> I surmise it is common given the relative genus of
> the region. Is this commonality not suggested by
> yourself as regards ancient Egyptian royalty?
Not sure what you mean by "relative genus" as all humans are part of the genus "homo" regardless of what region they are from. I am not suggesting it, but noting the fact it exists which anyone can see for themselves. There is a commonality among AE royalty however it is not common amongst the population at large. You are comparing the Bolivian skull to modern skulls which obviously the Bolivian infants skull type is not "common" by comparison. To use these parameters as we can see it is quite unusual.
> 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.
This is not the point, at least as it pertains to what I am saying. The point is that regardless of where they are found they are almost always immediately explained away as artificial deformation which is obviously not true in all cases. The reason of noting such examples of this natural phenomenon is to build an inventory of examples that prove this, not that they may or may not be connected culturally. When you read the sources you cite what do they both say:
"Scientists and archaeologists generally believe that the skulls’ strange appearance is the result of intentional deformation practiced by the Paracas culture."
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.
You'd think these were written by Mrs Trump's speech writer. I wonder how many times we uncritically repeat what professionals often uncritically "believe" before it becomes "truth"?
> It is a fair question to have asked.
Fair, but you know my answer.
> Presumed skull of Akhenaten:
> Better to use an extant sculpture of his daughter.
Why? It is still an example of such skulls regardless.
> 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.
This was not my intent regardless of whether a case could be made or not. For me it is a matter of proving first they are in fact natural which from that point the diffusion of such can be addressed.
> I appreciate the continued examples. :) There are
> lots. Point of note, that is not Nefertiti.
Interesting. Apparently so. Another example of this skull type nonetheless and presumably more likely it belonged to one of her daughters. Regardless of the minutia of who is actually who, there are numerous physical and statuary examples of these cranial types during this period going back long before.
I just ran across this which claims her famous bust may be a modern fake:'Fake' claims over Nefertiti bust
> Perhaps better if we could track down her actual
> remains, or an extant sculpture without head gear.
This is the closest I could find:
> Regardless of the author's admission, Foerster's
> claims are fantastical nonsense.
As I said to Willie in this thread regarding Forester:
Not interested in his opinions, but he is the one with the pictures which speak for themselves. Whatever shortcomings he may have, the skeletons are still there.
It is easy to attack Forrester's credibility to cast doubt on these skulls but the skulls speak for themselves and there are so many examples of them, many right there in museums for all to see, that have nothing to do with him.
> But here you seem to be taking exception with a review of
> Foerster and his fringe claims.
Please quote me where I have taken exception to any review of Forrester's "fringe claims" or where I have even mentioned them? The only thing I mention are the notes of the age of the woman and child which I hardly see as "fringe".
I quoted this:
The above intact skeleton, according to Ken would have died between 10 and 12 years old, possibly 13 and though her skeleton appears normal, her head is clearly huge and elongated. The shape of the pelvis indicated a female, and the skull, Ken said, is way out of the range for cranial deformation.
As well, there was a fetus found in the tower which died, according to radiologist Ken, at between 7 and 9 months development. He believes it is quite possible that the fetus was from the young girl, and that both may likely have died during childbirth, or soon before that.
How are these "fringe claims" exactly? It doesn't necessarily mean they are 100% accurate, though they might be, but hardly "fringe".
I posted these pics and links as a matter of general interest which people can read and make up their own minds. The skulls are still there around the world regardless of Forrester and the like.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 21-Jul-16 16:06 by Thanos5150.