10334Re: New host Digging for the Truth : Chachapoyas ...
- Sep 11, 2007Charles -
Good to see someone else sees the flaws that seem so obvious.
What are my theories about dolococephalic skulls? That they are real, genuine skulls of people we know only from these skulls. They certainly aren't fakes, and they certainly aren't made by cradle boards. So, what are the available explanations?
- They are real and natural humans with some medical condition
- They are genetically altered individuals
- They are time travelers from our future (remember the 1950s and 1960s guesses at what humans would be like in the far distant future?)
- They are aliens
- They are a parallel on the human ancestry tree ***
- Be aware that Cromagnon also had a larger than modern cranial cavity capacity and averaged 6'-6" (according to Otto Muck if I remember correctly)
- It is ridiculous that when the archeologists of the 19th century concluded that humans descended from Cromagnon Man, when the average European male of the time was 5'-3" tall. Was it coincidence that Neandertal man also averaged about 5'-3"? So, who exactly did we descend from?
- Be also aware that the average Neandertal cranial capacity was larger than modern humans.
- Ridiculously, the webpage Archeology Information states this:
"Some of the features that can be used to distinguish Neanderthals from modern humans (but not from earlier or conteporary populations) include: ... Larger cranial capacity,"
but then adds,
"(but due to larger body size, Neanderthals are less encephalized than modern humans)"
- to make the point clearer to you of their meaning (this seems such an obvious obfuscation statement), according to the Oxford American Dictionary, "Encephalization" means
Anyway, back to dolicocephaly:
an evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain, involving a shift of function from non-cortical parts of the brain to the cortex.
- Two parts to that. ONE is that encephalization means that brains get bigger as time goes on. BUT the Neandertals had the bigger brains, so how could they use that part of the meaning to say that "Neanderthals are less encephalized than modern humans", if the bigger one belonged to the extinct one? Okay, so maybe they mean the other part instead, so TWO is that they are somehow not only able to, but HAVE compared enough Neandertal crania to enough modern humans to ascertain - FROM THE SKULLS ALONE - the FUNCTION of the Neandertal brain. Now gray matter (the cortex) makes up the largest portion of the brain, and it is the part that is mostly in contact with the interior surface of the skull , the one interior part that could have some bearing on the things they can measure on the skull's interior surface.
- Neandertals had bigger brains, but now it sounds like they are saying that, though bigger, the Neandertal brain is made up of more primitive parts of the brain. Fair enough if they can back it up, but what evidence is available to be studied? We can at least discuss that here. And what they have is a few, a very few, Neandertal skulls. They sure don't have the Neandertal brains. They can measure the size of the skulls inside and out, study the undulations inside, observe the sutures separating the portions of the skull from each other, measure the location, size and shape of the foramen magnum (the hole at the base through which the spinal cord passes), things like that.
- When they 'study' Neandertals, one must ask if they do so with the attitude that if there exist any differences from those features of the modern humans, then the human ones are seen as superior by definition (actually by assumption). So, when they say that encephalization did not happen, it really means that the Neandertal skulls differed from human skulls, and all the differences are what made ours better. You see, if my mother wore Army combat boots, then combat boots are proof of my family's superiority over yours...
- At most, what they can tell is the general shape of the undulations of the gray matter (the cortex), as if that makes a difference. Trying to tell what goes on on the inside based on measuring gross features? Doesn't that reek of --- what was it called when they measured people's heads and had all kinds of "scientific" conclusions that they came to?
- Is there ONE person on this forum who thinks that anyone can tell what kind of mental capacity, what kind of person you are, what kind of civilization you live in, whether you were a good father or mother, based solely on the shape of undulations on the inside of your skull or the shape of your skull's exterior? I imagine that, based solely on these and not dating methods, they can also tell that you were alive when Armstrong walked on the moon, too. And that you got a B+ in American Literature.
Everything I've read says that the early "scientific" thinking on the subject was that:
- Out of hand, they decided that can't be naturally occurring, therefore another explanation has to be tendered, to whit:
- They must be artificial
- The people who did it must have done it for mumbo-jumbo reasons
- Somehow squeezing something INward makes it larger on the inside, not smaller (a bass-ackward case of scientific stupidity similar to the idea that Egyptians in 2,100 BCE could cut granite and diorite with copper tools, something they certainly can't do in 2007 CE) Up is down, inside is outside, right is left, soft is hard, wet is dry...
- Once one remotely similar phenomena can be arbitrarily assigned to explain it, all present voted "Aye" and tabled the issue forever more. And everyone else had to shut the hell up: The Gods of Science have SPAKE. This is another case of SCIENTIFIC SPECULATION trumping reality and logic.
Archeology and paleontology are the only "sciences" wherein the thinking of the 19th century still dictates. They should consider it a collegial embarrassment, but they don't even see their own silliness in hanging onto such uninformed concepts.
. . . . Steve
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, Charles Mattox <charlesmattox@...> wrote:
> Excellent observations.
> That theory has always bothered be too. We could be
> looking at a much different cause than the old craddle
> board theory.
> I just wanted to throw out what had been previous
> explanations to better understand the history of the
> problem and the fact that it was observed-with some
> regularity-in the Ohio River Valley.
> Do you have any theories or historic analysis of the
> elongated skulls?
> Good to hear from you and hope you are well.
> I wasn't a big fan of Josh's either but I got used to
> him after a while-He doid cover some pretty
> interesting material. I'll have my fingers crossed
> that the new guy ups his game.
> --- bigalemc2 sgtti@... wrote:
> > Charles -
> > Yeah, the new guy seemed pretty green around the
> > gills. I didn't stick
> > around long.
> > I wasn't a huge fan of Josh's, either, though. Just
> > my taste, probably.
> > .. .. .. Webb's idea makes no sense: What woman
> > would strap their infant
> > so tightly? And it doesn't consider that the
> > baby''s neck gets strong
> > enough long before any set could happen to the
> > skull.
> > And people who think cradle boarding can account for
> > the INCREASED size
> > of the cranial cavity doesn't know that squeezing
> > one diameter of a
> > spherical object doesn't increase the interior
> > volume, but DEcreases it.
> > So, the dolicocephalic skulls - with volumes up to
> > 2500cc and even
> > larger (vs 1350cc for a present day cranium) - are
> > evidence that
> > something ELSE was going on. Not only that, but the
> > SMALLER
> > circumference of them is very close to the same
> > circumference as
> > 'normal' human skulls. So, why isn't that
> > circumference smaller?
> > . . . Steve Garcia
> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
- They are real and natural humans with some medical condition
- << Previous post in topic