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

On Feb 13, 1:03 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:22:16 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:





On Feb 13, 8:24 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.LyonLayden wrote: on, 13/02/2008 14:18:
For some reason, archies find a bunch of three foot hominids with
skeletons divurgent from sapient, and we have a new specieshobbits.
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?

There are millions of 6'4 people
Are they giants?

I have heard them called giants before.
But they don't have super-thick bones, steroid-like muscles, and
extremely large heads with ultra-robust skulls like cro-magnon did.
And most people they come in contact with are not as short as the
first agriculturalists. So I would say that the 6'4 people living
today are not as much giants as the cro-magnons were.

We don't know if they came into contact with other people.
Please, Joe, maybe you should think of not using the word Cro-Magnon? That
is a big part of the problem IMHO.

Maybe you are right. I will definitely not be using any archeology
terms in the actual prose, but I will have an index at the back which
will have the scientific names in italics. So I'll have to use some
sort of description there for the tall, robust guys.


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 -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... skeletons divurgent from sapient, and we have a new specieshobbits. ... But when we find a bunch of 6'4 hominids with divurgent skeletons, ... still don't have giants. ... Please, Joe, maybe you should think of not using the word Cro-Magnon? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... skeletons divurgent from sapient, and we have a new specieshobbits. ... But when we find a bunch of 6'4 hominids with divurgent skeletons, ... still don't have giants. ... Please, Joe, maybe you should think of not using the word Cro-Magnon? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... skeletons divurgent from sapient, and we have a new specieshobbits. ... But when we find a bunch of 6'4 hominids with divurgent skeletons, ... still don't have giants. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... skeletons divurgent from sapient, and we have a new specieshobbits. ... But when we find a bunch of 6'4 hominids with divurgent skeletons, ... still don't have giants. ... extremely large heads with ultra-robust skulls like cro-magnon did. ...
    (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)
Loading