"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Alemseged's team believes that a flood rolled the child's body
>>>>> into a ball and buried it in sand soon after her death, before
>>>>> the bones could be weathered or pulled apart by scavengers.
>>>>Every year numerous bodies are deposited by
>>>>floods (such as by the tsunami of 20 months
>>>>ago) How many are 'rolled into a ball'?
>>> There is no indication that it was "rolled into a ball".
>>"Alemseged's team believes that a flood rolled the
>>child's body into a ball". Gerrit Hanenburg can't
>>see any sign of that. They have worked with the
>>fossil for years. Gerrit has never seen it.
>>Whom should we believe?
>>Hmmm . . . . tough.
> I've read the research papers (have you?) on both the specimen and the
> geology of site and the description "rolled into a ball" is nowhere to
> be found. That turns out to be some secondary comment from
> and not even a quote.
> So, what should we consider more accurate, the primary literature or
> secondary comments by the popular media?
> Part of the postcranium is described as displaced from the original
> anatomical position and compressed superiorly under the cranial base
> and palate. That could well be a result of postdepositional
> deformation. Given that the Dikika child is not exceptional in its
> state of preservation with regard to the rest of the fauna at this
> site there is no need to invoke twisted logic to explain its
Thank you for clearing up the curled into a ball thing.