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

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:18:31 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

On Feb 13, 1:39 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:38:41 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:



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.

That would be dishonest.

It is also dishonest to call someone conservative who points out that
there is more recent research that overturns older research. The
conservative is the one who clings to the past and ignores new research.

That's BS Doug. Bones of cro-magnons, at least the ones dating from
before 26,000, are slightly longer and a good bit more robust than us.
And it isn't because they did walkabouts instead of farming either;
modern hunter gatherers do not have anywhere near the thichness of
bone.

I actually meant a rethink on the measurement of Cro-Magnon and associated
specimens.




(And if you were arguing for pygmies you wouldn't call me conservative).

For some reason, archies find a bunch of three foot hominids with
skeletons divurgent from sapient, and we have a new specieshobbits.

No consensus on this yet.

But when we find a bunch of 6'4 hominids with divurgent skeletons, we
still don't have giants. Why is that? Is it because giants are
mentioned much more prolifically in religious text, whereas hobbits
are not, and archies don't like giving fundies ammunition?

If it gets a species name it won't be hobbit, it is florensis, remember?

We don't have 6'4" either so far as I can see. Even if we did, they are
clearly our ancestors and not a divergent line which is the argument being
used by those who think the little guys are a different species.

The island thing is probably relevant to the argument over whether those
little guys are a new species, but they aren't being called hobbits,
that's just a nickname.






Seriously, research moves on or else we'd still accept Piltdown man as
genuine.

But in this case science hasn't moved. Cro-magnon bones dated before
26,000 are still longer and more robust than those of modern man. It's
just not safe to make any assumptions about that anymore.

Sure. But assumptions on actual length change with new data, right? You
get a few more speciments, you refine your data, whatever -- I don't know
the details.




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

.