Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There may well be remaining skin covering the
> > fontanel, as this was a preliminary observation
> on
> > my part.
>
> Unfortunately you did not make another before
> posting.

No worries, it's a discussion board. :)


> > However, please refer back to the Google images
> > search (just above). The shape of the 'fetus'
> seen
> > in the OP is common, not indicative of an
> > elongated skull.
>
> You picture a down shot of a fetal skull that
> looks to be about 5-6 months:
>
> Front view of a near identical fetal skull:
>
>
> Ironically, what we see by comparing these skulls
> is not only is the skull below not "common", but
> quite clearly uncommon as in not even close
> to being the same:

I surmise it is common given the relative genus of the region. Is this commonality not suggested by yourself as regards ancient Egyptian royalty?

>
>
> More "primary observations" on your part I assume.

Yes. And am I being berated for making an observation?

I don't see a problem with it. How sure can we be of the photographic angle of your example?


> > Just to be clear, are you suggesting 'elongated
> > skull people' are an existing separate human
> form,
> > born that way?
>
> Your attitude is perplexing.

?

Sorry Lee, it seemed like a general, calm question. Given in the spirit of making sure I stay on point. Still, the question is somewhat generalized, I can agree on that. I suppose I am merely curious why we are discussing natural occurrences of dolichocephaly as though there are geographical connections between South Amerindians, Korean peninsula Silla, and ancient Egyptians. If instead this a discussion about dolichocephaly itself, then fine, but otherwise I take exception to a argument of diaspora.

It is a fair question to have asked.

You note you have all of Childress' works and they are among 'your favorites'. What should one assume from this statement? Have you since accepted these works are very poor academia, and highly discredited, or ... ? I am not trying to be uppity in any way, I am asking for clarification on your position. Thanks. :)


> Presumed skull of Akhenaten:

Better to use an extant sculpture of his daughter.




> The latter Dr. Madiha Khattab and (her) team
> concluded (emphasis mine):
>

Quote

Tut's elongated skull was a normal
> anthropological variation, not a result of
> disease or congenital abnormality.

I am not denying the existence of the condition. I take issue with the context in which these finds in your OP (which are from years ago, not new?) suggest a relationship between cultures separated by oceans and millennia.

> And of course not a product of head binding either
> meaning, yes, they were born this way. Further
> supported by the famous relief of Akhenaten and
> Nefertiti which also shows their infant children
> with unusually elongated skulls as well:
>
>
> Nefertiti by the way:
>

I appreciate the continued examples. :) There are lots. Point of note, that is not Nefertiti. Joann Fletcher made some pretty big leaps.


>

Perhaps better if we could track down her actual remains, or an extant sculpture without head gear.


> Elongated, namely extremely dolichocephalic
> skulls, are commonplace amongst AE nobility which
> date back to late predynastic times. An Old
> Kingdom copper statue of Pepi I (or Menere):
>
>
> A topic for another day.
>
> Regardless, it goes without saying there are
> elongated skulls that are a product of artificial
> cranial deformation, but there are also many that
> are not.

Agreed.

>
> AVRY CITES:
> [www.peruthisweek.com]
>
> racas-skulls-are-not-from-alien-beings-102258
>
> [badarchaeology.wordpress.com]
>
> e-paracas-skulls-aliens-an-unknown-hominid-species
>
> -or-cranial-deformation/
>
> To review these, they are two debunker links which
> the first, a blog, titled: "Calm down, the
> Paracas skulls are not from alien beings",
> that beyond the passing uncritical regurgitated
> statement "Scientists and archaeologists generally
> believe that the skulls’ strange appearance is
> the result of intentional deformation practiced by
> the Paracas culture.", has nothing to do with the
> skulls being artificial or not.

Doesn't it? They are highlighting that the strange appearance is the result of intentional deformation.

Also, according to
> the author:
>

Quote

To be fair, I don’t have any special
> academic credentials that make me an expert in
> archaeology or genetics. But I’m not arguing
> that the data is flawed— we haven’t seen the
> full data, and I’m not qualified to speak on
> that— but I am arguing that a number of features
> of the announcement should warn us not to take
> Foerster’s announcement at face value.

Regardless of the author's admission, Foerster's claims are fantastical nonsense. Perhaps I should find a more academic debunking to suit my position. Apologies.


> The other debunker piece is rambling focusing on
> the fringe element of the subject though also
> makes the uncritical blanket statement:
>

Quote

Many of the high status burials of the
> Paracas Necropolis Culture have deformed skulls,
> which are usually believed to be
> deliberately induced using boards and
> weights.

>
> And interestingly at the end there is an update
> which tries to cite craniosynostosis as a natural
> cause of some of the deformation so apparently
> even this author is looking for other explanations
> beyond artificial deformation.

Well, like I said earlier, if this is a discussion about the anatomical condition of dolichocephaly (and why not broaden our learning with things like 'cephalic index', etc?) then fine. But here you seem to be taking exception with a review of Foerster and his fringe claims.

For all we know, the condition can be from a number of nurture-employed ways of covering a child, and it doesn't have to be a locally locked activity, rather occurs around the world as a matter of human instinct, i.e. protecting the child's head from injury early in life. In fact (eg.), flattened backs of skulls are known to come from how the baby sleeps on its back.

>
> > etc etc.
>
> So, to recap: first you claim with authority this
> is not a fetus based on the experience of
> "parenthood" then backtrack

Why you characterize this as backtracking, I don't honestly know. I encourage and accept reviewing one's own observations and owning up to them. How this is seen as a detriment to character and/or open discussion, well ...

> "Ect, ect" indeed Avry.


Indeed, Lee. Let us take a break. :)