Your Daily Giant 8/5/2013
Today's Daily Giant comes from The History of Cape May New Jersey by Lewis Townsend Stevens 1897, pg 11. The following is reported,
"A skull was exhumed which must have belonged to one of great age, as the sutures were entirely obliterated and the tables firmly cemented together. From the superciliary ridges, which were well developed, the frontal bone receded almost on a direct line to the place of the occipital and parietal sutures, leaving no forehead and has the appearance of having been done by artificial means, as practiced at present on the Columbia among the Flat Heads. A jaw-bone of huge dimensions was likewise found, which was coveted by the observer; but the superstitions of the owner of the soil believing it was sacrilegious and that he would be visited by the just indignation of Heaven if he suffered any of the teeth to be removed, prevailed on us to return again to its mother earth."
Damn, that dude should have risked going to hell and saved the jaw-bone. Newspaper accounts that reported finds of giant skeletons are often cited as unreliable sources of information. The reality is that what would be considered more credible sources like town and county histories were also reporting the same findings. Most notably, anatomic anomalies. Double rows of teeth, jawbones that could be fit over the finders face and massive skulls with sloping foreheads are reported in multiple sources all over the country through decades of time. I have never heard that part rationally explained. To say gigantism or disarticulation being the cause of these reports falls short of explaining anatomic anomalies. It wasn't like the giant hoax pamphlet was circulating around the country for a hundred years to show what key words to use. This information has only come out in the last couple of decades due to the persistent effort of researchers. These anomalies which were also reported in the Smithsonian's Ethnology and Annual reports indicate a very troublesome aspect to explain away. The bottom line is, is there enough evidence here to justify further investigation. I would think most reasonable people would agree. That is the case I am trying to make and I believe we have made it.
Today's Daily Giant comes from The History of Cape May New Jersey by Lewis Townsend Stevens 1897, pg 11. The following is reported,
"A skull was exhumed which must have belonged to one of great age, as the sutures were entirely obliterated and the tables firmly cemented together. From the superciliary ridges, which were well developed, the frontal bone receded almost on a direct line to the place of the occipital and parietal sutures, leaving no forehead and has the appearance of having been done by artificial means, as practiced at present on the Columbia among the Flat Heads. A jaw-bone of huge dimensions was likewise found, which was coveted by the observer; but the superstitions of the owner of the soil believing it was sacrilegious and that he would be visited by the just indignation of Heaven if he suffered any of the teeth to be removed, prevailed on us to return again to its mother earth."
Damn, that dude should have risked going to hell and saved the jaw-bone. Newspaper accounts that reported finds of giant skeletons are often cited as unreliable sources of information. The reality is that what would be considered more credible sources like town and county histories were also reporting the same findings. Most notably, anatomic anomalies. Double rows of teeth, jawbones that could be fit over the finders face and massive skulls with sloping foreheads are reported in multiple sources all over the country through decades of time. I have never heard that part rationally explained. To say gigantism or disarticulation being the cause of these reports falls short of explaining anatomic anomalies. It wasn't like the giant hoax pamphlet was circulating around the country for a hundred years to show what key words to use. This information has only come out in the last couple of decades due to the persistent effort of researchers. These anomalies which were also reported in the Smithsonian's Ethnology and Annual reports indicate a very troublesome aspect to explain away. The bottom line is, is there enough evidence here to justify further investigation. I would think most reasonable people would agree. That is the case I am trying to make and I believe we have made it.
No comments:
Post a Comment