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

J.LyonLayden wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:38 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.LyonLayden wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:51 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Do you know how to operate the Wayback machine? Very little
actually disappears from the Web.

Actually I don't.

Go here:

http://www.archive.org/index.php

Enter the URL of the web page you want to check on. Then hit "Take Me Back".

I used the URL Doug gave at the beginning of this thread, and got this:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/2g9c6e

I don't know how often this is updated.

This is from the image of the page from May 17, 2007:

"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. By 12,000 years ago, Cro-Magnon are fully human. Or rather, we are fully human, because Cro-Magnons are our direct ancestors."

And so what if the Web disappeared tomorrow? Science does not
depend on the Web, and it certainly does not operate by dueling
quotations.

Go to the primary sources. See what they have to say. If you want
to know the present state of knowledge about, for instance, the
skeletons of Cro-Magnon, their contemporaries and their apparent
descendants, hit the library.

You're right I haven't been to a real one since college so that would
be a good idea. the local one has nothing.

Mine is similar. Interlibrary Loan is a good way to go.

And don't stop with the first 'authority' who says what you want
to hear.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think that at least one
population "cro-magnons" were taller than us on average and definitely
taller than Natufians and such.
But it is a bed of coals to suggest that they were even an inch taller
than us thanks to you and your ilk. Any scientist who does that will
have people emailing her saying she's supporting fringers, and it
seems that scientist loath fringers enough to even disquise evidence
that they know to be true.
Bull***. You made an argument based on something you read--and
apparently not even from a primary source. Doug contacted Hirst,
asked whether the article needed to be updated, and apparently
she felt that it did.

He told her it was being used for arguements for giants, which sounds
really bad when you aren't don't know the context.

If you disagree, email her yourself and state your case.

I tried briefly to find her email addy...

Go to her article, click on her blue underlined name. This takes you to a page with her bio, and a link that says, "Email me". Click on "Email me" and you come to a page with her email address--at least the one for the About.com stuff.

But don't do that before you research the primary literature.
Otherwise you will be doing what you accuse others of--putting
political pressure on a scientist to alter their writing in favor
of your personal views.

Cro-magnons before 26,000 were taller than us on average, and you've
just destroyed the last quote that was brave enough to say so.
Science does not give a flying *** about quotes. They simply do
not matter.

You know what does depend upon quotations? Two things: politics
and religion. Politics have devolved to the sound bite. And many
religious folk use quotations from their chosen scriptures
(called 'proof texts') to make a case that other religious folk,
using the same scriptures, find reprehensible.

Remember the 30 Years War? Good Christian folk killing each other
for no other reason than their differing interpretation of the
same quotes.

Recently, we have been treated to another person (Lars Wilson)
who uses the 'proof text' method to beat scientists over the head
with carefully selected (and idiosyncratically interpreted)
'quotes'. I had hoped that you would be beyond that. I still hope so.

But for ***'s sake, Joe! Shake loose a little from that
suspicion. You are a smart guy. You are completely capable of
reading the relevant scientific literature first-hand, and
getting any help you need to understand what you read. And then
keeping up to date, since science doesn't stand still.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you have estimations of peoples like the Tutsi by respectable
people of their day saying they average 6 and a half foot. And then 30
years later a new study is done, after the Tutsi have been integrated
with another "tribe," and possibly have been the victims of ethnic
cleansing, and the old study is proven false by mainstream science
because the new study has found them to be of only average height!

Not by archaeology and physical anthropology, which is what we are talking about here. Archies and physical anthropologists have been key to bringing the truth about genocide/ethnic cleansing to light. If you actually read some 'mainstream science' that fails to take history into account, then you are reading either poor science or political spin.

Sigh. I guess I'll have to find references to every bone of cro-magnon
and estimations by every individual by scientists from no less recent
than 2007 just to be able to say, "Even the shortest of the outsiders
stood a head above Naftu and his men, and their arms and legs were
twice as big around."

If you are looking for background to write a story, you don't need to do that depth of research. If you are looking for the best information we have today on the issue, you need to do some research; and you can ask for help from folks who know where to look.

Hirst appears to know a lo; but the About.com article (and its mutations over time) is only a summary of other people's work. Why not ask her where to go to answer your questions?
.

Quantcast