformation other than the posterior tabular types examined here may affect ossicle expression, our review of the literature suggests that the relationship in humans is complex and incompletely understood at this time.

Marking Identity through Cultural Cranial Modification within the First Sedentary Communities (Ninth to Eighth Millennium BCE) in the Near East: Tepe Abdul Hosein, Iran

“…In the following, the cranial remains of each TAH Neolithic individual are described in detail, with specific reference to CCM, and its type where present. Presence of extrasutural bones (White, ; Wilczak & Ousley, ) and any pathological lesions on the cranium that may or may not be related to CCM (cf. Wilbrand et al, ) are also mentioned, in order to contribute towards the accumulation of the necessary data sets for the assessment of these phenomena.…”

“…At the population level, the degree of severity of CCM and its variation, as well as the occurrence and prevalence of CCM within a population and its subsections, allow inference making as to the cultural origin and intentionality of the modifications. The presence of extrasutural (Wormian) bones (White, ; Wilczak & Ousley, ) and pathological lesions on the cranium (cf. Wilbrand et al, ) is noted within this paper wherever possible in order to contribute towards data sets exploring their potential connection to CCM.…”

Re‐examining the relationship between cranial deformation and extra‐sutural bone formation

“…Although scholarly interest in the relationship between cranial deformation and the occurrence of extra‐sutural bones has spanned more than a century (e.g. Dorsey, 1897; Berry & Berry, 1967; Ossenberg, 1970; Pucciarelli 1974; El‐Najjar & Dawson, 1977; Hauser & De Stefano, 1989; Antón et al , 1992; White, 1996; O'Loughlin, 2004; Del Papa & Perez, 2007; Wilczak & Ousley, 2009), this relationship remains incompletely understood. Scholars are divided about whether or not cranial deformation causes an increased occurrence of these bones, and even those who agree that deformation does have an influence often disagree about which locations on the crania are most impacted.…”

“…As such, results from studies in which the deformed and undeformed crania were taken from populations of different geographic origin (e.g. O'Loughlin, 2004) must be taken with caution (this point has also been raised by Wilczak & Ousley, 2009). Given this, the present study contributes to these debates by exploring the effects of fronto‐occipital and occipital‐only deformation on the occurrence of extra‐sutural bones from a single geographic region (the Philippines).…”

Changes to the cell, tissue and architecture levels in cranial suture synostosis reveal a problem of timing in bone development

“…These processes are most likely occurring in response to external stimuli like the expanding brain (Kokich, 1986;Davis et al, 2009;Oppenheimer et al, 2009). The internal periosteum under the dura mater and the external periosteum may influence bone formation and suture fusion, but the amount and nature of their influences as well as the exact signalling pathway in normal and pathological suture fusion are still unknown (Mooney et al, 2001;Shen et al, 2009;Slater et al, 2009;Wilczak and Ousley, 2009).…”