Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Fake Hercules Swords
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog

An Eyewitness to a Giant?  Not so Fast, Zimmerman and Vieira

1/1/2015

 
PictureCharles M. Huntington and his statue (1938).
My always-thoughtful wife, having listened to me rattling on about “giants” recently, picked up a copy of the magazine Ancient American (Volume 18, Issue 105) while doing some Christmas shopping last week.  She bought it for me because the cover listed a story titled “Ancient New York Giants.”

The article, by Fritz Zimmerman, is built around the story of a man named Charles Huntington, of East Randolph, New York.  The article states that Mr. Huntington was present as his neighbors excavated a giant skeleton from a local mound in 1876.  Sixty-two years later, Mr. Huntington’s memories and notes from that day inspired him to carve a 9’ statue representing the giant human he saw buried in the mound.

Here are some quotes from Zimmerman's article (emphasis added):

“The model was built life-size according to measurements taken by Mr. Huntington when a mound on the Conewango Road was opened 62 years ago.”

“In 1876, a young man [Charles Huntington] accompanied several of his neighbors in excavating a burial mound that was to leave an indelible impression on him. What he witnessed that day would inspire him 62 years later to carve a replica of the remarkable find.”

“To make sure that the measurements he had were correct, he contacted the Assistant State Geologist in Albany, New York, who confirmed them as accurate.  Mr. Huntington’s motivation was to recreate exactly what he saw so many years ago, using the measurements taken by Mr. Cheney who was present at the dig.”

“The original account of the burial mound was printed in the History of Cattaraugus County, New York in 1879.”

So far so good, right?  Mr. Huntington was present at this mound excavation in 1876, a giant skeleton was unearthed, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Huntington took measurements, the discovery was reported in 1879, and many decades later Mr. Huntington carved a life-size statue of the 9’ tall giant that he had seen. 

This “eyewitness” story is also told by Jim Vieira on his blog in March of 2014.  Vieira quotes from an article he wrote for Ancient American:

“Charles Huntington was present when the skeletons were unearthed in 1876 and secured the exact measurements made by Dr. Franklin Larkin and Dr. T. Apoleon Cheney to be the basis for the wooden Mound Builders.”

Vieira, like Zimmerman, presents the story as an open-and-shut case where the recollections and information of multiple, independent witnesses corroborate an eyewitness account of the discovery of a skeleton of enormous proportions.  Vieira closes his post by expressing his frustration that people continue to question the existence of giants even in the face of such overwhelming evidence:

“Does Mr. Huntington strike you as a hoax master? What part of his story seems false? I guess I need to adopt more of a take it or leave it attitude when it comes to this research but for God's sake how can you read all of these reports and not understand that giants in the America's were a reality?”

In his piece, Zimmerman writes:

“Archaeologists would dismiss Mr. Huntington’s wooden model as a fabrication.  I would ask what his motivation would be?  Why would they report the giants in the county history and the newspaper?  Why would the state archaeologists confirm Mr. Huntington’s measurements that he received from Mr. Cheney who was also at the dig?  The preponderance of evidence would suggest that Mr. Huntington was correct in his reproduction.”

Clearly they think they’ve got a good case here.  The “I saw a giant being exhumed” story is becoming entrenched in the modern mythology of giants.

Too bad it’s not true.

The stories put together by Zimmerman and Vieira use the same two sources: the History of Cattaraugus County New York (1879) and an article in the Randolph Register (Zimmerman identifies it as September 21, 1936, but I think it is actually from 1938).  It is the story in the Randolph Register that states that Huntington “witnessed the exhuming of the skeletons of pre-historic mound-builders at the N. E. G. Cowan farm on the Conewango Road.”  The story identifies T. Apolean Cheney as “a Randolph man, who was present at the time the mound was opened.”

T. Apolean Cheney was indeed present when the mound was opened.  He wasn’t just “a Randolph man,” however, he was a civil engineer who was a central figure in New York prehistory in the mid 1800s. And he didn’t open the mound in 1876, but sometime before 1860, the year that “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” was published (available here).

This is the description from “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” (1860) (emphasis added):

    “The Tumulus, represented upon Plate III., from the peculiar construction of the work, and the character of its remains, appears to belong to a class of mounds different from any others embraced in this exploration.  It is located upon the brow of a hill, still covered by ancient forest, and overlooking the valley of the Conewango.  This work has some appearance of being constructed with the ditch and vallum outside of the mound, as in the Druid Barrows, but perhaps more accurately belongs to the class composed of several stages, as the Trocalli of the valley of Anahuac.  The form of the Tumulus is of intermediate character between an ellipse and the parallelogram; the interior mound, at its base, has a major axis of sixty-five feet, while the minor axis is sixty-one feet, with an altitude above the first platform or embankment of ten feet, or an entire elevation of some thirteen feet.  This embankment, with an entrance or gateway upon the east side thirty feet in width, has an entire circumference of one hundred and seventy feet.  As previously remarked, the work itself, as well as the eminence which it commands, and the ravines upon either side, are overshadowed by the dense forest. The remains of a fallen tree, imbedded in the surface of the mound and nearly decomposed, and which, from appearance, had grown upon the apex, measured nearly three feet in diameter, and heavy timber was growing above the rich mold it had formed.  Thus we have some indicia of the age of this work.  The mound, indeed, from the peculiar form of its construction, as well as from the character of its contents, has much resemblance to the Barrows of the earliest Celtic origin, in the Old World.  In making an excavation, eight skeletons, buried in a sitting posture, and at regular intervals of space, so as to form a circle within the mound, [illegible] disinterred.  Some slight appearance yet existed, to show that frame-work had enclosed the dead at the time of interment.  These osteological remains were of very large size, but were so decomposed that they mostly crumbled to dust.  The relics of art here disclosed, were also of a peculiar and interesting character,--amulets, chisels, &c., of elaborate workmanship,--resembling the Mexican and Peruvian antiquities” (pp. 40-41).
. . .
    “In the tumulus at Conewango, the relics of art, together with osteological remains, were of the most interesting character. The several skeletons were very much decayed, crumbling upon exposure to the atmosphere to the atmosphere, but were all of very large size.  A cranium, as well as could be ascertained from the restored fragments, was of the following dimensions:

                Occipito-frontal arch,……………….. 19 inches
                Longitudinal diameter, ……………. 9   “
                Parietal diameter,………………….. 8 1-5 “
                Zygomatic diameter, ……………… 7 2-5 ”
                Facial angle,………………………… 73 degrees

The ethmoid, and both the superior and inferior maxillary bones were wanting.  An Os-femur disclosed here, from accurate measurement, was found to have a length of twenty-eight inches”
(pg. 43).

This is the later description from History of Cattaraugus County, New York (1879) (available here):

    “About two miles south of the village of Rutledge, in the Connewango, on lot No. 45, at a point about sixty rods east of Connewango Creek and near the residence of Norman E. G. Cowen, there was discovered by the first pioneers of this section a sepulchral mound, nearly circular in form, and having an entire circumference of one hundred and seventy feet.  The height of the mound was about twelve feet.  Mr. Cheney spoke of this work as “having some appearance of being constructed with the ditch or vallum outside of the mound, as in the Druid Barrows, but perhaps more accurately belongs to the class composed of several stages, as the Trocalli of the vally of Anuhuac.”  At the time of its discovery the site was surrounded by the primitive forest, and upon the tumulus there were growing several large trees, among them being a hemlock two feet in diameter, and a maple and beech each eighteen inches in diameter.
    “Within the mound there was discovered nine human skeletons, which had been buried in a sitting posture, and at regular intervals of space, in the form of a circle, and facing towards a common centre.  There was some slight appearance that a frame-work had inclosed the dead at the time of their interment.  The skeletons were so far decayed as to crumble upon exposure to the atmosphere, but were all of very large size.  An os femur (the largest found here) was twenty-eight inches in length.  The dimensions of the cranium were (as nearly as could be ascertained from the restored fragments) as follows: occipito-frontal arch, 19 inches; longitudinal diameter, 9 inches; parietal diameter, 8 ½ inches; facial angle, 73 degrees. There were also found here several interesting relics of ancient art,--among these being very perfect arrow- and spear-heads, a small triangular perforated stone, of which the surface was painted and glazed, chisels amulets, and other articles of quite elaborate workmanship,--thought by some to resemble the Mexican and Peruvian antiquities”
(pg. 12).

I think we can all agree that these passages are describing the same excavations at the same earthwork with the same results.  The 1879 account quotes directly from the 1860 account, provides the same cranial measurements, and mentions the same 28” femur.  In fact, prior to the description of the earthwork given above, the History of Cattaraugus County, New York specifies “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” as the source of the information (see page 11).

So the excavations at the Cowen farm reported in the 1879 History of Cattaraugus County took place in the 1850s, not the 1870s. 

This presents a slight problem for the “I saw a giant being exhumed” story, because Charles M. Huntington wasn’t born until 1864.  Here is a census record from 1940. Here is a listing from the local cemetery. 

It’s pretty safe to say Charles M. Huntington wasn’t at the excavation in the 1850s that is described in the 1879 History of Cattaraugus County, New York. 

What really happened here?  The most charitable reading is that Charles Huntington actually was present at a later (1876) excavation that took place at the earthwork.  This might explain why the 1860 account states there were eight skeletons while the 1879 account specifies nine.  An article in the Times Herald (Olean, New York), dated May 12, 1938, states:

    “For years Mr. Cowen would not permit the mound to be disturbed until hunters, digging for game, found a shin bone and a jaw bone.
    Scientists were then notified and the entire skeleton removed.  Mr. Huntington was present and took notes on the measurements as the bones were removed.  The skeleton was removed to Buffalo but reportedly disintegrated within twenty-five years so that the only evidence of its existence are the measurements taken by Mr. Huntington, which also are on file at Buffalo and at Washington."
    Before starting to create his statues of wood, Mr. Huntington checked with authorities at both Buffalo and Washington and found that the measurements he had taken as a boy were accurate.
    The man stood nine feet in height, had a shin bone twenty-eight inches in length, a foot fourteen inches long and measured thirty-five inches across his shoulders.”


Maybe someone re-opened the mound in 1876, when Huntington was 12-years-old? Even if Huntington was present at an excavation that took place during his lifetime (i.e., 1876), however, his “measurements” were reported decades earlier.  The 28” length of the “shin bone” (called an “os-femur, or bone between the ankle and knee” in the newspaper account that Zimmerman and Vieira rely on) matches exactly the length of the femur reported by Cheney in 1860.  I think the most likely story is that Huntington got “his” measurements from either the 1860 or 1879 accounts (they are the same, after all) and then those measurements were later “verified” by someone else looking at the same published account.  A later article in the Randolph Register (November 14, 1984, available here) provides an account of the creation of the statues that supports this idea:

“As a young boy in 1876 Mr. Huntington watched as the Cowen Indian Mound in Randolph was opened.  One bone found was exceptionally large.  In 1938 Mr. Huntington created a statue of a man based on this large bone.  He figured his height to be about nine feet.”

Huntington had the reported 28” measurement from the femur and created a statue based on that single dimension.  One might guess that Huntington calculated a 9’ height for his statue by multiplying the reported length of the femur (28”) by 4, which seems to have been a common practice for estimating stature. In fact, I wonder if the statue doesn’t actually measure 9’4” (112”), which would be exactly 4x the femur length.  The measurement of 35” “across his shoulders” can be obtained by dividing a height of 112” by 3.2, suggesting the shoulder measurement may have been calculated using a simple proportional ratio rather than measured from a skeleton as implied by the “eyewitness” version of the story told by Zimmerman and Vieira.

It is interesting to note that while the reported femur length (28”) and facial angle (73 degrees) are part of the story, the cranial measurements reported in both 1860 and 1879 are not.  Why not? That’s easy: they’re from a normal-sized skull.

To me, reliance on the memory of an individual that was not yet alive at the time an event occurred seriously weakens the strength of an “eyewitness” story.  Sarcasm aside, this is a fair answer to the “what is wrong with this story” question posed by both Vieira and Zimmerman.  If your argument that the eastern United States was “the ancient land of the Biblical Nephilim” rests on the reported recollections of a man who was not yet born, I think you should be prepared to temper your exasperation that no-one believes you.

But what of the 28” femur? Other than the measurement and the statement that the skeletons were “all of a very large size,” no other details were provided in the main narratives of the 1860 and 1879 accounts.  Two pieces of information are relevant to evaluating whether this femur (which would indeed be consistent with an individual over 8’ in height) was as large as reported. Both suggest that it was not as large as reported.

First, the femur was described in the “Donations” section of the 1860 report in which Cheney’s “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” appeared:

“5. FRAGMENTS OF THE OS FEMUR, superior and lower extremities, from the Conewango mound.”

In other words, the whole femur was not recovered: they were missing the shaft and did not have a complete bone to measure!  This casts some serious doubt on what the length of the original bone really was. If the bone was from a robust individual, the proximal and distal sections were likely large, prompting an overestimation of the original length of the bone.  There is no way to "accurately" measure the length of a bone that was missing part of the shaft.

The second piece of information relevant to understanding the supposed “giant” femur comes from Dr. Frederick Larkin, a medical doctor who was a part of Cheney’s explorations in New York.  In his book Ancient Man in America (1880, available here) written two years after Cheney’s death, he gives his opinion of the “giant” skeletons that were described (emphasis added):

“It is stated in a paper written by Dr. Cheney, in 1859, that the skeletons found in the mounds at Cassadaga were those of giants, and that one in particular measured seven feet and five inches.  I suppose he got that information from some persons who saw then at the time they were exhumed, and their organ of marvelousness greatly exalted.  That the Mound-Builders were a trifle larger than the present type, is very probable; but that they were giants eight and ten feet high is all fabulous.  I have seen many skeletons from mounds in different states, but have seen none that will much exceed the present people now living.  At the Centennial, in one of the annex buildings, was a large amount of fragments of skeletons from the ancient tombs in West Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, and the Mississippi valley, and I saw none that would exceed the Indian tribes of America” (pg. 44).

So let’s review:

  • Charles Huntington was not alive when the reported 28” femur was excavated, and therefore could not have been an eyewitness. His statue was based on a reported measurement from a single bone, not a firsthand observation of a "giant" skeleton.

  • The purportedly 28" femur was not complete, missing part (perhaps most) of the shaft.  The reported 28” length was an estimate based on the two end fragments. It was likely an overestimate.

  • The person with experience in anatomy who saw some of the “giant” skeletons reported from New York and other states clearly said they were nothing of the sort.  Dr. Larkin saw no “giants,” and he said so after Cheney's death.

There’s your simple answer to why people don’t believe these stories: they shouldn’t.  A little bit of digging demonstrates major holes in this story. It would never hold up in court, and it does not hold up as evidence for a claim as fantastic as the discovery of a human larger than any living person on record.

Contrary to what Zimmerman and Vieira assert, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that this story is baloney.  I have asked it before, and I will ask it again: where is the scholarship on the side of the giantologists putting forward these claims?  Have I missed something?  Did no-one bother to check the attribution of the source of the excavation story in the 1879 volume? It’s written right there.  I just don’t get it.

Maybe I'll submit a piece to Ancient American and see if it gets published.


Don Spohn link
1/1/2015 01:37:42 am

I believe in giants, past and present, but I think most reports of giants are attempts to earn moony. Most giant stories range from plain fiction, to outright lies,to selective reporting, to serious errors.
Don Spohn
Great Lakes Copper Research

Scott Hamilton
1/1/2015 04:34:18 am

On what evidence do you believe in "giants, past and present"? Can you perhaps name what you think is single best account of a "giant"? I'd be very curious.

Stan Provak
1/2/2015 08:07:48 am

If anything, what you seem to have demonstrated is that a 7-8 foot skeleton was genuinely excavated.

Andy White
1/2/2015 08:24:35 am

No, what I have demonstrated is that two fragments of a bone were excavated 5 years before the "eyewitness" was born. That's a little different.

Joe Fitzgerald
1/3/2015 02:48:54 am

Charles Huntington was not alive when the reported 28” femur was excavated, and therefore could not have been an eyewitness. Though significant, I'm not sure how close this comes to showing that the original account that documented significantly large skeletons was inaccurate?

The purportedly 28" femur was not complete, missing part ("perhaps" most) of the shaft. Though significant, I'm not sure how close this comes to showing that the original account of the skeletons crumbling to dust after being exposed to the air was inaccurate?
"As singular as this may seem, similar reports of the time emanated from over 20 other Ohio counties."
(http://www.academia.edu/4693378/A_TRADITION_OF_GIANTS_The_Elite_Social_Hierarchy_of_American_Prehistory)
Although this is a weak case to show that any such bones indeed existed in this instance, not having a directly conflicting first hand account doesn't denounce such either.

Referencing Dr Larkin, who's personal accounts of excavations didn't yield giant skeletons, is not showing that other excavations that documented such remains were not what they were reported to be. Dr Larkin "saw no giants in other parts of the country” but in reference to your standard of the importance of first hand witnesses; Dr Larkin "supposing" isn't a sufficient means to not consider Cassadega Lake's original witnesses' accounts of the manner in which the bones degenerated (wouldn't he reference his own experience and not doubt others' otherwise?) and that does not qualify you to suggest equivalent instances in the US by many other reputable sources can be dimsissed as inaccurate either. That's a far greater leap of faith than it is to assume that almost 150 years worth of similar documented remains in the US have at least got something legitimate to them.

PS. Loved your pieces on "Double Teeth Allround".

Andy White
1/3/2015 03:18:36 am

Well, the reason why the story is considered to be a good piece of evidence by both Vieira and Zimmerman (good enough that they wrote about it) is the eyewitness component. So I think it does weaken the appeal of the story quite a bit when you remove the "eyewitness."

As far as the 28" femur, what Larkin says is relevant because he was probably at that excavation. Certainly Vieira actually says Larkin took part in the measurements. I think his dismissal of "giants" after Cheney's death is an important data point in the story. After all, if we are going to hold Larkin up as an "authority" when talking about the purported measurements, shouldn't we be interested to find out that he later disavowed the evidence for giants? I think so.

I'm not dismissing all accounts based on what Larkin said or what Huntington did not see - I do think it's important to consider these cases one at a time but also to put them in context.

Joe Fitzgerald
1/3/2015 04:14:19 am

Respectfully, Vieria and Zimmerman's take on the validity of eyewitness is as important in that is the same leap you are making in the assumption that Larkin was present to dismiss the giant bones that degenerated; eyewitnesses are very, very much the valid component here and by removing one for seemingly another doesn't make a legitimate basis to question the original account that hasn't been addressed here. Larkin is ten times more credible than Huntington as he was working on the femur, but we still don't have a direct reference, more of a "supposition" that the people who witnessed the alleged remains were telling tales. What you've most certainly achieved via a very comprehensive method of research, is show us that Huntington couldn't have seen the remains, not that the remains were never a reality.

Larkin is relevant because he was at that excavation; certainly took part in the measurement of the femur, but does not present a means to consider he even saw skeletons because he merely references others' accounts of such, wouldn't this be a very natural thing to highlight considering he appears to be so sincere in his cynical evaluation? An evaluation, seemingly without direct experience of the initial discovery, is as reliable to this story as it can be. Larkin can by all entitlement make the claim that the excavations HE participated in were not fruitful in giant remains but considering that researchers, authors and lecturers have compiled a frequency of data representing a far greater pool of reports to deduce truth from, renders the frequency of excavations Larkin could have physically participated in, arguably a small portion of that sheer number. Somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 accounts of giant burials in America, with similarity to those in Europe, and Asia of giant skeletons reported between the 1700's and present day. Cecelia Hall has drafted a Google map of North American finds;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Id37N6vImUc/Uu2u1ZWpGrI/AAAAAAAAxlw/FSEaeFWYrAk/s1600/1010960_526639300783862_916482378_n.jpg

Andy White
1/3/2015 05:47:16 am

Okay I'm a bit confused (honestly, not sarcastically): are you saying Larkin did or did not actually see the reported 28" femur at Conewango?

I'm not saying he did or didn't. I have simply said I think he was probably at that excavation (I have attempted to provide independent proof of that). It is Vieira who stated he took the measurement. I'm suspicious that that's not true, and I don't know where that information came from.

If Larkin DID take the 28" measurement and then later say there's no such thing as giants, what do we make of that?

Or what if Larkin DID NOT take the 28" measurement . . . who is the "credible" person that made the estimation of the bone's length?

Again, I did not provide Larkin's quote in an attempt to dismiss all large skeleton reports. I provided it because it was relevant to this case as we has held up as respected person who supposedly participated in documenting this reported very large skeleton.

Andy White
1/3/2015 05:48:30 am

That second sentence should read "I have not attempted to provide independent proof of that."

Joe Fitzgerald
1/3/2015 06:08:25 am

What I'm trying to say, is that the likelihood of Larkin being at the excavation is not in doubt as there is more than one source to confirm this. The timing of that participation in the excavations duration is my focus of questioning, considering he offers cynicism in the past tense of those who allegedly did witness the skeletons. He can't offer a first hand experience to deny the bones that allegedly decayed once exposed to the atmosphere. It does make sense howevet that he would analyse what was left of these skeletons, in this case a couple of fragments of femur... In essence I am agreeing with you that he was at be excavation, but not that he is a reliable source to dismiss the alleged skeletons on site because IF he was a witness to it he would have referred to his own first hand experience.

I hope this makes sense. Also... I'd like to say that your research is the best stuff I've read in a long time, and understand that you are not trying to dismiss such an alleged historical episode by one source alone.

Stan Provak
1/3/2015 06:02:26 am

The logic here could be applied to a lot of events where false memory syndrome is frequently found. Many people in Dallas when Kennedy was shot recall being in the area and/or hearing shots. It has been shown that many experienced the formation of a false memory. Using your logic it proves Kennedy wasn't shot. This logic is a characteristic of a quackademic. Stick to your area of expertise.

Andy White
1/3/2015 07:28:42 am

My logic is this: if your case is built on an eyewitness that wasn't alive at the time, you've got a problem. The report of the 28" femur exists and has to be considered separately: I didn't dismiss that based on the fact that Charles Huntington didn't see it excavated. The fact that Huntington wasn't yet born when the femur was excavated means that whatever Huntington says about his experience has nothing to do with evaluating the case. That's pretty clear.

Stan Provak
1/3/2015 07:46:49 am

I too have run down a lot of these old articles and found some hoaxes and exaggerations. I have found that many of the books and articles were based on far older books and articles and that dates were often wrong. There are people who think they remember Woodstock-wrongly I'll add. Doesn't mean Woodstock never happened. But it is very likely there are other sources for this particular tale. Many of us would prefer that you debunk Don Dragoo's 7 footer as well as the 7-8 footers excavated by the U. Of KY in the 50s. Speculation about motives or false memory is outside the realm of archaeologists and fits William's definition of rogue professors and quackademics.

Andy White
1/3/2015 10:49:48 am

I don't think I speculated on Huntington's motive, just used a couple of basic sources to determine he couldn't have seen what he said he saw. I did an internet search to check out Huntington's story -- I'm not sure why that qualifies me as a "quackademic." Perhaps you should be asking why a couple of the louder voices in the giantologist community were so quick to embrace the eyewitness part of the story without checking it out.

Like I've said several times, Huntington's part of the story has no bearing on the original story from Cheney. That has to be looked at it on its own.

I plan on getting to the Adena material eventually. It's not like there's a lack of things to talk about.

Micah Ewers link
1/3/2015 11:50:44 am

Well, overall I think this is an interesting case to investigate. Andy's investigation into this account I think has turned up some serious question marks as to the exact date of the actual Conewango excavation, and who was really present or not present at the exhumations. So I commend him for this work, as it opens up features of this story which I had not fully explored myself. Jim Vieira and myself and several other affiliated and unaffiliated researchers have worked together in our hobby time compiling many of these accounts for the past couple of years. Speaking on my own behalf I am excited to see Andy's participation in getting to the bottom of these reports.

Regarding the 28 inch femur. Apparently it, or parts its upper and lower extremities were donated to the precursor of the New York State Museum by Mr. Cheney as Andy has mentioned. Also some cranium fragments from the same Conewango mound are additionally listed as donations to the same museum. I would personally be very intrigued if such bones could ever be located, and what the femoral head diameter really was, or how thick any portions of the femur neck, or beginnings of the shaft actually were or are. And if any of the cranial fragments were of unusual size. Like the Berg Aukas femur, and other fragments of long bones, "ballpark" estimates of body mass could be calculated.

I find the dimensions of the cranium T. Apoleon Cheney lists to be very interesting:

Occipito-frontal arch,……………….. 19 inches
Longitudinal diameter, ……………. 9 “
Parietal diameter,………………….. 8 1-5 “
Zygomatic diameter, ……………… 7 2-5 ”
Facial angle,………………………… 73 degrees

Cheney seems to have employed Dr Morton's measurement techniques which were common at the time. 8.2 inches diameter at the parietals would be over 35% wider than most human skulls. 9" Longitudinal would be around 10 -20% longer than most human skulls (from between the eyes to the back of the skull), and 7.4" across the Zygomatic distance-- the cheek bones - also about 35% wider than most human skulls. The occipito frontal arch being 19" in the Conewango skull is nearly 15% greater than this example of an "Enormous" modern English skull , which was 1851 cubic centimeters and 16.6" at the occipito frontal arch: https://books.google.com/books?id=-ABXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also, when we compare the dimensions of the Conewango skull to the "American Giant" , a skeleton of a pathological man who stood at least 7 ft 6 inches tall, and had one of the largest craniums of any giant known -i.e. 2,320 cubic centimeters -- we find that the Conewango skull exceeds the American Giant's skull in parietal and zygomatic diameters by over 30%, and is about 98% as long from front to back (between the eyes to the back of the head):

https://books.google.com/books?id=VIM3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false

If Cheney was accurate in his reconstruction of the Conewango mound skull "fragments" then I would suggest the skull was highly abnormal in dimensions. Possibly 28 - 30 inches in circumference, and a size 10 hat in life - that would be um, an XXXXXX Large.

However!!! -As with the purported femur length, we are relying on Cheney's accuracy at anatomy and forensic reconstruction in the 1850's!!! Cheney was apparently a "Civil Engineer", and knew how to write very detailed descriptions. In his "Ancient monuments in western New York" 1860, he lists not just 8 very large skeletons from Conewengo, but several additional skeletons which were pulled from mounds in Up-State New York, reported to have measured 7 ft 5, and another one at 9 feet long which was measured by "Medical Gentlemen."

Whether Cheney was a grand master of delusion and fabrication, and Dr. Larkin was the more rational logical "deducing" type we have yet to resolve. Apparently Dr. Larson had some interesting fantasies of ancient Moundbuilders who rode Mammoths, and Mastodons -- and had some other cooky views, apparently he was a "phrenologist" able to read a man's character simply from his skull, and his medical degree was apparently honorary - nevertheless, he was a professor of physiology, and his adamant position that there were not giants in New York is of some value I would say- Especially if he was present at the very digs mentioned above.

Two other researchers have looked into these reports of the "New York Giants." Mason Winfield in the year 2000-2001, and Brad Lockwood in 2008 - 2010.

In the end, we are left with faith. Were Cheney's femoral and cranial measurements accurate, and could the bones be tracked down today? There are many clues that would suggest this story is not worth persuing, and just another old Mound

Micah Ewers
1/3/2015 11:58:22 am

There are many clues that would suggest this story is not worth persuing, and just another old Mound giant story.

But if actual bones are listed as donations, and catalogued in the museum inventory in 1860. This case has a chance at being solved perhaps!

Micah Ewers
1/3/2015 12:32:46 pm

I should note, if Cheney's cranial measurements are accurate to within even 1/2 inch, I think it represents a very large human skull. - and a very Round headed individual, not un-common among the cranially deformed Adena people of the Ohio Valley, and other groups.

The purported length front to back (nine inches) versus the huge horizontal breadth between parietals (eight & one fifth inches) would result in a cephalic index of approximately 91.

This tallies with the brachycephalic cranially deformed skulls among the Adena of Kentucky and the Ohio River valley who had a cephalic index of 90 to 93. Most modern Asians and American Indians have cranial index of 75 to 85, for instance the "undeformed" Adena, and later Hopewell had cranial Indeces in the more typical 76 to 78 range.

Such a rounded skull might have looked like this Adena example:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xe9ZjdWz1y0/T2KDpkqRUAI/AAAAAAAAO6s/eTMhZEzTKEc/s1600/adena+skull+%282%29.jpg

But then again, assuming this purported giant was an "Adena Elite" is extremely tenuous, if my primary basis is old Doc Cheney's fragmentary reconstruction.

Micah Ewers
1/3/2015 12:40:54 pm

Here's some stats on the Adena skulls and Hopewell: https://books.google.com/books?id=V1WobBXAdcIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=adena+skull+cephalic+index&source=bl&ots=7oEZJupcYC&sig=YRaeYttHB2G8EN_O2wuLh2KMe7U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gL-oVJrUH8n0oAT4xILwBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=adena%20skull%20cephalic%20index&f=false

Micah Ewers link
1/3/2015 02:56:56 pm

I should also note that a skull reported in 1925, unearthed from an ancient site in Florida and sent the the Smithsonian, had a similar dimensions: 9 inches long by 7 inches wide. and the femur was about 25 inches, indicating a person, "not less than seven feet" tall.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19250214&id=V-pPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vlQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3083,2080989

I speculate that based on a 25-inch femur, that would would fit a man somewhere between 6 ft 11 and 7 ft 11 --or approx. 7-1/2 ft in life. Of course, what become of these bones, is another case yet to be solved.

Joe Fitzgerald
1/3/2015 08:52:14 pm

Hello Mr Ewers! How excellent it is that you called in with your invaluable knowledge of the topic! Hope you are well sir!

Hiram Jacques
2/2/2015 01:19:33 am

Several articles were found about giant skeletons in Texas up to 18 feet in height. But one example was confirmed with university records recently of a giant skull that was uncovered by the University of Texas at Austin Anthropology department in 1932 at the Morhiss Mound seven miles south of Victoria, Texas. The skull was put into the UT collection and recorded. But Ales Hrdlicka from the Smithsonian visited UT. The skull was stolen and then listed as missing to this day. Jim Vieira described Hrdlicka as having a pre-Nazi ideology.
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/morhiss/images/VT1-article.html
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/morhiss/
http://www.sydhav.no/giants/victoria_texas.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ale%C5%A1_Hrdli%C4%8Dka

Jason Jarrell
8/16/2015 06:36:31 am

I have to agree with the point that there needs to be more scholarship in the realm of giantology. There are many books, DVDs, and overpriced conference tickets beings sold on the sensational nature of the subject. In fact, there needs to be more solid scholarship in the realm of alternative history altogether.

Just look at how many times the "horned giants of Sayre" have been copied from one Nephilim book to the next.

One thing that has been sorely missing is an interpretive level of knowledge of these prehistoric cultures and their history.

As a researcher who has been involved in an in depth study of these subjects for over 5 years, I will say that there are first hand accounts out there which back up purported "giant" discoveries. But to find them one has to dig deep and travel. They are few and far between, and the chances that someone else will post them on the internet for you to write about are slim.

There are also photos out there of supposed gigantic skeletons with excavators kneeling or standing over them besides the now famous photo which LA Marzulli had such a tantrum over when he learned Vierra was going to include it in his show.

Andy White
8/17/2015 12:12:22 am

Thanks for the comment. What would you say is the "best case" you've seen for an individual over 8' tall? None of the ones I've looked up so far has stood up to even a fairly low level of scrutiny. I have a hard time believing that there is a really good case out there (i.e., with compelling hard evidence) that hasn't been publicized, and this story is one of the reasons that I'm skeptical: this was supposedly such a great case that two people wrote articles about it, but it turned out to have holes in that you could drive a truck through.

Jason Jarrell link
10/1/2015 04:00:25 pm

Essentially, people in this field tend to get so excited to publish something every time a new "find" begins to get steam, that they often overlook the type of critical analysis done here, in the rush to get their names attached to the subject matter. You would be surprised at how competitive anomalism is as a field. New researchers can even be "shut out" by the big name giants' hunters. Personally, I have found a number of cases of anomalous remains which were either accidentally reported or simply not true to begin with. But the fact is, gigantic skeletons have been found and professionally measured. Burial 54 at the Cresap Mound, Burial 40 at the Dover Mound, The Giant of Castlenau (which appeared in Popular Science), to name a few.

Andy White
10/2/2015 07:14:32 am

I don't have any firsthand experience to draw on, but I'm not surprised to hear your opinion that excitement to claim credit for a "discovery" leads to shallow scholarship. It only took me a few hours to figure out that the story wouldn't hold up, and I did it on my couch with some basic internet searches. Overall, hyping of these kinds of claims without doing the minimum of analysis to check out the stories is what makes the whole endeavor seem pretty silly to those of us watching from the "outside."

You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation). Greg Little makes the argument that there were more very tall individuals excavated from those mounds in the Eastern Woodlands than we would expect by chance (given the distribution of stature in a "normal" human population). He may be right about that, and I suspect that is the angle of your argument also. I haven't spent a lot of time looking at those cases yet, but I'll get there. My guess is that the "tall individuals are over-represented in mound burials because of some mixture of social process and heredity" will be the last hypothesis standing after all the silly claims about supernatural Nephilim and 15' tall Adamic giants are falsified.

Jason Jarrell
8/16/2015 06:39:24 am

BTW, it's always great to see you, Micah!

Jason Jarrell link
10/4/2015 01:18:56 pm

@ Andy:

Whatever one thinks of the 7-8 ft tall Adena "royalty", there are certain aspects of the stories of massive 9-11 ft tall giants which we are currently working on in our own research, which we feel will add a new dimension to giantology. The issue is that those who chronicle these beings from various sources rarely rake the time to find out what the specific cultural affiliations were associated with the burials themselves. However, over the last 3 years we (my wife and myself) have obtained references to artifacts and tomb traits from these more massive giants. And it appears that the investigation is leading to the likelihood that they are ancestral to the Adena. In other words, the taller specimens may have represented an older manifestation of a genetic expression which "bred down" over the course of several hundred years.

Don Spohn
10/28/2015 07:54:54 am

I am neither for or against giants, but consider these facts; there are both "giants" and "pigmy" tribes in Africa, today. True, African giants are not that tall, but the genetically tall tribes and the genetically short tribe are proof that unusual stature can be genetic as well as acromegaly induced and we have both kinds of giants with us today.
It is also a fact that we have no proof of ancient giant, 9 ft. tall cultures (other than the Bible). We have no bones, no eye witnesses, no real proof. And it is also a fact that evidence is today generated and has been generated for a couple hundred years or more to sell newspapers and books, and today, TV programs. It is also a fact that people will believe what makes them feel good and will defend those feel-good belief against all facts.

J. Lyon Layden link
12/2/2015 11:24:21 am

Here's the deal. Scientist openly admit that some populations of archaics averaged 7' tall. Anyone with common sense knows that archaics didn't fully die out until around 12 thousand years ago. Hence we have Red Deer Cave People, The Hobbit, the Neanderthaloids in Mongolia, and Balangoda man. We also have neolithic fossils of really big people with archaic features from the mesolithic, like this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7653506
And we have legends all over the world of giants. Also, if you're a 3' Palau hominid 6' is a giant.
Less than 3% of Hono Sapien Sapiens of Homo Sapien sapiens are represented in the fossil record. DNA has shown us that entire species of hominid are missing from the fossil record. In 6 million years of chimpanzees, the only chimp remain that have ever been found in the wild is a partial tooth.

Andy White
12/2/2015 11:29:53 am

None of this really has anything in particular to do with this post (which is about a specific case of an alleged 9' tall individual), but that's fine.

Let's start with your first statement: "Scientist openly admit that some populations of archaics averaged 7' tall." Can you provide some basis for that claim?

Thomas Schroeder
8/16/2016 09:33:31 am

"Any one with common sense knows that archaics didn't fully die out until around 12 thousand years ago". Not only do I not know what is meant by "archaics fully dying out 12 thousand years ago", but knowledge of our human origins is not a "common sense" issue, rather it is slowly learned, postulated, tested, debated, and composed.

Thomas Schroeder
8/16/2016 09:15:46 am

Andy, perhaps you won't be looking at this older post, but I'll comment and ask questions anyway.

Let me start by saying I absolutely find the stories of the Nephilim to be false and believe that all current photos are hoaxes. I think that the high number of 100 year old reports stemmed from early false reports and then hysteria over the subject that led to exaggeration and "keeping up with the Jones".

I once thought that not only would it have been reasonable for Native Americans to be healthy and active at heights of 7' feet (as humans are today) but that it would also be natural for the ancients to revere such humans and more likely honor their burials. However, I see very little evidence even for this, at least as a common practice.

Still, I have the following questions and comments.

1) I tried to look up comparative measurements for the skull and could not find any. You stated that the skull was normal. Can you add sizes for normal skulls. It seemed big. Also, if the skull was normal it seems appropriate to add that to your summary.

2) Regarding the 28" femur. I don't want to sound non-supportive of your assessment that it was missing portions of the shaft, but, for arguments sake, let's suppose that the measurement was very close to accurate. In the original report it was even emphasized, somewhat that the measurement was accurate; "from accurate measurement, was found to have a length of twenty-eight inches"

I want to add that supposing it really was about 28" still fails to indicate giants like the Nephilim since normal people can have exceptionally long legs. In addition to the idea of a normal but very tall person (7'), it can be noted that woman sometimes have exceptionally long legs (perhaps this is equivalent to men but is not as often pointed out.)

Two examples:
Stacy Keibler (from Dancing with the Stars) was 5' 11" but had 42" legs.
Svetlana Pankratovo was 6' 5" but her legs were 52" long which seems like plenty of length to fit a 28" femur.

I think you are most likely correct about the femur being degraded which led to either an over-estimate while being cataloged or a miss-measurement in the field. And you are completely right in emphasizing that there is room for doubt when eyewitness are shown to be incorrect. But I still thought it was worth sharing information about long legs on "normalish" people.

Thomas


Comments are closed.

    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Email me: [email protected]

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2024
    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly