Your Daily Giant 7/3/2013
Today's Daily Giant comes from the History of Jefferson County in the state of New York by Franklin Benjamin Hough, 1854 pg 12. It contains two accounts that are startling similar. On page 12,
"On the farm of Jacob Heath, on lot no. 25, near the west line of Rodman and on the north bank of North Sandy Creek, a short distance above the confluence of the two main branches of that stream, there formerly existed an enclosure of the same class. It included about three acres, was overgrown with heavy timber and furnished within and without, when plowed, a great quantity and variety of terra cotta, in fragments but no metallic relics. Under the roots of a large maple tree was dug up the bones of a man of great stature, and furnished with entire double rows of teeth."
Later on in the same publication we find, "One of the most conclusive evidences of ancient military occupation and conflict occurs in Rutland, near the residence of Abner Tamblin, one mile from the western line of the town, and two miles from the river. It is on the summit of the Trenton limestone terrace, which forms a bold escarpment, extending down the river and passing across the southern part of Watertown.
There occurs a slight embankment and ditch irregularly oval, with several gateways; and along the ditch, in several places, have been found great numbers of skeletons, almost entirely of males, and lying in great confusion, as if they had been slain in defending it. Among these bones were those of a man of colossal size, and like nine-tenths of the others, furnished with a row of double teeth in each jaw. This singular peculiarity, with that of broad, flat jaws, retreating forehead, and great prominence of the occipant, which was common to most of these skulls."
Double rows of teeth, just as reported all over the country predominantly found in burial mounds. What does it even mean that this was reported as some form of sensationalism or misidentification of animal bones. Many of these town and county histories have multiple reports included in their pages, often giving remarkably similar descriptions even though reported from different locations by different people in different time periods. Sure I would like to see all the skeletons but does that make all this evidence a nonreality?
Today's Daily Giant comes from the History of Jefferson County in the state of New York by Franklin Benjamin Hough, 1854 pg 12. It contains two accounts that are startling similar. On page 12,
"On the farm of Jacob Heath, on lot no. 25, near the west line of Rodman and on the north bank of North Sandy Creek, a short distance above the confluence of the two main branches of that stream, there formerly existed an enclosure of the same class. It included about three acres, was overgrown with heavy timber and furnished within and without, when plowed, a great quantity and variety of terra cotta, in fragments but no metallic relics. Under the roots of a large maple tree was dug up the bones of a man of great stature, and furnished with entire double rows of teeth."
Later on in the same publication we find, "One of the most conclusive evidences of ancient military occupation and conflict occurs in Rutland, near the residence of Abner Tamblin, one mile from the western line of the town, and two miles from the river. It is on the summit of the Trenton limestone terrace, which forms a bold escarpment, extending down the river and passing across the southern part of Watertown.
There occurs a slight embankment and ditch irregularly oval, with several gateways; and along the ditch, in several places, have been found great numbers of skeletons, almost entirely of males, and lying in great confusion, as if they had been slain in defending it. Among these bones were those of a man of colossal size, and like nine-tenths of the others, furnished with a row of double teeth in each jaw. This singular peculiarity, with that of broad, flat jaws, retreating forehead, and great prominence of the occipant, which was common to most of these skulls."
Double rows of teeth, just as reported all over the country predominantly found in burial mounds. What does it even mean that this was reported as some form of sensationalism or misidentification of animal bones. Many of these town and county histories have multiple reports included in their pages, often giving remarkably similar descriptions even though reported from different locations by different people in different time periods. Sure I would like to see all the skeletons but does that make all this evidence a nonreality?
No comments:
Post a Comment