> Is the museum label description suggesting that
> artificial deformation took place at the age of two years?
> The medical practitioner states that the skeleton
> is of a seven month term fetus, based on his
> observation that the ribs are not expanded and the
> posterior open fontanel.
> Which is it ?
Certain cultures today lengthen the neck by gradually adding neck rings, enlarge lips with lip plates of gradually increasing diameters, keep feet small using binding wraps, etc. But nothing is really stretched or compressed with anything near the force that would crush bones. It's more a matter of putting low, steady pressure on a part so that it gradually molds into the direction of pressure. Considering the typical plasticity of body tissues, it makes no sense at all for a deformation instrument to apply enough pressure to cause a baby's skull to crack. That's why I'd like to see the instrumentation implied by that paradigm.
On the other hand, if that really was a 7 month fetus, then its skull simply may have cracked by trying to get through a narrow vaginal canal that wasn't able to achieve proper dilation during a premature birth, especially if it was hydrocephalic as evidenced by the relatively large size of the head (according to the radiologist in the video). Any number of traumatic stressors during or after birth can cause such skull damage. The bone appears paper thin.
I wonder if they can do a DNA chromosome test on it to verify if it really is h. sapiens. It would be fascinating if it was an ancient tetraploid!
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-Jul-16 23:04 by Origyptian.