Your Daily Giant 7/9/2013
Today's Daily Giant comes from the Historical Collections of Ohio, Volume 2, 1908 pg 350-351. Huge skeletons are reported,
"In Seneca Township was opened in 1872, one of the numerous Indian mounds that abound in the neighborhood. This particular one was locally known as the "Bates" mound. Upon being dug into it was found to contain a few broken pieces of earthenware, a lot of flint-beads and one or two stone implements and the remains of three skeletons, whose size would indicate they measured in life at least eight feet in height. The remarkable feature of these remains was they had double teeth in front as well as in back of mouth and in upper and lower jaws. Upon exposure to the atmosphere the skeletons soon crumbled back to mother earth."
The first account I stumbled across several years ago was an eight foot tall skeleton with double rows of teeth in the Town History of Deerfield by George Sheldon, a respected historian for whom a museum is named. I then found town and county history accounts of similar fashion all around New England, then all over the country. To me, these accounts in historical documents carry more weight than newspaper accounts, just like scientific literature carries more weight than historical documents. They are most often written by well respected historians, the accounts are usually buried obscurely in the text with no sensationalist aspect attached to them and they are clearly human remains coming from burial mounds associated with man-made artifact finds. Was there another phenomena so widely reported in the historical literature considered entirely fallacious by academics. Boundary measurements, infrastructure projects, genealogies, war reports, court cases? Are we to believe nothing in the historical record or do we just ignore evidence that overturns a current theory? These are observational accounts, and a pretty easy observation at that, measuring a skeleton, not the subjective views of the reporters. I don’t know what else to say.
Today's Daily Giant comes from the Historical Collections of Ohio, Volume 2, 1908 pg 350-351. Huge skeletons are reported,
"In Seneca Township was opened in 1872, one of the numerous Indian mounds that abound in the neighborhood. This particular one was locally known as the "Bates" mound. Upon being dug into it was found to contain a few broken pieces of earthenware, a lot of flint-beads and one or two stone implements and the remains of three skeletons, whose size would indicate they measured in life at least eight feet in height. The remarkable feature of these remains was they had double teeth in front as well as in back of mouth and in upper and lower jaws. Upon exposure to the atmosphere the skeletons soon crumbled back to mother earth."
The first account I stumbled across several years ago was an eight foot tall skeleton with double rows of teeth in the Town History of Deerfield by George Sheldon, a respected historian for whom a museum is named. I then found town and county history accounts of similar fashion all around New England, then all over the country. To me, these accounts in historical documents carry more weight than newspaper accounts, just like scientific literature carries more weight than historical documents. They are most often written by well respected historians, the accounts are usually buried obscurely in the text with no sensationalist aspect attached to them and they are clearly human remains coming from burial mounds associated with man-made artifact finds. Was there another phenomena so widely reported in the historical literature considered entirely fallacious by academics. Boundary measurements, infrastructure projects, genealogies, war reports, court cases? Are we to believe nothing in the historical record or do we just ignore evidence that overturns a current theory? These are observational accounts, and a pretty easy observation at that, measuring a skeleton, not the subjective views of the reporters. I don’t know what else to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment