Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Dr_Acula

Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

289 posts in this topic

I am doing some independent research on the possibility of giants in ancient times. I ran across an article claiming that some fragments of a human skeleton were found and that the person these bones belonged to would have been seven times larger than the average human... But, of course, the whole story is debatable. I'll give you a little info from the two different perspectives on the issue as well as some links:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador. Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods". Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study. Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being. A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed. The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy... Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils. He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton. To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums. They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils. Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

Now, the reason I am creating this post is because I need more information on this find. Is it real? Have fragments actually been sent to the Smithsonian Institute and if so what are the results? Have they actually been studied by anatomists and/or scientists?

Any more information about this would be very helpful!

In closing, I am not a young-earth creationist and I would like to keep spiritual beliefs and faith (which has nothing to do with science) out of the comments please. If you are going to comment, make sure that you are commenting with cold hard facts and links/citations to back them up. Thanks!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be aware that historically (and depending upon location, currently) newspapers were known to create stories out of whole cloth to increase sales. They can be slightly to spectacularly untrustworthy. You'd be better off contacting the Smithsonian directly to see what they might or might not hold.

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be aware that historically (and depending upon location, currently) newspapers were known to create stories out of whole cloth to increase sales. They can be slightly to spectacularly untrustworthy. You'd be better off contacting the Smithsonian directly to see what they might or might not hold.

--Jaylemurph

I'm sorry, I forgot to specify... The article I read is from within the past year, not a historical thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am doing some independent research on the possibility of giants in ancient times. I ran across an article claiming that some fragments of a human skeleton were found and that the person these bones belonged to would have been seven times larger than the average human... But, of course, the whole story is debatable. I'll give you a little info from the two different perspectives on the issue as well as some links:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador. Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods". Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study. Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being. A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed. The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy... Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils. He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton. To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums. They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils. Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

Now, the reason I am creating this post is because I need more information on this find. Is it real? Have fragments actually been sent to the Smithsonian Institute and if so what are the results? Have they actually been studied by anatomists and/or scientists?

Any more information about this would be very helpful!

In closing, I am not a young-earth creationist and I would like to keep spiritual beliefs and faith (which has nothing to do with science) out of the comments please. If you are going to comment, make sure that you are commenting with cold hard facts and links/citations to back them up. Thanks!

It should be brought to your attention that the Square-Cube law shows that this would not be possible since as one increases in size (2X, 3X, etcetra) their weight is cubed. Meaning that a person who is 2X the size of a normal human weighs 8X more, 3X in height becomes 27X more in weight. The human skeletal frame and musculature was not designed to sustain such weights on only 2 legs. Robert Wadlow at 8 foot, 11.1 inches tall at his tallest is a good example. His size was essentially crushing his legs and ankles, which led to leg-braces, an infection because of that leading to his death.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/SquareCubeLaw

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be brought to your attention that the Square-Cube law shows that this would not be possible since as one increases in size (2X, 3X, etcetra) their weight is cubed. Meaning that a person who is 2X the size of a normal human weighs 8X more, 3X in height becomes 27X more in weight. The human skeletal frame and musculature was not designed to sustain such weights on only 2 legs. Robert Wadlow at 8 foot, 11.1 inches tall at his tallest is a good example. His size was essentially crushing his legs and ankles, which led to leg-braces, an infection because of that leading to his death.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/SquareCubeLaw

cormac

That's very interesting, thanks for the comment. I have actually read a little on the Square-Cube law. I don't quite understand, for instance, if something doubles it's size how it could weigh 4X as much as it used to... Logically one would assume it weighs double. But, I'm not a mathematician, the concept just slightly confuses me.

However, for the sake of argument, I could theorize that this giant may have been a different species yet also was a member of the genus homo. Therefore it could have had a bodily structure that could handle it's gigantic weight, as it would have evolved to have such.

As a side note: the sarcocuchus was a genus of crocodyliform (crocodile) from prehistoric times. It was huge and weighed around 8 tonnes. It looked much like an overgrown crocodile. That makes me assume that a giant human-looking species is a plausible idea.

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything approaching the size of the alleged human giants you're talking about would not be recognizable as human. Also, Sarcosuchus was four-legged not two. That makes all the difference.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything approaching the size of the alleged human giants you're talking about would not be recognizable as human. Also, Sarcosuchus was four-legged not two. That makes all the difference.

cormac

Could you elaborate on why anything the size I'm suggesting would not be recognizable as human? How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not disputing it or saying that you are wrong; I would just like more information so that I can understand the logic behind your statement.

Good call, I wasn't thinking about the fact that sarcosuchus was four-legged. What about giant dinosaurs that walked on two legs?

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on why anything the size I'm suggesting would not be recognizable as human? How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not disputing it or saying that you are wrong; I would just like more information so that I can understand the logic behind your statement.

Good call, I wasn't thinking about the fact that sarcosuchus was four-legged.

Take a good look at actual gigantic, two legged creatures. Some dinosaurs for instance. Notice how comparatively massive a T-Rex's leg bones are. They have to be that massive in order to support its weight, which is some 7.5 tons. Also notice that its body is balanced front to back over the legs, which means that its full weight is not directly over the legs, which is something it would not be likely to handle.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked about the square-cube law. The idea is fairly easy to understand. Let's represent a person with a slab so that the math is easy. Let's make the slab 200cm tall, 80cm across and 30cm deep. If we double the height of the slab we have a slab that is 400cm tall. At the same time we maintain the proportions of the slab and it becomes 160cm across and 60cm deep. Each dimension has been doubled. The first slab has a volume 200cm times 80cm times 30cm. The larger slab is the same volume times 2 times 2 times 2. The doubling in height has increased the volume by 2 cubed. The weight is proportional to the volume so the weight is 8 times as much.

A person 7 times as tall weights 7 cubed or 243 times as much.

I took a look at the story and it has many of the properties of a hoax. The skeleton is destined for Europe, but the researchers are from the US. Notice that the discoverer is mentioned but not the people that authenticated the bones. They mention people doing tv shows, but not the researchers. They claim that 7 researchers validated these as human. Not one name is mentioned.

Then an Alex Putney is mentioned. I did an online search for this person and the name only appears as part of this event and some other questionable issues.

Here is a link to this scientist.

http://thestarnations.wordpress.com/category/solar-flares/

Here is another.

http://information-machine.blogspot.com/2012/01/alex-putney-weather-manipulation.html

OK. So the named scientist is not a scientist.

It's a pretty obvious hoax.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I forgot to specify... The article I read is from within the past year, not a historical thing.

I can't find any reference to a Loja giant skeleton before September 3rd 2013. Which seems strange to me if this is real.

Apparently it was dug up, scientifically examined, reconstructed and sold to an amusement park in less then a Year? And not one scientific paper or article was written?

That too sounds strange to me.

Here is another picture....

1185410_10153209038705573_720084813_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a good look at actual gigantic, two legged creatures. Some dinosaurs for instance. Notice how comparatively massive a T-Rex's leg bones are. They have to be that massive in order to support its weight, which is some 7.5 tons. Also notice that its body is balanced front to back over the legs, which means that its full weight is not directly over the legs, which is something it would not be likely to handle.

cormac

Ok, I see what you mean. I'll have to look more into anatomy of large animals before I can completely understand how a giant person would have been impossible but you pointed me in a good direction for more research. Thanks!

You asked about the square-cube law. The idea is fairly easy to understand. Let's represent a person with a slab so that the math is easy. Let's make the slab 200cm tall, 80cm across and 30cm deep. If we double the height of the slab we have a slab that is 400cm tall. At the same time we maintain the proportions of the slab and it becomes 160cm across and 60cm deep. Each dimension has been doubled. The first slab has a volume 200cm times 80cm times 30cm. The larger slab is the same volume times 2 times 2 times 2. The doubling in height has increased the volume by 2 cubed. The weight is proportional to the volume so the weight is 8 times as much.

A person 7 times as tall weights 7 cubed or 243 times as much.

I took a look at the story and it has many of the properties of a hoax. The skeleton is destined for Europe, but the researchers are from the US. Notice that the discoverer is mentioned but not the people that authenticated the bones. They mention people doing tv shows, but not the researchers. They claim that 7 researchers validated these as human. Not one name is mentioned.

Then an Alex Putney is mentioned. I did an online search for this person and the name only appears as part of this event and some other questionable issues.

Here is a link to this scientist.

http://thestarnation...y/solar-flares/

Here is another.

http://information-m...nipulation.html

OK. So the named scientist is not a scientist.

It's a pretty obvious hoax.

I was also speculating if it would turn out to be a hoax because, as you said, no names were really mentioned of the scientists who examined it. Thanks, and also thanks for explaining the square-cube law.

I can't find any reference to a Loja giant skeleton before September 3rd 2013. Which seems strange to me if this is real.

Here is a link to the original article translated from Spanish. The date says Dec. 29, 2010. But even so, if someone had a discovery like that why would they sell it to an amusement park? Sounds fishy to me.

- http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal333.blogspot.ca%2F2010%2F12%2Fgigantes-en-loja-ecuador.html%3Fm%3D1&sandbox=1

Edited by Dr_Acula
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this...

Archaeology: The Pastor Father Carlos Miguel Vaca A, amateur archaeologist, who kept his museum there and were photographed and studied as the "Father Museum Cow". It had become custodian of bones found on the property of Luis Guaman. To his good looks armed and drawn parts believed to find a giant human 7m. Also referred to a giant cemetery in a place called "The Waterfall". Someday science will tell what species are the remains found.

It is translated from here....

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changaimina

I tried Search Engine searches on some of the people and places in that quote, but found nothing useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am doing some independent research on the possibility of giants in ancient times. I ran across an article claiming that some fragments of a human skeleton were found and that the person these bones belonged to would have been seven times larger than the average human... But, of course, the whole story is debatable. I'll give you a little info from the two different perspectives on the issue as well as some links:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador. Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods". Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study. Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being. A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed. The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy... Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils. He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton. To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums. They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils. Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

Now, the reason I am creating this post is because I need more information on this find. Is it real? Have fragments actually been sent to the Smithsonian Institute and if so what are the results? Have they actually been studied by anatomists and/or scientists?

Any more information about this would be very helpful!

In closing, I am not a young-earth creationist and I would like to keep spiritual beliefs and faith (which has nothing to do with science) out of the comments please. If you are going to comment, make sure that you are commenting with cold hard facts and links/citations to back them up. Thanks!

An admittedly brief search did not result in any credible information in regards to your query, though it should be noted that there is simply no credible paleo-anthropological/bio-anth support for a "race of giants". Particularly of the scale proposed in your references (which should hardly be considered to be scientifically astute).

In addition to the initial references themselves (which do not include such specifics as the Smithsonian researchers), do be cautious (!) of any source that applies "credentials" to the likes of Klaus Dona (easily referenced) or Alex Putney (see below). While my command of the Spanish language is not accomplished, there would also appear to be some problems with the "interpretations" of Father Vaca.

http://www.disclose....ess-t65912.html

[media=]

[/media]

Given the current lack of credible information, would be most leery of these claims.

Edit: Format

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it seems like this is probably a hoax... Thanks for the help. I usually wouldn't believe a story of a person standing almost 30 feet tall but I do believe certain races of men were 7-10 feet tall. There is actual historical evidence to back that up but that's a completely different topic. Thanks again everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous encounters with giants in ancient times. I don't deny their existance. At 6.9 feet tall and some interesting characteristics including rh negative blood I could be a descendent of them. :)

Bible is full of stories of their presence and lets not forget that bible first is a great historic book then religious.

Here is if you would like to read more http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/giants.htm

Genesis 6;

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bible is full of stories of their presence and lets not forget that bible first is a great historic book then religious.

This is not true. In the first place, according to its own mythology, the Bible was written before the concept of historical writing came into being. Secondly, the Bible is a religious fiction: its purpose is to show the good things that happen to people who believe in its version of god, and to show the bad things that happen to people who do not. Any history or geneaology or anything else that /may/ be in it is secondary to that purpose. To tell people that it is history, or a historical record, in any capacity is to mistake its purpose and the nature of historical documents.

I mean, the Harry Potter books feature a version of London in them, but you'd be foolish to tell people they were a history of London.

--Jaylemurph

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to just add that about a decade ago I was going thru microfilm at a local library in NYS.I came across an 1800's local newspaper article about an Archeological dig near me.It talked about Native American finds,and mentioned in passing about a 7 foot tall skeleton amongst normal ones.I was like wow,but that height is possible.

I suggest dig deep in your local library to see what you find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the Harry Potter books feature a version of London in them, but you'd be foolish to tell people they were a history of London.

--Jaylemurph

Because no ginger kids have two friends?
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to just add that about a decade ago I was going thru microfilm at a local library in NYS.I came across an 1800's local newspaper article about an Archeological dig near me.It talked about Native American finds,and mentioned in passing about a 7 foot tall skeleton amongst normal ones.I was like wow,but that height is possible.

I suggest dig deep in your local library to see what you find.

I have been doing some extensive reading in old county history books, specifically Brown County Ohio and Lake County Ohio. They both speak of the "mound builders" or "moundbuilders" who built huge earthen temples, forts, structures resembling animals, roadways and arches, etc... The Native Americans said that they had no knowledge of who had built the ancient monuments as it was way before their time. There were records of funeral mounds built by the same people. These graves were exhumed and found to contain the bones of people no less than 7 feet tall, the tallest being over 8 feet tall. Regular sized skeletons were also found throughout the extensive grave yard of 3,000 graves. Many other accounts of similar burial grounds being exhumed revealed a few very tall (about 8 ft) skeletons with a large number of skeletons of normal size. At one point during the construction of the Ohio canals, one of the books states "relics were discovered that must have belonged to a giant race." Also, according to these history books, the mound builders were a much more advanced civilization compared to the Native Americans. Apparently they "possessed the knowledge of hardening copper and giving it an edge equal to our steel of to-day (1883)." Also, "In 1815, a jaw-bone was exhumed, containing an artificial tooth of silver."

Don't take my word for it... Here is a link to one of the books so you can read it for yourself:

The History of Brown County, Ohio (1883) - page 132 under "IMPROVEMENTS" 2nd paragraph -- also page 175 extensively describes the temples and bones that were discovered...

- http://books.google....id=udUyAQAAMAAJ

Type the page number and click search inside to find it more easily.

Let me know what you think of this.

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am doing some independent research on the possibility of giants in ancient times. I ran across an article claiming that some fragments of a human skeleton were found and that the person these bones belonged to would have been seven times larger than the average human... But, of course, the whole story is debatable. I'll give you a little info from the two different perspectives on the issue as well as some links:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador. Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods". Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study. Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being. A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed. The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy... Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils. He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton. To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums. They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils. Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

And will you say "no, *******, lots of anatomists and scientists have examined them" to this? (taken from your link):

I note that no anatomist examined the bones, only creationists, Atlantis believers, and priests.

I tend to agree with Colavito on practically everything he says. And not just n this topic.

You may not be a YEC, but your response to Colavito, who investigates things like this as part of his profession, betrays your confirmation bias. Especially when you have to ask us "is it real?"

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been doing some extensive reading in old county history books, specifically Brown County Ohio and Lake County Ohio. They both speak of the "mound builders" or "moundbuilders" who built huge earthen temples, forts, structures resembling animals, roadways and arches, etc... The Native Americans said that they had no knowledge of who had built the ancient monuments as it was way before their time. There were records of funeral mounds built by the same people. These graves were exhumed and found to contain the bones of people no less than 7 feet tall, the tallest being over 8 feet tall. Regular sized skeletons were also found throughout the extensive grave yard of 3,000 graves. Many other accounts of similar burial grounds being exhumed revealed a few very tall (about 8 ft) skeletons with a large number of skeletons of normal size. At one point during the construction of the Ohio canals, one of the books states "relics were discovered that must have belonged to a giant race." Also, according to these history books, the mound builders were a much more advanced civilization compared to the Native Americans. Apparently they "possessed the knowledge of hardening copper and giving it an edge equal to our steel of to-day (1883)." Also, "In 1815, a jaw-bone was exhumed, containing an artificial tooth of silver."

Don't take my word for it... Here is a link to one of the books so you can read it for yourself:

The History of Brown County, Ohio (1883) - page 132 under "IMPROVEMENTS" 2nd paragraph -- also page 175 extensively describes the temples and bones that were discovered...

- http://books.google....id=udUyAQAAMAAJ

Type the page number and click search inside to find it more easily.

Let me know what you think of this.

It would appear that you do not have a great deal of familiarity with the cultural/temporal aspects of the eastern North American mound-building cultures (circa mid-Archaic through Mississippian). It should also be noted that referencing dated works of the likes recently presented may not be optimal in regards to your understandings. While it dearly pains me to utilize the following series of references, am limited on time. Hopefully these will provide you with at least a minimal overview. Should you be able to narrow aspects of your "studies", will attempt to provide more detailed/qualified data.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Adena_culture

http://en.wikipedia....ewell_tradition

http://en.wikipedia....Woodland_period

http://en.wikipedia....sippian_culture

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swede, your source list is alarmingly lacking.

Here:

https://esirc.emporia.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1295/White%20Vol%203%20Num%201.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.readex.com/readex-report/tallest-tall-tales-using-historical-newspapers-unearth-secrets-cardiff-giants-success

On the internet somewhere is a very good site reporting on the crazy stories newspapers used to print. If I ever run across it again, I'll post it, though if you care to look you can find in in some years-old old post of mine at ATS. In it is a tale that the turnips in one town were growing so well that the US Army had requisitioned one and built a service academy inside it, even equipped with barracks.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And will you say "no, *******, lots of anatomists and scientists have examined them" to this? (taken from your link):

No, because there is no evidence to prove that anatomists and/or scientists ever actually examined the alleged skeletal fragments... lol.

But fossils ARE rocks so they're going to look "like rocks" and museums don't usually put the actual fossils on display; they're usually "fake" reconstructions. I was only pointing out the stupidity of those two statements he made.

You may not be a YEC, but your response to Colavito, who investigates things like this as part of his profession, betrays your confirmation bias. Especially when you have to ask us "is it real?"

My response to Colavito had nothing to do with whether the remains were real or not; they had to do with him making stupid statements like he wasn't expecting a fossil to look like a rock even though it IS a rock or that the reconstruction was "fake" even though any educated person should already know that. But since you agree with him on everything you might not understand what I'm saying. You obviously have a bias outlook when Colavito is involved. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Also, please don't compare me to YEC unless you want to be compared to an *******.

It would appear that you do not have a great deal of familiarity with the cultural/temporal aspects of the eastern North American mound-building cultures (circa mid-Archaic through Mississippian). It should also be noted that referencing dated works of the likes recently presented may not be optimal in regards to your understandings. While it dearly pains me to utilize the following series of references, am limited on time. Hopefully these will provide you with at least a minimal overview. Should you be able to narrow aspects of your "studies", will attempt to provide more detailed/qualified data.

I'm not 100% sure what you're implying, but my studies (no quotes necessary) have shown that historians are still unsure who the mound builders were and although there are some very compelling theories, there is no certainty. If you have a credible source that confirms that we do know without a doubt who the mound builders were and also explains that claim, share it and I will change my mind.

Regardless, I brought the mound builders up because of the unearthed bones of 7-8 ft tall people within their mounds among regular sized skeletons. I didn't get that information from old newspaper clippings, I got them from first hand accounts written in state county history books from the late 1800's to the early 1900's. Are these books dated? Yes, but that is irrelevant because they aren't conveying a concept that changes over time such as scientific theories. They are conveying the recorded history of the settlers of early America. If you are going to discredit that solely on the basis of it being dated then you might as well discredit the entire history of the world on the basis that most of it is derived from old dated documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these books dated? Yes, but that is irrelevant because they aren't conveying a concept that changes over time such as scientific theories. They are conveying the recorded history of the settlers of early America. If you are going to discredit that solely on the basis of it being dated then you might as well discredit the entire history of the world on the basis that most of it is derived from old dated documents.

No, but the standards for accuracy and truth /have/ changed, considerably, from that period. I have North Carolina history book published in the early 1940s that actually has a picture of "Happy Negro Slaves Working the Fields in Eastern NC". By your logic, merely by fact of being in a history book sanctioned by state education, this is a valid interpretation of African-American chattel slavery in the 19th Century. I think you and most people would acknowledge merely being in that book does not make that interpretation valid.

Many people with only a passing knowledge of history assume it to be some sort of collection of facts or data that reflect the past. This is not true. History is an /interpretation/ of such information: history changes as new information is discovered and as attitudes towards those facts change. It is fluid and dynamic. (Archaeology, on the other hand, is the study of physical objects and is consequently the source of unchanging, concrete information.)

The issue here is not Swede trying to establish the uncertainty of matters of historical record, but you fundamentally misunderstanding what history /is/.

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but the standards for accuracy and truth /have/ changed, considerably, from that period. I have North Carolina history book published in the early 1940s that actually has a picture of "Happy Negro Slaves Working the Fields in Eastern NC". By your logic, merely by fact of being in a history book sanctioned by state education, this is a valid interpretation of African-American chattel slavery in the 19th Century. I think you and most people would acknowledge merely being in that book does not make that interpretation valid.

Many people with only a passing knowledge of history assume it to be some sort of collection of facts or data that reflect the past. This is not true. History is an /interpretation/ of such information: history changes as new information is discovered and as attitudes towards those facts change. It is fluid and dynamic. (Archaeology, on the other hand, is the study of physical objects and is consequently the source of unchanging, concrete information.)

The issue here is not Swede trying to establish the uncertainty of matters of historical record, but you fundamentally misunderstanding what history /is/.

--Jaylemurph

I understand what you mean. History can change as new information is discovered or attitudes change. I get that, but that doesn't change what happened. In the present, most people feel anger toward the fact that Africans were enslaved, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. We know it happened because it has been documented and recorded.

Oh, and the picture of happy slaves you mentioned, I don't think that can be compared to what I'm talking about... Lets say we have two history books, one shows happy slaves and the other (newer) one shows unhappy slaves. Either way, there were slaves.

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.