Re: Kris Hirst's page on Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated

On Feb 12, 4:51 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:20:11 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:





On Feb 12, 4:13 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:49:33 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

On Feb 12, 5:56 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Seehttp://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm

Sorry, no giants there. :-)

Doug
--

Nope just homo sapiens up to 6'4 and over with thicker bones and
larger brains than us. And natufian man was prolly only 5'4...

The highest figure she gives is 176.2 cm, and that's just over 5'9, no
where near 6'4.  She doesn't mention Natufians, but I agree that they were
short, but there is nor reason to go beyond that to claim they were the
average height of HSS worldwide.

Here is the quote where she gives the measurement of 6'4.
Sorry it was in a different article.

"The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to
modern
humans, although a bit more robust, particularly in the skull. The
earliest Cro-Magnon were taller than we are (often reaching over 6
foot four inches), with longer limbs, especially the lower legs; but
after about 26,000, the size of Cro-Magnon begin to fall within the
modern human range."
 -Kris Hirst

The words "taller than we are" are very clearlt written.

As I said, no giants there. I don't understand your attempt to make people
think otherwise.

Saying that there were no giants then is like saying there are no
giants now. There are families that average around 6 and half feet
now...in the twentieth century when we've finally figured out how to
get back a diet as good as the one we abandoned at the end of the
paleolithic. It's non-sensical to insist that there weren't such
families in the ice age, in a time when many scientists say that the
representatives of our species were slightly taller than we are even
now in modern times. Put this together with the fact that at that time
you have populations taking up agriculture, and therefore shrinking
considerably. Now couple that with the fact that the cro-magnons were
stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians,
jomon, etc. Now consider that most cultures talk about giants in their
oral and written histories. They talk about bossajaun, oni, and
woodwoses (neanderthals) too in the northern hemispheres. Wala! Common
sense.

And she also says
"The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to
modern humans, although perhaps a bit more robust, particularly seen in
femora--the leg bones. The differences, which are slight, have been
attributed to the shift away from long distance hunting strategies to
sedentism and agriculture."

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What the living hell? I copied and pasted that quote just TWO days ago
and now it's gone. I believe it WAS in that article. I SWEAR I copied
and pasted that quote from one of her articles, and I am 99.999% sure
it was that one. What gives? Did you write her or something?

I did NOT write that quote. I will swear on all I believe in that I
copied and pasted it within the last 48 hours.

I believe you.  I know Kris and I knew that if she looked at the article
again she would update it. So, yes, I wrote to her explaining that her
post was being used to support the idea of giants (right?).
It really isn't a conspiracy.  I was unhappy with the way she had a title
that said Why we don't call them Cro-Magnon any more and yet continued to
refer to Cro-Magnon, and pointed out that she needed to check on more
current information about height.

Sorry if you weren't clear, that's why it says 'updated' in the subject
line, the article was updated.  

As you have probably guessed, it is rare to find a complete skeleton and
over time, for a species in a given time period, you will find different
figures for something like height which has to be estimated from the
material that is available.

I think the idea of giants comes from a variety of sources, some being
confusing fossils such as leg bones of other mammals with human fossils,
some being the fact that there are 'sports', extremely tall people, etc,
plus an explanation for giant ruins, etc.  But Nephilim? Nah, they aren't
any more real than those giants with double rows of teeth.

I hope to find time to report more on what Adrienne Mayor has to say about
giants at some point.

from K. Kris Hirst
Doug Weller, moderator of Skeptical Views of Fringe Archaeology and one of
my favorite archaeology webmasters, told me last week that my article Why
Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnons Any More? was being used to support some
wild notion of there having been giants in prehistory--I suppose based
partly on the story in the book of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian
religious text known as the bible. I thought that was interesting, so I
did so more poking around, and updated my page accordingly.
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In fact I am going to write an Amazon Short just to use Mrs. Kirst's
original quote in it now. She shouldn't have tried to get political
correct on me, because all it has done is propell her embarrassing
quote into the mainstream. I hope she thanks you for it, Doug.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... "The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to ... As I said, no giants there. ... stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians, ... "The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... "The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to ... Saying that there were no giants then is like saying there are no ... stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians, ... "The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... Here is the quote where she gives the measurement of 6'4. ... "The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to ... stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians, ... "The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: ancient giants?
    ... I've seen 5 foot 10 inches as the current accepted height but to quote ... "However, if the leg bones are used to calculate stature, the Cro-Magnon ... They don't dare claim a 7 foot skeleton is evidence of a race of tall ... And what does any of this have to do with giants? ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... Sorry, no giants there. ... Here is the quote where she gives the measurement of 6'4. ... "The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to ... in a time when many scientists say that the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading