Re: ancient giants?

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:54:33 -0800 (PST), in soc.history.ancient,
J.LyonLayden wrote:

Snip

Agememnon's timeline is screwed up as shown from his other recent
posts. The Nephelim were more likely cro-magnons, some of the earlier
waves of which approached 7 feet tall.


Doug Weller

I can't think of any good reason to take the Nephilim story at all
seriously.  And the idea that they were some sort of folk memory from
24,000 years ago -- well, sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

There are a bunch of myths from all over the place that talk about God-
men before the end of the ice age.
The folk memories would have been only a few thousand years old when
they were written down. If there were giant cro-magnons at 24,000 ybp
then there were populations of giant cro-magnons at 10,000 ybp.

Sorry, that is not logical. Average height varies over time. Cro Magnon
skeletons were not gigantic anyway. Who are you comparing them to?
To repeat:
I've seen 5 foot 10 inches as the current accepted height but to quote
Loring Brace:
"However, if the leg bones are used to calculate stature, the Cro-Magnon
individual usually illustrated measures out to be between 57" and 5'8" in
height."

Please let's not talk about Cro Magnon unless you mean the handful of
skeletons found in France.

Perhaps the lineage of chiefs? And any population who took up
agriculture at, say, 10,000 ybp would have found its height shrinking
in just a few years...except of course those with chief blood, who get
to eat well off of the trade market.



[SNIP]





showing people unearthing giant skeletons -- maybe 15 to 20 feet
tall.

Most of that is fake stuff, but there were an aweful lot of reports by
at least semi-respectable souirces from that era that spoke of a
ruling class of 7-8 foot indians from America's prehistory. Alot of
the evidence seems to have been covered up or lost.
Part of the problem I think is that scientists don't like to report
height anymore. It seems like fear that holds them back from doing so.
They don't dare claim a 7 foot skeleton is evidence of a race of tall
people, even when they find several tall people in the same area, and
they tend to act like height is not an important factor in the study
of anthropology.
Scientists are quick to lump Meganthropus in with homo erectus, and
quick to disregard earlier scientist's views on their height and
weight, but just try to get them to speculate on a new height
estimation: they will either refuse or claim a height/weight so slight
as to sound ridiculous to anyone who knows the difference in size of
the molar compared to any other hominid.

Scientists still report height.

Where's the new height for meganthropus? Oh yeah they lumped it in
with erectus so they wouldn't have to do a height.

Again, let's be specific about the name -- that refers to a small group of
fossils. What's your evidence for the height?

And where is the average for each successive wave of cro-magnons,
rather than the one vague blanket average over the whole of 20,000
years?

There were no waves of Cro Magnons. So this is a non-issue.

There are no verifiable sources for a
giant ruling class.  There are no verifiable sources for a race of giants.

So you're saying cro-magnon and heidelberg weren't taller, much
stronger, and bigger boned than us? You're saying meganthropus was no
bigger than us? You're saying idaltu didn't average over 6 foot?

I'm saying Cro Magnon was not bigger than us, yes.
Homo heidelbergensis was a very long time ago, what does that have to do
with this? And pray tell, where do you a measure of height for the fossils
of Homo heidelbergensis? I'd love to know the answer to that.
This site, for instance, gives
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Hheidelbergensis.html
1.5 metres.
How would you figure an average height anyway from a tiny number of
specimens not all of which can give you much clue about height anyway.

And what does any of this have to do with giants? How do you define a
giant? How can our remote ancestors come into this discussion?

There are no legends or myths about a giant ruling class?

No idea, tell me some.

Women don't prefer tall men, even today when their lives don't depend
on it?
Size doesn't matter?

Sorry, none of this is proof of giants.


No use hiding from what's probable with what's proven. Everyone knows
what an incredibly small fraction of what once existed has been
preserved and found by archeologists.

Yep, so what? You can't argue for giants by showing that there is no
evidence.



Not even decent photos although a lot of the claims are in the age of
photography.
Here's the official report for instance on Lovelock, no red haired giants:

http://tinyurl.com/387dmmhttp://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhearstm...

Lack of evidence does not mean there was a coverup or the evidence was
lost, and where there is literally no evidence for these claims, the most
likely explanations are confusion and hoaxes.

The only thing that bothers me is, if none of these were real
skeletons of giants...then where are the skeletons of the giants that
they should have found?

What giants?

There are families even today that have an average height of men
approaching 7 foot.

So? That isn't a 'race of giants'. And what is the evidence for families
rather than individuals?>




Is this just another Hollywood creation or has archeology actually
encountered giant humanoid skeletons?

Homo Erectus or Hidelbergensus was about 7 or 8 feet tall I think.

No.

No...There were extremely tall strains of erectus that averaged 6'3"
in africa. Idaltu may have even been slightly taller. And
Heidelbergensis averaged 6'1 by conservative estimates. Of course
there may have been strains of either of these that averaged close to
7 feet.
But the tallest hominid ever was Meganthropus Robustus, who could not
have been a Nephelim because he was way too early.
The second tallest was probably early cro-magnon, the especially the
strains from about 30,000 to 25,000, when they averaged six and a half
feet and probably better.

I've seen 5 foot 10 inches as the current accepted height but to quote
Loring Brace:
"However, if the leg bones are used to calculate stature, the Cro-Magnon
individual usually illustrated measures out to be between 57" and 5'8" in
height."

Yes but I don't like that scientist. I like this scientist better:

"The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to modern
humans, although a bit more robust, particularly in the skull. The
earliest Cro-Magnon were taller than we are (often reaching over 6
foot four inches), with longer limbs, especially the lower legs; but
after about 26,000, the size of Cro-Magnon begin to fall within the
modern human range."
-Kris Hirst

I'll tell her. You did note that she agrees with me about the use of the
term Cro Magnon?

No where near six and a half feet, and certainly not probably better than
that (where do you get 'probably better' or even six and a half feet?)

"Certainly no where near" because you like the conservative scientist
better?

I'll talk to Kris.

6'4 isn't anywhere near six and a half feet?


Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... "The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to ... Saying that there were no giants then is like saying there are no ... stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians, ... "The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... after about 26,000, the size of Cro-Magnon begin to fall within the ... stronger and more robust than such populations as the natufians, ... Now consider that most cultures talk about giants in their ... "The physical characteristics of Early Modern Human are quite similar to ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kris Hirsts page on Why Dont We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated
    ... Sorry, no giants there. ... Here is the quote where she gives the measurement of 6'4. ... "The physical characteristics of Cro-Magnon are very similar to ... in a time when many scientists say that the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: ancient giants?
    ... after the invention of agriculture, ... looked like giants to the agriculturalists who were, ... a foot shorter than Cro-magnon. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Scientific speculation
    ... don't think there is any evidence for this 'grass-is-greener' view ... My point is, IF Cro-Magnon had settled there first, ... Neanderthal left Africa in 400,000 ybp as an explanation of why they turned out ... says nothing about later interbreeding after Neanderthal left Africa. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)