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

snip

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?).

How fair. You have her email and can frame the "reasons" for your
insistance any way you like, whereas I do not have the opportunitty to
present my case. She probably doesn't really care one way or the
other. After all, it's POSSIBLE that cro-magnon wasn't as tall as it
looks like he was from the evidence before 26,000 BC. It is
CONCEIVABLE that all those tall skeletons we found were not the norm
and due to lack of enough bones we cannot safely make the assertation
that they were any taller than we are now...

But c'mon Doug you know it is most probable that cro-magnon was taller
and more robust than us. You also know that we are taller and more
robust than we have been in perhaps 1000 years due to modern medicine
finally compensating for the malnutrition resultant of agriculture and
civilization.

Certainly you acknowledge some difference in stature between the first
malnutritioned agriculturalists and the last of the robust
huntergatherers, long before the hunter gatherers were pushed into the
less fertile lands and hence suffered from malnutrition as well?


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.

Which she prolly didn't do and instead took your "It takes a Village"
policing for granted and did the ol' delete/copy/paste.
She certainly didn't go out and remeasure specimens in a days time.



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.

So now you want the estimate to be over a WHOPPING 40,000 years
instead of even the first 10,000 so that no one will be able to use
the word giant anymore and you'll be finally, utterly vindicated for
your suppositions.


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.

That's what YOU think. Could we please be allowed to think as well
without having the information sifted to us through a grate so that we
won't get any ideas of our own?


 >But Nephilim? Nah, they aren't
any more real than those giants with double rows of teeth.

How do you have any idea? You don't even know what a nephelim IS, or
what the word meant to those ancient people.



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

And I hope to one day find a scientist with balls. pretty hard when
you get canned for reporting early tool making sites in america,
utterly silenced for finding crib-bit on horses in the paleolithic,
and harassed for giving seperate heights for two different ages of cro-
magnon!!



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 -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... post was being used to support the idea of giants. ... CONCEIVABLE that all those tall skeletons we found were not the norm ... Cro-Magnon speciemens we have. ... Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... post was being used to support the idea of giants. ... CONCEIVABLE that all those tall skeletons we found were not the norm ... Cro-Magnon speciemens we have. ... Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk ...
    (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
    ... "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
    ... after about 26,000, the size of Cro-Magnon begin to fall within the ... stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians, ... Now consider that most cultures talk about giants in their ... "The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to ...
    (sci.archaeology)