DNA Tests Show Paracas Skulls Not Human

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Agartha

Sigh.

Headbinding does

NOT by any stretch of the imagination

account for a very serious difference in volume/cubic centimeters.

Please show me the figures demonstrating that the cranial capacity of the Paracas skulls is significantly different than the average cranial capacity of HSS. I'll give you a hint... They aren't outside the norms of HSS.

a reply to: peter vlar
Some of the Paracas skulls have significally higher cranial capacities than HSS. How many of them is hard to tell simply because there is too little research done on the subject. There are hundreds if not thousands of those skulls laying on shelves of South American museums with no researcher ever examining them.

www.crystalinks.com...

The enormity of the cranial vault is obvious from all three pictures. By interpolation, we can estimate the minimum cranial capacity at 2200 ccm, but the value can be as high as 2500 ccm.

The "J" type of skull presents different sets of problems. It is an equivalent of the modern type of skull in all respects, with only several factors out of proportion. Less significant is the size of eye sockets which are about 15% larger than in modern populations. More significant is the enormity of the cranial vault. The estimated cranial capacity ranges between minimum of 2600 ccm to 3200 ccm.

a reply to: gnostician

Interpolation isn't an endocranial cast. Its a mathematical assumption. Even so, 22-2400 cm3 is not abnormal. Cranial capacity varies widely. Sexual dimorphism as well as geography play large roles in determining cranial capacity. Paracas is a desert area, this is the exact environment you will see thinner skulls with slightly larger than average cranial capacities. Chronology as well plays a role in cranial capacity. If these skulls are older than 10Ka then they would also exhibit slightly larger than modern averages. So are the Paracas skulls significantly larger than the range of cranial capacity exhibited in AMH? Nope.

eta- there is a lot of misinformation on the site you linked. I studied Neanderthals as well as H. Heidelbergensis and the transitionary morphologies between the 2. The skull they claim is "pre-neanderthal" no... not even close.