Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

"Giant" Native Tribes of Ancient America

giant native america ancient history

  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#16    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,294 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:51 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 11 October 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

...

That report was written almost 300 years later...  Things can change drastically in a fraction of that.  Also, I think we can all agree that the quality of life of the natives got increasingly worse after the arrival of Europeans (along with European diseases).  If the quality of life, health, mental state, etc... has an impact on stature I'm sure 300 years would have made quite an impact.

I would agree, but to a much more modest extent. For instance, today, in 2013, the average man is 5'9." A hundred years ago an average man was a little over 5'8" (interesting page). So in the past century the average male has grown around 1.5" taller, which is a noticeable change but nothing astounding. It's interesting that the average prepubescent child today is a lot taller than his or her equivalent a century ago, but growth tends to level out at around age 21. Given these facts, I rather doubt that any population of humans has grown or shrunk in the past several centuries by two or more feet.

Dr_Acula, have you contacted or researched the collections of the Smithsonian? This is the largest holding of skeletal human remains in the Western Hemisphere, if not the world. What information might they have?

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#17    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:04 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 10 October 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

You make nice, valid points.  However, my theory is based on an understanding of alternative human migration theories.  There is actually a nice thread where it is being discussed here.  It is suggested that there is evidence to back up pre-Clovis theories.  The thing we need to keep in mind is that nothing is certain when dealing with theories.  It is not the best practice to accept a theory as fact, because they aren't facts.  I tend to never accept anything at face value.  I need to understand why a theory exists and the proof behind.  I never just accept something just on the basis of it being popular belief; I need to see and understand the evidence.  I always try to take alternative theories into account because they are usually not any less believable or intelligent than mainstream beliefs.

Just a cautionary note here, a scientific theory is not the same thing as its non-scientific (common) application, as explained here:

Quote

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

and

Quote

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative.

http://www.livescien...-of-theory.html

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 11 October 2013 - 03:05 AM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#18    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:12 AM

 kmt_sesh, on 11 October 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

I would agree, but to a much more modest extent. For instance, today, in 2013, the average man is 5'9." A hundred years ago an average man was a little over 5'8" (interesting page). So in the past century the average male has grown around 1.5" taller, which is a noticeable change but nothing astounding. It's interesting that the average prepubescent child today is a lot taller than his or her equivalent a century ago, but growth tends to level out at around age 21. Given these facts, I rather doubt that any population of humans has grown or shrunk in the past several centuries by two or more feet.

Dr_Acula, have you contacted or researched the collections of the Smithsonian? This is the largest holding of skeletal human remains in the Western Hemisphere, if not the world. What information might they have?


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.

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.


#19    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:30 AM

 cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

Just a cautionary note here, a scientific theory is not the same thing as its non-scientific (common) application, as explained here:



and



http://www.livescien...-of-theory.html

cormac

Would you say I am using the word theory in the wrong context?


#20    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:49 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 11 October 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

Would you say I am using the word theory in the wrong context?

I can't speak to your intent, just to the blanket statement you made, hence the cautionary note. If you meant it in the scientific sense then you'd be wrong, if the common sense then you'd likely be right. But your wording doesn't suggest a distinction between the two although one exists.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#21    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,179 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:54 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 11 October 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

Can you provide a source to this please?  No offense but I can't just go off your word and I don't expect anyone to do that for me either.



It would be odd for strange people to land ashore and start measuring an entire tribe of natives.... lol.  They couldn't orally communicate, and probably didn't want to offend, frighten or anger them.  So, no, they probably didn't measure them.  Also, again, could you provide source to any of this?



That report was written almost 300 years later...  Things can change drastically in a fraction of that.  Also, I think we can all agree that the quality of life of the natives got increasingly worse after the arrival of Europeans (along with European diseases).  If the quality of life, health, mental state, etc... has an impact on stature I'm sure 300 years would have made quite an impact.

I did provide a link to that information and a link to that as well, the link from Princeton.
It seems that nothing has changed except as that report states there are no giants in that area and no people averaging 7 feet tall. Do you actually think that a human population of 7 footers can become normal sized in 300 years? The fact is that the heights provided by Magellan were incredibly exaggerated. Drake continued that even if  he reduced the height considerably. The fanciful tales have given way to people that are tall, but not that tall.

As noted earlier Tuscaloosa was tall compared to everyone around him save for his son. So there no giants there, just 2 tall related people.

In these 2 cases we do not have a race of very tall people. We have 2 tall people and a group that was taller than the Europeans that encountered them.


#22    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:01 AM

 cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I can't speak to your intent, just to the blanket statement you made, hence the cautionary note. If you meant it in the scientific sense then you'd be wrong, if the common sense then you'd likely be right. But your wording doesn't suggest a distinction between the two although one exists.

cormac

Well then, lets figure it out.  Are you suggesting that alternative human migration theories or pre-Clovis theories aren't scientific theories?  Those are the only ones I mentioned aside from a general mention of alternative theories.


#23    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:19 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 11 October 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Well then, lets figure it out.  Are you suggesting that alternative human migration theories or pre-Clovis theories aren't scientific theories?  Those are the only ones I mentioned aside from a general mention of alternative theories.

I'm not questioning your use of scientific theories but your blanket statement that theories are not facts as well as calling what you have a theory. As mentioned previously and in regards to the blanket statement in the scientific sense this wouldn't be true while in the commonly used sense it would likely be true. And what you have, based on other theories as you've said, would more appropriately be called an hypothesis IMO.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#24    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:45 AM

 stereologist, on 11 October 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:



I did provide a link to that information and a link to that as well, the link from Princeton.
It seems that nothing has changed except as that report states there are no giants in that area and no people averaging 7 feet tall. Do you actually think that a human population of 7 footers can become normal sized in 300 years? The fact is that the heights provided by Magellan were incredibly exaggerated. Drake continued that even if  he reduced the height considerably. The fanciful tales have given way to people that are tall, but not that tall.

As noted earlier Tuscaloosa was tall compared to everyone around him save for his son. So there no giants there, just 2 tall related people.

In these 2 cases we do not have a race of very tall people. We have 2 tall people and a group that was taller than the Europeans that encountered them.

Sorry, I didn't realize at the time that you were referencing that link.

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.

 cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:



I'm not questioning your use of scientific theories but your blanket statement that theories are not facts as well as calling what you have a theory. As mentioned previously and in regards to the blanket statement in the scientific sense this wouldn't be true while in the commonly used sense it would likely be true. And what you have, based on other theories as you've said, would more appropriately be called an hypothesis IMO.

cormac

Theories are not facts.

Also, i think you are getting way too technical with word usage.  I'm sure everyone understands everything as it is meant to come across.  This is a topic posted on an Internet forum, nothing more.  I'm just putting forth my idea/theory/hypothesis for others to discuss and debate.


#25    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 11 October 2013 - 05:00 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 11 October 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:


~SNIP~

Theories are not facts.

Also, i think you are getting way too technical with word usage.  I'm sure everyone understands everything as it is meant to come across.  This is a topic posted on an Internet forum, nothing more.  I'm just putting forth my idea/theory/hypothesis for others to discuss and debate.

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

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#26    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 05:42 AM

 cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:



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.


#27    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,179 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:46 PM

Quote

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.


#28    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:39 PM

 Dr_Acula, on 11 October 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

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?

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#29    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:54 PM

 stereologist, on 11 October 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

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:

Quote


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.

 stereologist, on 11 October 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:


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.

 stereologist, on 11 October 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

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.

 QuiteContrary, on 11 October 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

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 by Dr_Acula, 11 October 2013 - 04:10 PM.


#30    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,179 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:15 PM

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

...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?






Also tagged with giant, native, america, ancient, history

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users