The Brachycephalic Problematic

I came across a dogblog exploring the evolution of dog brachycephaly that got me thinking.  It reminded me that Stephen Jay Gould hypothesized that dog brachycephaly might have been a subconscious human preference that neotenized most breeds.  Pugs and spaniels are cuter than timber wolves. 

The English word, cuteness, has been used to describe neoteny and it seems in humans both sexes are oppositely attracted to cute features in each other, most of the time.  All humans exhibit some theorized forms of neotony, from glabrousness to light hair; but if you've ever been to an East Asian country or Japan, you may be familiar with Kawaii, which is G4-level cuteness.  Asian culture has been variously argued as encouraging rapid neoteny and gracialization in that part of the world.

Gould

In general, primates are often bracycephalic as infants and then become progressively long-headed as they mature.  (And to clarify, newborn alien heads don't count)  So brachycephaly in East Asians or some Caucasians may be an indicator that this too is a sexual-driven change, not random ping-pong balls bouncing off the walls of the universe.  (I will point out now that brachycephaly here refers to all correlated features of the skull, not a simple cephalic number)

Journal of Heredity (1921) Volume 12, pg 421

Almost all domesticated animals, minus the horse, have tended to become increasingly brachycephalic over time (Darwin) and there is a correlation between the length of the skull and the length of the limbs in most mammals, including humans (Henry Osborne); this also convincingly latitude/temperature correlated (Allen's rule).

Many correlations with shortened skulls are known throughout the face and skull of most mammals (Cuvier), which are generally similar in humans. Whatever the cause, what is clear is that body proportions and head-shape are the result of particular ancestry beyond natural variation.  Pugs have pups that look like pugs.

So I'll quickly interject a point concerning the Beaker folk, since they are shockingly mammals as well, not decorative pots.  The issue of Beaker brachycephaly is not a topic of simple cephalic index, one number divided by another.  Again, it is a complex system of correlated features of the face and the features of the skull.

Shifting gears now, where I was going is the question of an abrupt appearance of short-headed people in various prehistoric regions, in some cases as was once variously thought, emanating from the Zargos region or Central Asia.   Don't get too wrapped up in any of this since it's all theoretical plasma and not dogma or empirical science.

First, I'll juxtapose two papers.  One concerning "The Beaker Problem" and one, "The Sumerian Problem"  This paper:

"A Test of Non-metrical Analysis as Applied to the 'Beaker Problem'." by Natasha Grace Bartels (1998) thesis tests the classical understanding of intrusive 'heavy-boned, brachycephalic warriors' opposite to Neal Brodie's position that shape in Britain was progressively changed by using a collection of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age skulls from a Northern zone and a Southern Zone of Europe.

After lengthy discussion, Bartels gets to brass tacks on her European collection and concludes:

"This would appear to support the theory that the 'Beakers' may have been a distinct migratory population, and that the movement of Beaker vessels and associated items was not simply the result of cultural diffusion, through the trade of status items..."

This conclusion is not unusual.  In Little Poland (Budziszewski et al), Beakers are very distinct in terms of head shape, but also massive cheeks, heavy brows and high vaults.  Almost identical features for the large Hoštice I cemetary in Moravia (Eva Drozdová, 2014(?)) where the folk are also equally 'robust' and range from brachycephalic to hyper-brachycephalic. 

(An interesting Beakerwomen in Iberia-here)

I would continue, however I believe distinct shape and facial features of Beaker heads is generally well established and uncontested in European archaeology.  Even skeptics like Gordon Childe, who was deeply skeptical of the cranometric pseudo-science of his time, made a single exception for the Beakerfolk where the evidence is fairly overwhelming. 

Now, a somewhat similar controversy regarding the, not-too-well-represented Sumerians:

"Physical Anthropology and the Sumerian Problem" by Arkadiusz Soltysiak (2004)

This short paper mostly gives a history's history of race, migration and cultural change in the Mesopotamian region through the progression of anthropology.  Like the Beaker problem, there was identified an early narrative with 'short-headed' intruders, a narrative rolled back because of a complicated demographic history and spotty human remains.  But the question remains as to whether Mesopotamia's history was significantly altered by 'hill people' at different times in its history or whether several ethnic groups existed at this time, being demarcated by space or social status.   

These "whomever problems" seem to be present in more than just Childe's Western Europe or Frankfort's Mesopotamia.  Thomas Callan Hodson noted a similar phenomenon with a highland Anatolian-derived immigrant group in the Indus Valley Civilization, apart from the other Western farmers and Asians.  This is a problem in Petrie's Abydos and Naqada with a majority population that is long-headed and a small outgroup that is short-headed.  (as he saw, a distinct ethnicity)  Cyprus? How about the Pontic Steppe?  This problem rears its head there as well (no pun intended).
 
This is the Beaker problem.  New people or old people?


Also, another perspective by Rokus blog
Here, he argues that brain evolution has changed head-shape in AMH slowly from the hyper-focused hunters of the Upper Paleolithic to a more sedentary and specialized Modern.