cmotherofpirl Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Time changes modern human's face By Rebecca Morelle BBC News science reporter Researchers have found that the shape of the human skull has changed significantly over the past 650 years. Modern people possess less prominent features but higher foreheads than our medieval ancestors. Writing in the British Dental Journal, the team took careful measurements of groups of skulls spanning across 30 generations. The scientists said the differences between past and present skull shapes were "striking". Plague victims The team used radiographic films of skulls to record extensive measurements taken by a computer. They looked at 30 skulls dating from the mid-14th Century. They had come from the unlucky victims of the plague. The skulls had been excavated from plague pits in the 1980s in London. Another 54 skulls examined by the team were recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose which sank off the south coast of England in 1545. All the skulls were compared with 31 recent orthodontic records from the School of Dentistry in Birmingham. "This new research shows how bones... can provide more knowledge to the scientific community, and ultimately the public" Professor Robert Foley, Cambridge University The two principal differences discovered were that our ancestors had more prominent features, but their cranial vault - the distance measured from the eyes to the top of the skull - was smaller. Dr Peter Rock, lead author of the study and director of orthodontistry at Birmingham University, told the BBC News website: "The astonishing finding is the increased cranial vault heights. "The increase is very considerable. For example, the vault height of the plague skulls were 80mm, and the modern ones were 95mm - that's in the order of 20% bigger, which is really rather a lot." He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages. Repatriating bones The study of human remains has previously fallen into controversy, and a report commissioned by the UK government called for human remains to be repatriated where possible. The ancient skulls used in this study, from which the radiographic films were taken, have either been reburied or are now housed in museums. Professor Robert Foley is director of the Leverhulme Centre for Evolutionary Studies at Cambridge University, and sat on a government working group which has drawn up guidelines on working with human remains. "The study of human remains can provide vital information about our past. There is a huge interest in our biological past - both from an evolutionary and a historical point of view - and research into human bones can tell us a great deal," he said. "This new research shows how bones, and even the records of bones, can provide more knowledge to the scientific community, and ultimately the public." Story from BBC NEWS: [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/scie...ure/4643312.stm[/url]
OLAM Dad Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Why do people say 'higher forehead'. In reality, isn't the forehead always the highest point? Rather, don't we have lower eyes? Great, now I'm not going to get any work done today, I'm going to be thinking about this instead.
homeschoolmom Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 [quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Jan 31 2006, 08:47 AM']Great, now I'm not going to get any work done today, I'm going to be thinking about this instead. [right][snapback]870875[/snapback][/right] [/quote] See, now if you had a lower forehead (or higher eyes) that wouldn't be a problem
Ash Wednesday Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 [img]http://galactic.to/azb9152a/grey_1.jpg[/img]
OLAM Dad Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Jan 31 2006, 08:49 AM']See, now if you had a lower forehead (or higher eyes) that wouldn't be a problem [right][snapback]870877[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You're probably right. Believe you me, I have a HIGH forehead and it gets higher every day!
Dreamweaver Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Interesting, I know that in Burgundy, around the 14th century, women would often pluck the hair above their forehead to give the impression of a longer forehead.
Tindomiel Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Yeah, I was just going to say that, Dreamweaver. Maybe that's why people have higher foreheads now... the natural high-foreheaders back then were the only ones considered attractive and marriageable, so the rest died out.
Aloysius Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 [quote]He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages[/quote] what a quack! anthropologists figured out a century ago that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence.
Colleen Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 31 2006, 11:24 AM']what a quack! anthropologists figured out a century ago that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. [right][snapback]871012[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's what I was thinking. Why are so many people under the impression that people way back when were less intelligent than we are today?
Tindomiel Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 People nowadays can't build cathedrals without using modern tools. Just that fact should say something.
track2004 Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) We've always used "modern tools" to build Cathedrals. What "modern" entails has changed. We got smart and lazy and it's much better. Edited January 31, 2006 by track2004
zwergel88 Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 dude, that's cool. I wonder if we went back in time would the people think we looked really weird or something?
Cow of Shame Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 [quote name='Tindomiel' date='Jan 31 2006, 12:49 PM']People nowadays can't build cathedrals without using modern tools. Just that fact should say something. [right][snapback]871071[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm not exactly sure what that 'something' is.....
BullnaChinaShop Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 30-50 is a very small sample size compared to the total population living in each of these times. The fact that they think they can determine anything from such a small number of skulls is rediculous.
Dreamweaver Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 It sounds like there isn't really a representative sample size for the skull measurement. Plague pits in London? What about people from the rest of Europe? Who knows, there may be some odd genetic flaw in which short-foreheaded people have a greater suseptibility to the plague, or that longer foreheaded people had an innate immunity. :
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now