Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Not exactly a Match for with Human DNA
#4
https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplai...ero-002526
Many main stream theories have always said head binding so what if there is a elongated shape in utero ? Well just so happens there is. Hummm !! 
Quote:Elongated Skulls in utero: A Farewell to the Artificial Cranial Deformation Paradigm?

Elongated skulls are usually explained in terms of head-binding or artificial cranial deformation. This paradigm emerged in the first half of the 19th century as a way of explaining unusual skulls discovered in Europe and South America, in places such as Crimea and Peru respectively. The main idea behind the head-binding paradigm is that ALL elongated skulls are a result of intentional modification of the form of the skull by applying external pressure. In other words, ALL elongated skulls are merely deformed ‘normal’ skulls similar to those of modern humans.
[Image: Elongated-Skull-from-Crimea.jpg?itok=-ejcfrjY]
Elongated Skull from Crimea and other parts of the worlds, Baer 1860
Challenging the Paradigm
What evidence could challenge this paradigm? Right – the existence of fetuses with elongated skulls, i.e. evidence that such skulls already had an elongated shape in utero , before any head-binding was possible. Do we have such evidence? Yes, we do! Moreover, this evidence has been known to the academic community for over 163 years!
Rivero and Tschudi in Peruvian Antiquities (1851 Spanish, 1853 English) argue that the protagonists of the artificial cranial deformation hypothesis are mistaken, since they had only considered the skulls of adults. In other words, the hypothesis fails to take into account the skulls of infants and, most importantly, foetuses which had similar elongated skull shape.


Messages In This Thread
RE: Not exactly a Match for with Human DNA - by 727Sky - 10-24-2021, 01:43 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)