"Giant" Native Tribes of Ancient America

[TheWizard]

Which shows that you don't understanding the distinction between its use in a scientific context and its common usage. And yes, a scientific theory can be a fact. An example being 'evolutionary theory'. Sorry to hear you didn't know that.

Most of us know the distinction between the two usages of the word. I was just pointing it out.

cormac

Truth in science is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Therefore it is not logical to think of any theory as a cold hard fact. If you want to argue this further you can send me a PM but it is off topic and I don't want it to flood the comments.

If you have anything to add to the actual topic please do.

[stereologist]

I think that if the Pataginians were 6.5-7 feet tall that it might be possible for them to be 5.5-6 feet tall 300 years later after suffering European disease, genocide and slavery.

People keep referencing a race of giants and I seem to have to continue to say this: I am not suggesting a race of giants. I am suggesting that tribes of genetically tall people may have existed. And I never said that Tuscaloosa's entire tribe were tall; I said that he and his son were just as you said. Read it in my OP.

Please provide evidence that European disease, genocide and slavery apply to these people and that this reduces height. You are speculating at this point that these factors have changed people's height dramatically. I simply do not find that in any way credible. Although you do not mention Drake it seems from this you are already discounting Magellan. You should change your position then that Magellan was wrong.

I did read in your OP that you mention the height of 2 people. Both of us seem to be clear that these 2 were extraordinarily tall for their group. These 2 then have no bearing on whether or not "tribes of genetically tall people may have existed." Then we can drop that from the list of evidence you provided.

[Q-C]

I've said that I'm not claiming the existence of a race of giants more than once in my posts. You seem to be completely overlooking it. I agree that 7-8 feet is not completely unheard of, which I have also suggested in my previous posts, but it is unusual.

I misinterpreted your Theory:

Here’s my theory: there may have been tribes of hereditarily large (7-8 ft) people who inhabited the Americas in the distant past (the original natives perhaps). Early settlers (the ancestors of the people we now call Native Americans) encountered these people. There were conflicts between the “giants” and the early settlers and ultimately the settlers drove the giants off and maybe even killed most of them. However, some of these so called giants were accepted into the settlers’ tribes and passed their genes to their children and so forth. That would explain the large mound builder skeletons among the regular sized ones. It would also explain the large kings and chiefs written about by early European explorers. The Patagonians that Magellan and other explorers encountered may have been what was left of the dying giant tribes who had been drove out of their land.

But I ask: If 8-foot is not a giant what would be? And what 8-foot skeletons have been found and confirmed?

[TheWizard]

Please provide evidence that European disease, genocide and slavery apply to these people and that this reduces height. You are speculating at this point that these factors have changed people's height dramatically.

According to Richard Steckel of Ohio State University:

Height is an indicator of overall health and economic well-being

However, you are right; I was speculating about European disease, slavery and genocide. I suppose I was making a general assumption and I apologize for that. I haven't been able to dig anything up that would support it. If I find anything I will post it here.

Although you do not mention Drake it seems from this you are already discounting Magellan. You should change your position then that Magellan was wrong.

I believe Magellan probably exaggerated their height but he wasn't wrong in as much as these people were unusually tall. Magellan exaggerating their height doesn't discount the fact that he encountered a tribe of very tall people, as has been confirmed by other early explorers. I don't see why I should change my position at all; I stated from the beginning that I thought Magellan had exaggerated their height.

I did read in your OP that you mention the height of 2 people. Both of us seem to be clear that these 2 were extraordinarily tall for their group. These 2 then have no bearing on whether or not "tribes of genetically tall people may have existed." Then we can drop that from the list of evidence you provided.

From my OP:

...some of these so called giants were accepted into the settlers’ tribes and passed their genes to their children and so forth. That would explain the large mound builder skeletons among the regular sized ones. It would also explain the large kings and chiefs written about by early European explorers.

If 8-foot is not a giant what would be? And what 8-foot skeletons have been found and confirmed?

When you say "a race of giants" it seems to suggest fairy-tale creatures, as in not human. I don't think that these people were not human or that they were giants in the fairy-tale sense. They were simply exceptionally tall humans that passed down their height genetically.

The skeletons in the Smithsonian reports and the old history books that I linked to in earlier posts confirm the finding of many skeletons that are between 7-8 feet tall. Many of these accounts describe the bones crumbling upon being touched and most of the remains were in an advanced state of decay. I believe that quite a few of them were reburied. There are several scattered throughout the pages. If you are interested in finding out about individual skeletons then I suggest you search through the books.

I stumbled upon a story on a skeleton that was found that measured over 11 feet tall, however it was not in America. Keep in mind I just found this so I'm still reading about it, I can't say how reliable this is yet. It's nicknamed the Giant of Castelnau. The link is to a wikipedia page BUT they do have the source material cited at the bottom of the page. That's what I'm looking through right now.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[stereologist]

According to Steckel's analysis, heights decreased from an average of 68.27 inches (173.4 centimeters) in the early Middle Ages to an average low of roughly 65.75 inches (167 cm) during the 17th and 18th centuries.

"This decline of two-and-a-half inches substantially exceeds any height fluctuations seen during the various industrial revolutions of the 19th century," Steckel said.

It seems that this article suggests changes in the range of 5cm is possible, not the 50cm you suggested for the Patagonians.

I believe Magellan probably exaggerated their height but he wasn't wrong in as much as these people were unusually tall. Magellan exaggerating their height doesn't discount the fact that he encountered a tribe of very tall people, as has been confirmed by other early explorers. I don't see why I should change my position at all; I stated from the beginning that I thought Magellan had exaggerated their height.

So they were taller, but not by much. Both Magellans and Drakes claims are questionable and almost certainly exaggerations.

...some of these so called giants were accepted into the settlers’ tribes and passed their genes to their children and so forth. That would explain the large mound builder skeletons among the regular sized ones. It would also explain the large kings and chiefs written about by early European explorers.

So preferential burial is the reason for the claims in the mounds, not mistakes made by amateurs, not exaggerations, not hoaxes, nor other reasons. So far I find that a little hard to believe.

In the case of Tuscaloosa and his son there are 2 tall people in the group. There are no others. Are you claiming they were the only living members of their family? It's a father and son only? What about aunts and uncles and cousins?

[TheWizard]

It seems that this article suggests changes in the range of 5cm is possible, not the 50cm you suggested for the Patagonians.

As I already admitted, that suggestion was based on speculation. My original theory from my OP is that the Patagonians that live today are not the same tribes of the past. They are the settlers who killed or drove off the original natives who the early explorers encountered.

So they were taller, but not by much. Both Magellans and Drakes claims are questionable and almost certainly exaggerations.

Where are you getting "they were taller but not by much"? The link you provided from Princeton never suggests that an explorer describes these people as being less than 7 feet tall. In fact they all suggest that these people were most likely taller than 7 feet. Byron (who for some reason is known for debunking the myth) even states that a man of 6'2" had "become a pygmy among giants."

I've already said and have been saying: I see how Magellan's claims are clearly exaggerations. But how are Drake's? He claimed they were around 7.5 feet.

So preferential burial is the reason for the claims in the mounds, not mistakes made by amateurs, not exaggerations, not hoaxes, nor other reasons. So far I find that a little hard to believe.

In the case of Tuscaloosa and his son there are 2 tall people in the group. There are no others. Are you claiming they were the only living members of their family? It's a father and son only? What about aunts and uncles and cousins?

Wait, what? No. I guess I should explain this more clearly. The original inhabitants of America included, but were not limited to, the genetically tall tribes. Other tribes of people migrated to America, found these "giants" and fought them for land or other reasons. Eventually the "settlers" killed and drove away most of the "giants". However, a very small and scattered number of these genetically tall people for various unknown reasons were allowed to join the tribes of the settlers, mated with the settlers and as a result planted their "genetic seeds" into these average sized tribes people. Because of the small number of these instances, a very small number of people passed on this "giant trait" so there would have only been 1, 2 or maybe 3 people of great stature. Sometimes the "giant trait" might have even skipped generations, who knows. I suggest that Tuscaloosa was so tall (maybe) because of this ancient giant trait. And I suggest that these tall 7-8 foot skeletons were of the rare people who were passed down this ancient giant trait. I hope that this is more understandable now.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[kmt_sesh]

The only problem with that is that in the last 100 years, North Americans haven't suffered genocide, disease and slavery. All three of these can drastically effect mental and physical health which can in theory effect stature.

The presence of disease will affect a population, not a race. If we're talking genetic mutations, change is more on the order of millennia, not centuries. By this rate, genocide and disease will eliminate a population and make it extinct, but not affect genetic conditions in the short term. As a matter of fact, I remember reading that vast numbers of Native Americans were wiped out before first setting eyes on Europeans: diseases brought from Europe, which Native Americans could not ward off, killed whole tribes ahead of the advance of Europeans.

I have been researching the Smithsonian annual reports, but so far that is as far as my research has gotten in the direction of the Smithsonian. I'm at the moment comparing two reports of the same mound exploration (Charleston/Criel Mound). It appears that Cyrus Thomas has an almost completely different report than Col. Norris. I'm trying to find out why. I suppose that contacting the Smithsonian would be a good idea but I won't have a chance to go there myself for quite some time as I am unable to travel.

Annual reports can be very helpful. They often mention interesting and unusual acquisitions by a museum. I've dug into the archives of both museums where I serve as a docent and have enjoyed reading the very old reports from the early days. A lot of this has been digitized and is online. I'm not familiar with the Smithsonian's archives and have never used them in my own research, but it's worth looking into. What might they have online? Also, although it would be nice to visit the place in person, you don't necessarily have to. I've received research assistance from the British Museum and have never set foot in England.

[cormac mac airt]

~SNIP~

Wait, what? No. I guess I should explain this more clearly. The original inhabitants of America included, but were not limited to, the genetically tall tribes. Other tribes of people migrated to America, found these "giants" and fought them for land or other reasons. Eventually the "settlers" killed and drove away most of the "giants". However, a very small and scattered number of these genetically tall people for various unknown reasons were allowed to join the tribes of the settlers, mated with the settlers and as a result planted their "genetic seeds" into these average sized tribes people. Because of the small number of these instances, a very small number of people passed on this "giant trait" so there would have only been 1, 2 or maybe 3 people of great stature. Sometimes the "giant trait" might have even skipped generations, who knows. I suggest that Tuscaloosa was so tall (maybe) because of this ancient giant trait. And I suggest that these tall 7-8 foot skeletons were of the rare people who were passed down this ancient giant trait. I hope that this is more understandable now.

How do you get genetically tall tribes from a few samples that 'might' be taller that average for any given set of peoples? Also taller groups of people are usually associated with having had better diets, etc. than others, yet the evidence associated with the earliest immigrants into the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum suggests that all groups faced the same or very similar dietary constraints. A few extra tall people here or there does not constitute a tribe. Just curious.

cormac

Edited October 11, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[TheWizard]

The presence of disease will affect a population, not a race. If we're talking genetic mutations, change is more on the order of millennia, not centuries. By this rate, genocide and disease will eliminate a population and make it extinct, but not affect genetic conditions in the short term. As a matter of fact, I remember reading that vast numbers of Native Americans were wiped out before first setting eyes on Europeans: diseases brought from Europe, which Native Americans could not ward off, killed whole tribes ahead of the advance of Europeans.

I've already admitted that I formed this idea prematurely and stated it without looking into it much.

Annual reports can be very helpful. They often mention interesting and unusual acquisitions by a museum. I've dug into the archives of both museums where I serve as a docent and have enjoyed reading the very old reports from the early days. A lot of this has been digitized and is online. I'm not familiar with the Smithsonian's archives and have never used them in my own research, but it's worth looking into. What might they have online? Also, although it would be nice to visit the place in person, you don't necessarily have to. I've received research assistance from the British Museum and have never set foot in England.

Yes, there's a total of 48 years of Smithsonian records available online. Here is a link to all of them if anyone else is interested. The mound I mentioned earlier, the one with two completely different descriptions, I think they may be two different mounds because of how different the portrayals are. And I've also found out that both portrayals were actually written by Cyrus Thomas and the excavations were performed by Col. Norris. But I have noticed one thing that is quite strange. In the 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Cyrus Thomas wrote 10 years of work in deciding who the mound builders were. The strange thing is that almost all of the accounts in earlier reports of 7-8 foot skeletons are left out.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[TheWizard]

How do you get genetically tall tribes from a few samples that 'might' be taller that average for any given set of peoples?

I'm looking at my research as a whole, not in sections. The "tribes" part is based on the accounts from 15th-16th century explorers telling of unusually tall tribes, as stated in my OP...

... evidence associated with the earliest immigrants into the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum suggests that all groups faced the same or very similar dietary constraints.

Could you provide source material on this? I'm not accusing you of being wrong, I just would like to know where you got this from.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[stereologist]

As I already admitted, that suggestion was based on speculation. My original theory from my OP is that the Patagonians that live today are not the same tribes of the past. They are the settlers who killed or drove off the original natives who the early explorers encountered.

That just sounds like you want to keep grasping to something that has no supporting evidence. The only reason for these claims is due to reports that are outlandish claims by Magellan and then less exaggerated claims by Drake. There are no bones or artifacts supporting these tall people are there? I would say that case is dismissed for lack of evidence.

Where are you getting "they were taller but not by much"? The link you provided from Princeton never suggests that an explorer describes these people as being less than 7 feet tall. In fact they all suggest that these people were most likely taller than 7 feet. Byron (who for some reason is known for debunking the myth) even states that a man of 6'2" had "become a pygmy among giants."

I've already said and have been saying: I see how Magellan's claims are clearly exaggerations. But how are Drake's? He claimed they were around 7.5 feet.

The people that have traditionally lived there are still there and are nowhere near as tall as Drake's exaggerations. So Drake added a little to the height.

The link I provided decides that Magellan and Drake were exaggerating the heights. The link states which people had their heights exaggerated by the explorers.

In all probability, these accounts were describing the Tehuelche Indians, native to the Patagonian area of Argentina, who are typically tall—but not monstrous giants.

So now the question is how tall are these people. I did a little research and posted another link, the one to the 1868 JSTOR article which you tried to dismiss with some unsubstantiated claims about people become much shorter or time. Then you posted an article which has peoples changing height by 5cm. Starting to recall all of this now? Even if we add 10cm to the height of the peoples down there you still are far short of the claims of the explorers. BTW, 1773 to 1868 is less than 100 years - hardly the time for people to become drastically shorter.

Wait, what? No. I guess I should explain this more clearly. The original inhabitants of America included, but were not limited to, the genetically tall tribes. Other tribes of people migrated to America, found these "giants" and fought them for land or other reasons. Eventually the "settlers" killed and drove away most of the "giants". However, a very small and scattered number of these genetically tall people for various unknown reasons were allowed to join the tribes of the settlers, mated with the settlers and as a result planted their "genetic seeds" into these average sized tribes people. Because of the small number of these instances, a very small number of people passed on this "giant trait" so there would have only been 1, 2 or maybe 3 people of great stature. Sometimes the "giant trait" might have even skipped generations, who knows. I suggest that Tuscaloosa was so tall (maybe) because of this ancient giant trait. And I suggest that these tall 7-8 foot skeletons were of the rare people who were passed down this ancient giant trait. I hope that this is more understandable now.

Not buying any of that. That just sounds like a baseless speculation. I really don't see where any of that story comes from. You might want to think of simpler reasons.

[cormac mac airt]

I'm looking at my research as a whole, not in sections. The "tribes" part is based on the accounts from 15th-16th century explorers telling of unusually tall tribes, as stated in my OP...

Could you provide source material on this? I'm not accusing you of being wrong, I just would like to know where you got this from.

I thought this was rather obvious. Every group that migrated into the Americas, either by way of a land-bridge through Beringia or along its coastline were limited by what they could catch for food on a daily basis. Originally they'd be limited by the same choices. Only when migrating out of one animals territory and into anothers would their diets change much. Domestication of animals or produce on a large scale didn't exist then so they made use of what they had, which as often as not included things most people today wouldn't consider appetizing. In any case, no one was living "high on the hog".

cormac

[TheWizard]

That just sounds like you want to keep grasping to something that has no supporting evidence. The only reason for these claims is due to reports that are outlandish claims by Magellan and then less exaggerated claims by Drake.

That just sounds like you twisting the truth in order to support your own beliefs. You make an blatantly false claim when you say the only thing I have to go off is Magellan and Drake. Anyone who reads my original post will plainly see that your accusation is completely false; I have not only quoted Magellan and Drake but also Pedro de Salazar, Amerigo Vespucci, Lucas Vasques de Ayllon, Hernando de Soto, and Francisco Vasques de Coronado, all throughout the span of close to 100 years. That is where I get my theory of tribes.

The people that have traditionally lived there are still there and are nowhere near as tall as Drake's exaggerations.

What evidence supports that these people are the same people the early explorers encountered?

The link I provided decides that Magellan and Drake were exaggerating the heights. The link states which people had their heights exaggerated by the explorers.

Again, what evidence supports this?

So now the question is how tall are these people. I did a little research and posted another link, the one to the 1868 JSTOR article which you tried to dismiss with some unsubstantiated claims about people become much shorter or time. Then you posted an article which has peoples changing height by 5cm. Starting to recall all of this now? Even if we add 10cm to the height of the peoples down there you still are far short of the claims of the explorers. BTW, 1773 to 1868 is less than 100 years - hardly the time for people to become drastically shorter.

I have said three times already that my initial response of these people losing height over 300 years was just speculation with nothing to back it and I have apologized for mentioning it as a possibility. How many times do I have to say that before people understand and let it go? Also, I was counting from 1496.

Regardless, the tall tribesmen spoken of by explorers could be a completely different people who no longer exist, as my original theory suggests in my original post.

Not buying any of that. That just sounds like a baseless speculation. I really don't see where any of that story comes from. You might want to think of simpler reasons.

I'm not trying to get you to buy anything. The basis is the fact that several early explorers encountered tribes of "giants", which suggests they may have existed; they aren't there anymore, which suggests, if they existed, they are now gone; the unusually large chiefs, kings and mound bones suggest that they may have passed their genes down in a small amount at some distant time in the past. What about that is confusing you?

Also, please refer to my introduction paragraph quoted below:

If you are the type of person who cannot consider theories that conflict with established mainstream theories, you might find it hard to consider the theory this post suggests. I can only ask that you try to not be offended and to keep an open mind. If you disagree and you have an intelligent reason and a credible source you can share, please, feel free to join the debate. Also, please try to keep the comments respectful. There is no need to be hostile or offensive.

I thought this was rather obvious. Every group that migrated into the Americas, either by way of a land-bridge through Beringia or along its coastline were limited by what they could catch for food on a daily basis. Originally they'd be limited by the same choices. Only when migrating out of one animals territory and into anothers would their diets change much. Domestication of animals or produce on a large scale didn't exist then so they made use of what they had, which as often as not included things most people today wouldn't consider appetizing. In any case, no one was living "high on the hog".

I'm speaking of people who were here before the one's who you are speaking of. People before the Native American ancestors.

[Q-C]

When you say "a race of giants" it seems to suggest fairy-tale creatures, as in not human. I don't think that these people were not human or that they were giants in the fairy-tale sense. They were simply exceptionally tall humans that passed down their height genetically.

The skeletons in the Smithsonian reports and the old history books that I linked to in earlier posts confirm the finding of many skeletons that are between 7-8 feet tall. Many of these accounts describe the bones crumbling upon being touched and most of the remains were in an advanced state of decay. I believe that quite a few of them were reburied. There are several scattered throughout the pages. If you are interested in finding out about individual skeletons then I suggest you search through the books.

I stumbled upon a story on a skeleton that was found that measured over 11 feet tall, however it was not in America. Keep in mind I just found this so I'm still reading about it, I can't say how reliable this is yet. It's nicknamed the Giant of Castelnau. The link is to a wikipedia page BUT they do have the source material cited at the bottom of the page. That's what I'm looking through right now.

I am not speaking of giants and bean stalks.

But I believe, there would be current interest, evidence, displays and information from mainstream science and it would not be necessary to support giant skeletons using old, unreliable, and unconfirmed reports of 8-foot or near 8-foot individuals. Enough too:

"so called giants were accepted into the settlers’ tribes and passed their genes to their children and so forth. That would explain the large mound builder skeletons among the regular sized ones."

Again, Lepper stated "I've never heard of any reliable accounts of skeletons larger than maybe 7-feet."..." We don't have any giant-sized tools appropriate for some giant hunter to be using in their daily lives."..."no Indian remains from the period in question housed in the Ohio Historical Society collection are giants. If these things were real they would've been given more attention" ... "They would've been published about more than a funny account in a newspaper."

I am also guessing Lepper would be familiar with the Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.

Without more reliable evidence to the contrary, for now, I'll have to side with the curator of archeology at the Ohio Historical Society.

Edited October 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[cormac mac airt]

That just sounds like you twisting the truth in order to support your own beliefs. You make an blatantly false claim when you say the only thing I have to go off is Magellan and Drake. Anyone who reads my original post will plainly see that your accusation is completely false; I have not only quoted Magellan and Drake but also Pedro de Salazar, Amerigo Vespucci, Lucas Vasques de Ayllon, Hernando de Soto, and Francisco Vasques de Coronado, all throughout the span of close to 100 years. That is where I get my theory of tribes.

What evidence supports that these people are the same people the early explorers encountered?

Again, what evidence supports this?

I have said three times already that my initial response of these people losing height over 300 years was just speculation with nothing to back it and I have apologized for mentioning it as a possibility. How many times do I have to say that before people understand and let it go? Also, I was counting from 1496.

Regardless, the tall tribesmen spoken of by explorers could be a completely different people who no longer exist, as my original theory suggests in my original post.

I'm not trying to get you to buy anything. The basis is the fact that several early explorers encountered tribes of "giants", which suggests they may have existed; they aren't there anymore, which suggests, if they existed, they are now gone; the unusually large chiefs, kings and mound bones suggest that they may have passed their genes down in a small amount at some distant time in the past. What about that is confusing you?

Also, please refer to my introduction paragraph quoted below:

I'm speaking of people who were here before the one's who you are speaking of. People before the Native American ancestors.

There were no people here before the ancestors of the Native Americans. Humans (members of the genus Homo) didn't originate in the Americas. And the ancestors of the Native Americans as you might already know originated from Asia, particularly central and eastern/northeastern Asia.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

I am not speaking of giants and bean stalks.

But I believe, there would be current interest, evidence, displays and information from mainstream science and it would not be necessary to support giant skeletons using old, unreliable, and unconfirmed reports of 8-foot or near 8-foot individuals. Enough too:

"so called giants were accepted into the settlers’ tribes and passed their genes to their children and so forth. That would explain the large mound builder skeletons among the regular sized ones."

Again, Lepper stated "I've never heard of any reliable accounts of skeletons larger than maybe 7-feet."..." We don't have any giant-sized tools appropriate for some giant hunter to be using in their daily lives."..."no Indian remains from the period in question housed in the Ohio Historical Society collection are giants. If these things were real they would've been given more attention" ... "They would've been published about more than a funny account in a newspaper."

I am also guessing Lepper would be familiar with the Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.

Without more reliable evidence to the contrary, for now, I'll have to side with the curator of archeology at the Ohio Historical Society.

The problem with this as I understand it is that where abnormally tall people are involved the genetic trait in play is recessive and not dominant. Which means one is not going to get a large population of abnormally tall people from a few such individuals. And should such become potentially dominant, as in the more modern case of the Dutch, a rather constant high protein diet to include dairy products is required, along with other things such as improved medical care, etc. Needless to say the native population of the Americas, prior to European immigration, had no such items in which to depend on.

cormac

Edited October 12, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[stereologist]

That just sounds like you twisting the truth in order to support your own beliefs. You make an blatantly false claim when you say the only thing I have to go off is Magellan and Drake. Anyone who reads my original post will plainly see that your accusation is completely false; I have not only quoted Magellan and Drake but also Pedro de Salazar, Amerigo Vespucci, Lucas Vasques de Ayllon, Hernando de Soto, and Francisco Vasques de Coronado, all throughout the span of close to 100 years. That is where I get my theory of tribes.

Please don't pretend that my post had anything to do with issues outside of the Patagonians mentioned by Magellan and Drake. Anyone reads my post will see that you are misrepresenting what I wrote. Your confusion is likely due too you mixing multiple posters into your posts.

Your theory of tribes has the problem in the case of the Patagonians that you have not shown anything other than exaggerated reports. Your claim now seems to be that the tall people moved on and that somehow a chance visitor to the area spotted them and no one else has found these people ever since.

What evidence supports that these people are the same people the early explorers encountered?

What evidence do you have that the people were really as tall as claimed? You have a report and nothing else. Now you want to pretend that the report is accurate. What evidence do you have supporting this exaggerated report?

The link I provided decides that Magellan and Drake were exaggerating the heights. The link states which people had their heights exaggerated by the explorers.

I have said three times already that my initial response of these people losing height over 300 years was just speculation with nothing to back it and I have apologized for mentioning it as a possibility. How many times do I have to say that before people understand and let it go? Also, I was counting from 1496.

Regardless, the tall tribesmen spoken of by explorers could be a completely different people who no longer exist, as my original theory suggests in my original post.

There was no point in moving the time back to 1496. You had already discounted Magellan's report.

To claim that the original people no longer exists put your notion in the same category as any unverified report.

The basis is the fact that several early explorers encountered tribes of "giants", which suggests they may have existed; they aren't there anymore, which suggests, if they existed, they are now gone; the unusually large chiefs, kings and mound bones suggest that they may have passed their genes down in a small amount at some distant time in the past. What about that is confusing you?

So you have these reports which were clearly exaggerations. In the previous thread it was pointed out to you that there is a limit to how tall people can be. The people that live there are not as tall as the early reports would suggest.

To suggest that these people moved on or disappeared is just a weak claim. To claim that genes were passed along that are no longer expressed is also weak.

[+DieChecker]

I very much agree with those who say that the early explorers, such as Magellan and Drake, exaggerated quite a bit.

I'd like to see the actual bones or other remains of these giants to actually believe in them. If they took people with them, for the purpose of showing them in Europe, why then did none of them ever reach Europe? Surely they could have kept the bones, or skull, if nothing else. A skull sized 150% of normal would be impressive.

Stories are just stories unless there is hard evidence behind them.

[TheWizard]

I am not speaking of giants and bean stalks.

But I believe, there would be current interest, evidence, displays and information from mainstream science and it would not be necessary to support giant skeletons using old, unreliable, and unconfirmed reports of 8-foot or near 8-foot individuals.

The first thing I need to point out is: very little evidence probably exists because, like I have said, they crumbled into dust because of poor preservation and amateur archaeologists. What little surviving evidence there may be would probably be being held (maybe even unknown to the actual owner) in private collections. Regardless of how many times anyone asks where the physical evidence is, this is going to be the answer every time until some shows up. If you need to look at physical evidence, I will post some photos that I have seen to accompany some of these reports. The only thing I have seen so far that you can actually physically observe is the Grumbles Alley skeleton.

What is unreliable about Smithsonian annual reports?

Again, Lepper stated "I've never heard of any reliable accounts of skeletons larger than maybe 7-feet."..." We don't have any giant-sized tools appropriate for some giant hunter to be using in their daily lives."..."no Indian remains from the period in question housed in the Ohio Historical Society collection are giants. If these things were real they would've been given more attention" ... "They would've been published about more than a funny account in a newspaper."

I am also guessing Lepper would be familiar with the Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.

I've already addressed most of this quote in a reply to an earlier post that you wrote. And, they were published in more than a funny newspaper account. If Lepper was familiar with the Annual Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology from the time period in question, why would he claim it's only a funny account in a newspaper? That doesn't add up at all.

Without more reliable evidence to the contrary, for now, I'll have to side with the curator of archeology at the Ohio Historical Society.

That's perfectly fine. I'm open minded about this and if somebody finds information that debunks the old history books and the Smithsonian reports then I will totally change my stance on the subject. We obviously see the entire situation differently, though. You see it as no evidence, but I see the annual reports and history book accounts as "some" evidence. If it never happened I don't see why the Smithsonian would have it in their reports. That's why I'm considering the possibility of 7-8 foot skeletons of most likely chiefs, but of course I won't be completely convinced until some more substantial evidence is found - that doesn't mean I can't have an open mind, consider the possibility and debate about it.

There were no people here before the ancestors of the Native Americans. Humans (members of the genus Homo) didn't originate in the Americas. And the ancestors of the Native Americans as you might already know originated from Asia, particularly central and eastern/northeastern Asia.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ovis-sites.html

http://www.sfu.museu...ndary/preclovis

http://archive.archa...efs/clovis.html

http://www.archaeolo...gon-high-desert

http://allendale-exp...s/AL_ORIGN1.PDF

There's quit a bit more evidence backing up pre-Clovis theories. These (above) are just a few to get you started.

The problem with this as I understand it is that where abnormally tall people are involved the genetic trait in play is recessive and not dominant. Which means one is not going to get a large population of abnormally tall people from a few such individuals. And should such become potentially dominant, as in the more modern case of the Dutch, a rather constant high protein diet to include dairy products is required, along with other things such as improved medical care, etc. Needless to say the native population of the Americas, prior to European immigration, had no such items in which to depend on.

I didn't suggest that a few tall individuals were responsible for creating a large population of them.

When it comes to dairy, Lucas Vasques de Ayllon reported that the natives of South Carolina made cheese from the milk of herds of deer that they kept as we do cattle. See my OP. He also reported that these people used herbal medicines and were much more healthy than Europeans.

Please don't pretend that my post had anything to do with issues outside of the Patagonians mentioned by Magellan and Drake. Anyone reads my post will see that you are misrepresenting what I wrote. Your confusion is likely due too you mixing multiple posters into your posts.

I'm not pretending that your post had anything to do with issues outside the Patagonians mentioned by Magellan and Drake, I'm not misrepresenting what you wrote, quoting multiple posters and addressing them individually is not confusing to me and I'm not "mixing" them. I'm quite capable of organizing my replies. It seems to me that you are trying to challenge my theory of unusually tall natives by isolating one small portion of my evidence and not even taking the rest of it into account.

Your theory of tribes has the problem in the case of the Patagonians that you have not shown anything other than exaggerated reports. Your claim now seems to be that the tall people moved on and that somehow a chance visitor to the area spotted them and no one else has found these people ever since.

No, now I think you are misrepresenting me. My claim doesn't "now seem to be" that the tall natives moved on... That was what I have been saying from the beginning, they were wiped and/or forced to leave. It's not a "chance visitor" either. There was more than one explorer to see the Patagonian "giants" and none of them described them as less than 7 feet tall. I'm not saying that no one "has found" them since, because there is nothing to find. They are extinct. I never suggested that there are still groups of these people still alive today.

What evidence do you have that the people were really as tall as claimed? You have a report and nothing else. Now you want to pretend that the report is accurate. What evidence do you have supporting this exaggerated report?

What evidence do you have that the people were NOT as tall as claimed? You have a report and nothing else. Now you want to pretend that YOUR report is accurate.

We can go back and forth if you'd like.

My evidence, so far, are the reports of early explorers, one of which (Magellan's) was almost certainly exaggerated because of the extreme height he described. There is no reason to assume and accuse the others to be the same. They didn't describe an unbelievable height.

The link I provided decides that Magellan and Drake were exaggerating the heights. The link states which people had their heights exaggerated by the explorers.

No, the link assumes that they must have been Tehuelche people because those people are typically tall. However the writer gives no indication of evidence to connect these people to the original Patagonian "giants". That means you have nothing but an unconfirmed claim and, according to your logic about my claims, it is discredited and useless. Also, there is nothing in your link to back up the claim you have made that Drake's account was exaggerated.

There was no point in moving the time back to 1496. You had already discounted Magellan's report.

To claim that the original people no longer exists put your notion in the same category as any unverified report.

So you have these reports which were clearly exaggerations. In the previous thread it was pointed out to you that there is a limit to how tall people can be. The people that live there are not as tall as the early reports would suggest.

I didn't discount Magellan's report. I said that it is likely that he exaggerated but he obviously did see large people as suggested by the accounts of sightings of large people that followed his by other explorers.

I don't agree with the logic behind this being the same category as any unverified report. I find my claim to have at least some backing in as much as the credibility of historically respected explorers of the New World such as the ones I describe in my OP. And you may bring up again that Magellan almost certainly exaggerated, that doesn't mean he flat out lied and there’s no reason to suggest it.

"So you have these reports which were clearly exaggerations" - now you are just generalizing. The only one that is clearly exaggerated is Magellan's. There is no reason to assume the others are exaggerated.

I know there is a limit to how tall people can be but 7-8 feet isn't it. The other thread was talking about a hoax that suggested a 37 foot human. There's a big difference here and relating these two threads to one another is misleading.

The reason the people who live there now aren't as tall as the reports suggest is because they aren't the same people.

To suggest that these people moved on or disappeared is just a weak claim. To claim that genes were passed along that are no longer expressed is also weak.

You may find it weak because there is no physical evidence that we know of, but I don't find it weak because there is historical evidence (the reports of explorers). As for genes being passed along - that's not a weak claim. There are somewhat rare occurrences where people just grow much taller than others (not gigantism, just tall). There have been plenty of people who are recorded to be taller than 7 feet, many of them became athletes. In order to be an athlete, you have to be physically healthy. Also, their parents weren't necessarily tall. Their parents may have been much shorter than their "giant" children, just like two brown-haired parents can give birth to a blonde. Why is this? Genes. Some genes are passed down through generations and every once in a while pop up to show their strange faces. This suggests that these "tall genes" have an origin somewhere. Why not very tall tribes of ancient people?

http://en.wikipedia...._tallest_people

http://en.wikipedia....ional_wrestlers

http://en.wikipedia....ciation_history

I very much agree with those who say that the early explorers, such as Magellan and Drake, exaggerated quite a bit.

I'd like to see the actual bones or other remains of these giants to actually believe in them. If they took people with them, for the purpose of showing them in Europe, why then did none of them ever reach Europe? Surely they could have kept the bones, or skull, if nothing else. A skull sized 150% of normal would be impressive.

I believe that Magellan exaggerated, because people twice the normal size is pretty unbelievable and we’ve never observed it in nature, but none of the other explorers described them so tall. So why generalize and group the rest of them together? 7.5 feet is not unbelievable. It's actually an observable occurrence in the present - just not large groups of them.

In my link I provided in my source it tells of what happened to the kidnapped natives. I will sum it up here but if you want more info refer to my OP links. Anyway, Pedro de Slazar took them as slaves to Hispaniola, not Europe. They died as slaves and I assume they were buried with the rest of the slaves or burned or whatever they did with dead slaves. The two Magellan took died on the ship. I assume their bodies were tossed into the ocean. I would think that they would have no reason to keep the bones or skulls.... they would have had to cut the flesh off and clean them... messy job. Why do that when they assumed they could just go back and get more living people later?

Stories are just stories unless there is hard evidence behind them.

Then there are a lot of stories throughout established history that cannot be thought of as more than just stories.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[Swede]

http://www.pbs.org/w...ovis-sites.html

http://www.sfu.museu...ndary/preclovis

http://archive.archa...efs/clovis.html

http://www.archaeolo...gon-high-desert

http://allendale-exp...s/AL_ORIGN1.PDF

There's quit a bit more evidence backing up pre-Clovis theories. These (above) are just a few to get you started.

You may be suffering under a misconception. In many/most professional circles, the "Clovis First" position was laid to rest some years ago. Even Vance Haynes has acknowledged the dating of Monte Verde. This does not imply that the antecedents of the Clovis culture were not of Amerindian ancestry (via central Asia, more specifically the Altai region). This aspect is evidenced by the more recent Paisley Caves DNA studies in addition to lithic technologies such as the Western Stemmed tradition associated with the site(s).

Also, have you taken the time to read the papers previously presented under your original topic?

.

[TheWizard]

You may be suffering under a misconception. In many/most professional circles, the "Clovis First" position was laid to rest some years ago. Even Vance Haynes has acknowledged the dating of Monte Verde. This does not imply that the antecedents of the Clovis culture were not of Amerindian ancestry (via central Asia, more specifically the Altai region). This aspect is evidenced by the more recent Paisley Caves DNA studies in addition to lithic technologies such as the Western Stemmed tradition associated with the site(s).

I was under the impression that "Pre-Clovis" vs "Clovis First" is an ongoing and heated debate. I haven't yet read anything that suggests most professional circles have laid the "Clovis First" theory to rest. I also have not yet read about the Paisley Caves DNA studies but I will. Thanks for bringing that up.

Also, have you taken the time to read the papers previously presented under your original topic?

Yes, of course. I wouldn't cite something that I hadn't previously read. Why do you ask?

[TheWizard]

I have found some photos of allegedly large skeletons and skulls but most of them have nothing to go on for size comparisons so I have decided that they can't be used as a form of evidence. They do, however, have very strange features. Take a look at this mound builder skull...

Notice the complete lack of forehead and the thick brow... it actually looks quite Neanderthal-ish. And is that little hole in the back side of the jaw the mental foramen? If so, isn't that strange for it to be so far back? I know none of this has anything to do with indicating the height, but it is just weird.

EDIT:

Here is a normal skull and placement of mental foramen... there are obvious differences.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[Big Bad Voodoo]

That just sounds like you want to keep grasping to something that has no supporting evidence. The only reason for these claims is due to reports that are outlandish claims by Magellan and then less exaggerated claims by Drake. There are no bones or artifacts supporting these tall people are there? I would say that case is dismissed for lack of evidence.

The people that have traditionally lived there are still there and are nowhere near as tall as Drake's exaggerations. So Drake added a little to the height.

The link I provided decides that Magellan and Drake were exaggerating the heights. The link states which people had their heights exaggerated by the explorers.

So now the question is how tall are these people. I did a little research and posted another link, the one to the 1868 JSTOR article which you tried to dismiss with some unsubstantiated claims about people become much shorter or time. Then you posted an article which has peoples changing height by 5cm. Starting to recall all of this now? Even if we add 10cm to the height of the peoples down there you still are far short of the claims of the explorers. BTW, 1773 to 1868 is less than 100 years - hardly the time for people to become drastically shorter.

Not buying any of that. That just sounds like a baseless speculation. I really don't see where any of that story comes from. You might want to think of simpler reasons.

Im amateur. But you are...

[cormac mac airt]

http://www.pbs.org/w...ovis-sites.html

http://www.sfu.museu...ndary/preclovis

http://archive.archa...efs/clovis.html

http://www.archaeolo...gon-high-desert

http://allendale-exp...s/AL_ORIGN1.PDF

There's quit a bit more evidence backing up pre-Clovis theories. These (above) are just a few to get you started.

As Swede has already said the existance of Pre-Clovis peoples in America doesn't mean that they are not Native American. It only means that they pre-date those peoples who originated the Clovis Point style of projectile. And it's no longer a matter of debate, Clovis-first is no longer a working theory.

cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

The problem with this as I understand it is that where abnormally tall people are involved the genetic trait in play is recessive and not dominant. Which means one is not going to get a large population of abnormally tall people from a few such individuals. And should such become potentially dominant, as in the more modern case of the Dutch, a rather constant high protein diet to include dairy products is required, along with other things such as improved medical care, etc. Needless to say the native population of the Americas, prior to European immigration, had no such items in which to depend on.

I didn't suggest that a few tall individuals were responsible for creating a large population of them.

When it comes to dairy, Lucas Vasques de Ayllon reported that the natives of South Carolina made cheese from the milk of herds of deer that they kept as we do cattle. See my OP. He also reported that these people used herbal medicines and were much more healthy than Europeans.

You did however,include the following in the OP as if it answered the question of abnormal height due to genetics and, in the context of the thread title at least, is relevant to giant tribes. It isn't:

...some of these so called giants were accepted into the settlers’ tribes and passed their genes to their children and so forth.

As I stated before the genes required for abnormal height are not dominant genes, they are recessive. And they require, amongst other things, a greater level of protein intake such as from dairy products. This does not automatically mean that because such becomes available people will suddenly become giants. There must be a need for the genes themselves to take on the dominant position. And of the various groups of Native American Indians there is simply no need for the gene to become dominant in one group over another. Here, we are not talking about the occassional 6.5 or 7+ foot tall individual but of entire tribes. It is just not in evidence that such has ever occurred.

cormac

[Swede]

I was under the impression that "Pre-Clovis" vs "Clovis First" is an ongoing and heated debate. I haven't yet read anything that suggests most professional circles have laid the "Clovis First" theory to rest. I also have not yet read about the Paisley Caves DNA studies but I will. Thanks for bringing that up.

Yes, of course. I wouldn't cite something that I hadn't previously read. Why do you ask?

1) It would appear that your understanding of the topic is rather(!) dated. The earliest contemporary, well-documented indications of pre-Clovis cultural elements can arguably be traced to the research of Adovasio (Meadowcroft). This research began in 1973. The next major, accepted site to provide pre-Clovis data was Monte Verde (Dillehay). We also have sites such as Cactus Hill and Topper.

In more recent history, we have sites such as Paisley Caves and Freidkin. Despite a distinct minority of the professional community, the general directions of research are rather beyond the "Clovis First" position, and have been for some time. The following should provide a bit of background:

http://www.pnas.org/.../4/971.full.pdf

http://www.eurekaler...c-tcf071112.php

http://www.sciencema...t/331/6024/1599

http://www.scienceda...20712141916.htm

2) It would also appear that you have not incorporated the genetic studies of Mills or Bolnick and Smith (2007) into your most recent presentation(s). Nor would you appear to have incorporated the stature/bio-anth studies of Braun (1979), Carr and Case (2008), Pestle et al (2007), Sciulli et al (2005), or Sciulli and Hetland (2007).

Is there a reason for these apparent omissions?

.