"Giant" Native Tribes of Ancient America

[TheWizard]

The claims of giants are not evidence of their existance.

The 7 foot tall H. heidelbergensis were from South Africa. And their kin living at Sima de los Huesos in Spain were only 5' 4 inches. Which means if they were ancestral to your giants you'd have to show evidence said giants exist either within the Homo sapiens line or that there is another line descended from H. heidelbergensis. Neither of which is evident at present. In the actual timeframe for Homo sapiens, meaning the last c.200,000 years we have no evidence of any such members, enough to consider being a tribe as opposed to a few individuals, being 7 - 8 feet tall nor of any hominid migration into the Americas.

You're not, that's obvious. I myself would like to see evidence of these South African H. heidelbergensis' existing anywhere else that's even remotely close to the Americas. But I'm not holding my breath.

You are going off of one study from one area to suggest that H. Heidelbergensis was 5'4. Another study from specimens from South Africa puts them at 7+ feet. Consider that as well, please. Unless they're exaggerating too, as stereologist would claim.

As always, limited on time. Will respectfully postpone more extended responses until the coming weekend.

1&2) Your third comparative is a modern Caucasoid male. Please attempt to provide yourself with at least a modicum of understanding in regards to forensic analysis/"racial" characteristics/temporal changes within populations. Your obviously ill-informed conclusion that the frontals are somehow "unusual" simply displays your lack of informed understanding.

3) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Rather dislike wasting bandwidth. You may wish to consider following the responses to the topics of your own origination. To quote:

"It would be hoped that you have had the time to study the cultural/temporal/genetic information previously supplied.

In more specific regards to the various osteological analyses of representatives of eastern North American cultural manifestations from the late Archaic through the late pre-contact period, the bulk of this information will be found in white papers which general readers may not be familiar with. To very briefly condense some of these papers:

Writing in respect to the moundbuilder "giant myth", Iscan and Kessel observe the following:

In contrast, there are no osteological analysis of the data to support these claims...Results indicate that at an average height under 170 cm, these people were definitely not giants (Iscan and Kessel 1997:76).

To further elaborate:

The research of Webb and Snow indicated that the mean male height amongst the Adena culture was 168 cm (5' 6"), while the mean amongst the later Hopewell Interaction Sphere was 170.2 cm (Webb and Snow 1979:28 in Iscan and Kessel 1997:76). The most extreme account was by Dragoo (1963:72 in Iscan and Kessel 1997). This account refers to a representative of the Adena culture calculated to have been 188 cm in stature (7' 2"). Unfortunately, as noted by Iscan and Kessel, Dragoo provided no further critical data.

The analyses of the recoveries from the Kubinski Mound (Hopewell) indicated a mean male stature of 167.8 cm (5' 6") with a maximum of 183 cm (6") (Pestle et al 2007:58).

Recent further refinements of the osteological regression tables utilized in stature determinations that more accurately reflect the morphologies of the eastern Archaic/Woodland cultures have been conducted (Fully, Raxter et al). The analyses of 201 individuals spanning a time period from the late Archaic to the late pre-contact period indicates that the males of the moundbuilding period attained a maximum mean stature of 169.7 cm (5' 7") (Sciulli and Hetland 2007:111,112).

In total, the skeletal remains of literally hundreds of individuals recovered from moundbuilder sites have been forensically evaluated. As evidenced by the above, there would appear to be no indications of a cultural component that did not fall well within the realms of normal morphology.

As previously noted by contributors, "histories" of the period that you have been utilizing are not without their flaws. And, as you have noted, the state of preservation can certainly be a factor.

One additional aspect that should be seriously considered is the state of archaeological/bioanthropological/forensic research during the time period under consideration.

Following are the references cited above plus one additional. Three of these will require establishing a free JSTOR account that will allow you to read (but not download) the references. Enjoy" (Swede 9-28-13).

http://www.as.miami.... et al 2007.pdf

http://www.clas.ufl..../Braun 1979.pdf

http://www.jstor.org...howAccess=false

http://www.jstor.org...howAccess=false

http://www.jstor.org...=21102693720437

4) The lay reference to Owsley's research was merely an attempt to make you aware of his research. It is apparent that you did not thoroughly read even this brief. The forensic analysis by Owsley is most comprehensive. Reference to this research has been provided, as per the text referenced in the article. Technical paper(s) also available.

As a brief closing note, your attempts to bring Gigantopithecus spp, H. heidelbergensis, etc. into the discussion are really quite humorous. Do you not recall that your initial position was based upon the questionable early reports relating to the late Archaic/Woodland periods?

.

1&2) If you are challenging the fact that the drastically sloping forehead of the mound builder skull is similar to the Neanderthal skull, you may need to make an appointment to see your local optometrist.

If you are going to bring up things from a separate topic, you need to say so. At least link to it. I will get to a more detailed response to yours when I have more time.

As a brief closing note, conversations evolve and while you are still referencing an earlier topic I have moved to a new yet still somewhat related one which includes Giantopithicus, H. Heidelbergensis and Meganthropus. I will still reply in regards to the earlier topic, of course, but in order to study the papers you linked I will need some more time as I am also doing other studies relating to an evolved version of the earlier topic. Also, keep in mind that we are posting in a public internet forum and I am sharing ideas of mine for the enjoyment of debate; I'm obviously not writing an academic paper. Please, lighten up and relax.

Here are a couple of links for Mongo Man.

Mungo Archaeological Digs | The Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

The discovery of Mungo Man - Australian Geographic

jmccr8

Thanks for pointing this out.

The biggest problem with your possibility is that there is no evidence of any hominid having lived in the Americas before the ancestral Native Americans got here. None. And you've got to realize, the glacial periods have been an on again/off again situation for the last c.2+ million years. Which means that most of northeast Asia/northwest North America had been blocked by glaciers during that time. So there weren't alot of opportunities for migration to America.

A better way to put it is that there is no known evidence... saying no evidence sounds like there is none at all, not even to be found, and you can't really know that.

And, again, if we are only considering migration on foot, you are probably right. However, as I said before, please consider other possibilities. As in, migration by boat.

Maybe it's because, according to your own earlier post, the Bureau doesn't mention any giants?

Here is a link to the annual reports of the Bureau of Ethnology; find the time period being discussed. They do verify that 7-8 foot skeletons were exhumed from the mounds.

You didn't quote me.

The biblical stories have been written over quite a long time and the stories change over time and that includes changing someone into a giant.

Saying that you are grasping at straws is not an insult. Buck up. You can drop the pretentious claims to being insulted.

The problem is that you have nothing but anecdotes and tall tales.

I quoted every word you posted. I don't see how you can say I didn't and actually believe it. Wait, yes I do: you can never be wrong. Sorry, I forgot.

Biblical text has no place in a serious debate. They do not compare to the direct first-hand encounters of explorers. Their words are unchanged.

Oh, yeah. That's right, I was pretending to be offended. I didn't kindly ask you to stop because I really wanted you to. That justifies you continuing to provoke me. I just totally forgot that you are always right. Man, I'm glad we got that figured out.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[cormac mac airt]

You are going off of one study from one area to suggest that H. Heidelbergensis was 5'4.

You're going on a basis of one site in South Africa having H. Heidelbergensis of 7+ feet. What's your point? Mine is that you haven't even shown there's evidence for H. heidelbergensis (or sister line/descendants) being at or near 7 foot anywhere remotely close to the areas relevant to migration into the Americas. All you've done is look for the tallest, and possibly first, example of a member of our genus to somehow make a connection to 'giants' that have left no evidence of having existed themselves. Not only does that look like you're putting the cart before the horse, but apparently your horse is wearing skates and attempting to push the cart uphill.

A better way to put it is that there is no known evidence... saying no evidence sounds like there is none at all, not even to be found, and you can't really know that. And, again, if we are only considering migration on foot, you are probably right. However, as I said before, please consider other possibilities. As in, migration by boat.

I don't include 'unknown evidence' since it obviously hasn't been found and is a poor way to support ones contention IMO. As to "only considering migration on foot" you can only speak for yourself as I and many professionals see the possibility of a two-pronged migration into the Americas. Both along the coast as well as between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets.

cormac

Edited October 15, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[jmccr8]

Hi Cormac,

Yes,I agree that there were limited possibilities to traverse the trek to America. It doesn't close the door on the issue though as there was a time when it was possible.I provided a couple of links in post#41 in the"Humans in Bazil 30,000kbp" thread. The links discuss mega floods in North America from glacial lakes. The article states that there could have been over 100 of these floods some of less significant and others that were considered major glacial floods.Which would pretty much sum up my view of where the evidence is or rather went.

These mega glacial floods affected other places such as Asia as well during the same time frame The Altai Mountains and Sayan Mountains are in Southern Siberia, these floods were of comparable magnitude though not possibly the volume, to the Missoula floods.

I was going to post this in my thread about Neandertals as I feel that several hominid groups my have had flood myths.

jmccr8

[cormac mac airt]

Hi Cormac,

Yes,I agree that there were limited possibilities to traverse the trek to America. It doesn't close the door on the issue though as there was a time when it was possible.I provided a couple of links in post#41 in the"Humans in Bazil 30,000kbp" thread. The links discuss mega floods in North America from glacial lakes. The article states that there could have been over 100 of these floods some of less significant and others that were considered major glacial floods.Which would pretty much sum up my view of where the evidence is or rather went.

These mega glacial floods affected other places such as Asia as well during the same time frame The Altai Mountains and Sayan Mountains are in Southern Siberia, these floods were of comparable magnitude though not possibly the volume, to the Missoula floods.

I was going to post this in my thread about Neandertals as I feel that several hominid groups my have had flood myths.

jmccr8

Hello jmccr8,

Yes, I'm also aware of these megafloods. And while it might seem to answer part of the problem with not having evidence in support of an earlier migration into the Americas, the majority of the Americas were still habitable. Is it 'possible', yes. But the available evidence we do have and the complete lack of evidence to support giants doesn't make it probable, nor likely.

cormac

[Queenishtar]

Loving the debate so what do you both think of this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/09/30000-year-old-brazilian-artifacts-throw-wrench-in-theory-humans-first-arrived-in-americas-12000-years-ago/

[cormac mac airt]

Loving the debate so what do you both think of this: http://www.rawstory....2000-years-ago/

A quick answer so as not to take this thread OT any more than necessary, I'd like the see a publication detailing how this date was achieved and what specifically was tested. That artifacts are already on exhibit, possibly ahead of professional publicaton of the finds, doesn't bode well for how it may be received.

cormac

[Queenishtar]

Many tribes of Native Americans speak of Giants as a part of their sacred oral history. The reason why giants or giant bone discoveries have never been made public is that it would go against the theories of modern evolution of man in the scientific realm.

[Queenishtar]

Just as they make Columbus a hero with grade school kids. Its goes against the grain.

[cormac mac airt]

Many tribes of Native Americans speak of Giants as a part of their sacred oral history. The reason why giants or giant bone discoveries have never been made public is that it would go against the theories of modern evolution of man in the scientific realm.

Someone being a giant has no bearing on evolutionary theory, as it falls within the scope of evolution. Genes affect one's height just as they do any other biological aspect of being human. It a non-argument.

cormac

[Queenishtar]

Maybe your right but what explains humans as a whole. Do we have another scientific group to test against? Why do we have a being of self and soul? Why havent others evovled like us? Why do we think we know everything, right? We are early in finding out why we are different from other organisms. I can study and read until my face turns blue but honestly no one has the answer. I think at sometime something happened that sciences cant explain. As hard as we try science cant explain everything.

[Queenishtar]

You really think giants came here or existed and the native peoples killed them off. Hmmm, wheres the proof of that theory.

[stereologist]

Many tribes of Native Americans speak of Giants as a part of their sacred oral history. The reason why giants or giant bone discoveries have never been made public is that it would go against the theories of modern evolution of man in the scientific realm.

Science is based on the available data. Science adjusts to new discoveries. If there were giants and giant bones then science would embrace the discovery and not hide it.

[Queenishtar]

Unless your belief is just legends?

[stereologist]

I quoted every word you posted. I don't see how you can say I didn't and actually believe it. Wait, yes I do: you can never be wrong. Sorry, I forgot.

Biblical text has no place in a serious debate. They do not compare to the direct first-hand encounters of explorers. Their words are unchanged.

Oh, yeah. That's right, I was pretending to be offended. I didn't kindly ask you to stop because I really wanted you to. That justifies you continuing to provoke me. I just totally forgot that you are always right. Man, I'm glad we got that figured out.

You choose to misrepresent the issue of the biblical story just as you pretend that the tall tales of seafarers are good evidence. The biblical text simply illustrates that normal height people are converted into giants.

You stop outing and drop the childish statements such as "I just totally forgot that you are always right"

In the bible story the person became taller. In the seafarers case the people became shorter. They are both just stories.

[Queenishtar]

Who funds scientists? Not many private organizations Im sure.

[stereologist]

Having seen that the first part was based on tall tales I decided to check out some more of this evidence.

Two skeletons not less than 6 and a half feet tall - "The History of Lawrence and Monroe Counties, Indiana"

In this case we read about the excavation of a mound. What a wonderful resource that describes only 2 of many skeletons being tall and finishes with a statement "Just treatment was extended to his race, but he reciprocated with murder, treachery and bloody outrage, and today he is approaching a well-deserved extinction as a race."

Sounds like the writing of an amateur treasurer hunter rather than the report of a person with the knowledge to do a proper excavation.

[Queenishtar]

Just so you know many protected mounds have been researched with the approriate Native American tribes of the region. They brought professionals in to examine the mounds and found giants during excavations. If you really want to know, contact the local tribes near where you are apparently researching. They will tell you of the burial mounds existing today, just like Cahokia.

[stereologist]

Who funds scientists? Not many private organizations Im sure.

What does that have to do with determining if there were giants? Sounds like you are spitting out many of the dubious claims fringe authors use to justify their poorly conceived ideas.

[stereologist]

Just so you know many protected mounds have been researched with the approriate Native American tribes of the region. They brought professionals in to examine the mounds and found giants during excavations. If you really want to know, contact the local tribes near where you are apparently researching. They will tell you of the burial mounds existing today, just like Cahokia.

I doubt that the 1870s treasurer hunter dig falls into the class of properly done excavation.

Instead of hinting about giants please point us in the right direction.

[Queenishtar]

As much as you say giants couldnt exist, they really exist but are sacred and no open unless you have connections.

[Queenishtar]

I just told you, you need to talk to the tribe closest to the area you have of interest! Every tribe has historic preservation and can give information unless you want a meeting and they may show you the site or actual bones.

[Queenishtar]

Just so you know many natives operate as Soverign Nations under Federal Law. If you are a person of qualification or education they will choose to and honor your investigation.

[Queenishtar]

So sad we all just have to believe the headlines and websites.

[The_Spartan]

Just so you know many protected mounds have been researched with the approriate Native American tribes of the region. They brought professionals in to examine the mounds and found giants during excavations. If you really want to know, contact the local tribes near where you are apparently researching. They will tell you of the burial mounds existing today, just like Cahokia.

The only mention of giants being found in exvations are from the 18th - 19th centuries and early 20th century.

First Nation ideology & the activism to claim & protect the excavated human remains out of mounds etc came into only in the late 20th century.

There are no recorded find of 'Giants' in modern day excavations.

Of course there are mounds existing even today. no doubt.

Mounds existing is no evidence for the existence of giants.

As cormac pointed out, the discovery of one giant in an area doesn't create a race of giants.

And that's what the OP is not able to digest.

A giant in a tribe is always ascribed importance. He could become.might become an important person in the tribe and would naturally be given a important burial.

But has the OP given any evidence that the remains whole tribe of giants have been found?

No. The only stuff he gives as evidence is anecdotal /hearsay evidence on an era known for exaggeration.

[Queenishtar]

We were all sworn to secrecy at penalty of imprisonment.