Here’s the kind of argument that, unfortunately, we see all too frequently online. On the “Stone Builders, Mound Builders, and the Giants of Ancient America” Facebook page, the page owner posts a daily archival news report from the nineteenth century about the discovery of the bones of “giants.” These reports have several sources, ranging from misidentified mastodon and mammoth bones to outright hoaxes; nevertheless, many believers in alternative history hold that these newspaper accounts, for which there is no extant physical evidence, are prima facie proof that giants once wandered ancient America.

Here’s the conspiracy theory posted earlier today:

Numerous reports clearly point right to the Smithsonian receiving giant remains and indicate their scientists were involved in the excavations but the skeletal material all seems to have gone missing. If all this evidence was "normal sized" then where are the remains to prove this? Obviously, removing the remains, creating a law to force repatriation of all of this material (NAGPRA) and concocting a fairy tale that somehow all this evidence was in error and you have the current state of affairs. A state where a wall of arrogance and dissimissiveness [sic] has been built to make it virtually impossible for professionals to objectively look at the evidence.

Notice the backward logic from beginning to end. The “reports”—from old newspapers—are assumed true, so the fact that no such remains exist (or ever existed) at the Smithsonian is now proof of a cover-up. The claim that the Smithsonian had the skeletons of giants, incidentally, does not appear in the literature of the nineteenth century, when these giant bones were allegedly consigned to the museum; presumably, the Biblical literalists of the day would have made as much of them as they did of the Cardiff Giant, and yet it was not so. In fact, as early as 1865 the Smithsonian published a document by Ducrotay de Blainville, following Cuvier, attributing “giant” humanoid bones to mastodons. Surely in the period prior to the explosion of the Mound Builder myth, when the existence of giants was taken for granted, there should be some record in the Smithsonian materials of these alleged bones. I find it interesting that I can track down no claim of missing giant bones from the Smithsonian until the rise of the modern creationist and alternative history movements in the middle twentieth century, when suddenly Victorian yellow journalism became proof of biblical truths.

David Childress promoted the idea in his claims about the alleged Egyptian-Tibetan tomb in the Grand Canyon, and Ross Hamilton picked up the thread with the “Holocaust of Giants: The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up” article in 2001; he quotes Vine Deloria, who I suppose is probably right in relating the idea to “the ending of the Indiana Jones movie—a great warehouse where the real secrets of earth history are buried.” He, though, took the idea seriously because he was notorious for accepting pseudoscience as long as it supported his political views. I’d guess that Raiders of the Lost Ark had a good deal of influence on how alternative types—who liken themselves to Indiana Jones—perceive museums. Childress wrote an article in 1993 (World Explorer vol. 1, no. 3) called “Smithsoniangate” in which he explicitly cited Raiders of the Lost Ark as a touchstone for understanding the Smithsonian “cover-up.” He accused John Wesley Powell of starting the cover-up in 1881 to quash evidence of a lost white Mound Builder culture. So far as I know, this is the first reference I can find to the imaginary cover-up, though there may be earlier versions I do not know about.

The second sentence is worse, inverting the burden of proof. The author wants bones of normal size to prove they are not the bones of giants; yet, if these finds were hoaxes (as most were), there would be no bones whatsoever. The absence of normal sized bones is not proof of the reality of gigantic ones. So where are the bones? One of the most ridiculous tropes of the era was the case of the disintegrating bones. In 1800, for example, a landowner named Aaron Wright (later famous for contributing evidence challenging the authenticity of the Book of Mormon) claimed to have pulled the skull of a giant from a mound in New Salem, Ohio, so large it was twice the size of a normal human. He allegedly wore the skull as a mask, covering his whole face. Then, when others came to see it, suddenly it crumbled into dust. Just to top it all off, when Caleb Atwater showed up in 1820 to study the site, he was told the bones had been abnormally small and belonged to midgets!  This was not an isolated event.

The next claim suggests that the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act—which, incidentally, does not apply to private land or state-owned land, only federal lands—is a conspiracy to hide the bones of giants. Since all of the bones that are repatriated are documented, where exactly is this hiding the giant bones? Are all the Native Americans in on it, too, choosing to bury giants’ bones as Native American and willfully ignoring ten-foot-long femurs? I imagine a latter-day Procrustes chopping up the bones to fit normal-sized burial plots while rubbing hands together and cackling about pulling one over on the biblical literalists.

 


Comments

The Other J.
07/28/2013 5:30pm

"Just to top it all off, when Caleb Atwater showed up in 1820 to study the site, he was told the bones had been abnormally small and belonged to midgets!"

Wait -- so he's saying the skull belonged to a midget giant? So if the giant had not been a midget, the supposed skull would have been four times the size of a human skull instead of two times the size?

Gotta admit, I like the image of a giant with dwarfism.

Reply
07/28/2013 5:41pm

Ha ha. Atwater was told that there were no giant skull, only a dwarf skull.

Reply
Uncle Ron
07/28/2013 11:08pm

A clear case of skullduggery.

Hugo Luz
07/29/2013 5:48am

Probably warehouse 13 agents paid a visit to the smithsonian. Those crafty bastards always stealing all the magic artifacts...

Reply
Gary
07/29/2013 7:40am

The Smithsonian leaves themselves open to such accusations by their own acts. They used to hold that Langley was the first man to fly a plane, but they made a deal with the Wright family to never suggest that anyone but the Wrights were first in order to have their artifacts on display. Now they are being accused of suppressing other information about another claimant.

Reply
Mr. NAGPRA
07/30/2013 12:15am

Actually NAGPRA applies to any agency or repository receiving federal funds, so there's your vast conspiracy...of course there's still all that consultation and documentation getting in the way...hmmmm

Reply
Eric Johns
07/30/2013 1:58am

Here's one verifiable account of the Smithsonian "losing" giant remains.

In 1911 Pugh and Hart found the remains of red haired giants while excavating guano in Sunset Cave near Lovelock, Nevada (site reference NV-Ch-18). This is a well known story.

What's not well known is that more remains were found in the same cave one year later by L.L. Loud, an archaeologist from the U of California. Loud's excavation notes list at least a two dozen skeletons of between 6.5 and 7.25 feet tall with red hair and "caucasian" features. He also states that EIGHT CRATES of material and several full skeletons were shipped off to the Smithsonian and the rest back to the UC. (These notes are still on digital file at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology, listed under reference number 544 "An Anthropological Expedition of 1913"). Anybody can go there and verify this for themselves.

What's very curious is that the U of C seems to have misplaced the skeletons, yet the other material is still there and on display in their exhibits. The same can be said of the Smithsonian, who still use some of Loud's artifacts for their Southwest exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian. Again, no giant skeletons to be found in their exhibits or catalog.

But here's the kicker. Loud, Pugh, and Hart also held on to some material which later became part of the collection at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, NV. This collection includes several giant skulls. These skulls are still there and anyone can go see them for themselves, just as I did. Dana, the museum's director, is also happy to verify the chain of custody back to Loud's excavation of NV-Ch-18. They are real, they are not deformed by acromegaly, and they came from a cave in Nevada. End of story.

The obvious question is if some little museum in the middle of the desert managed to hang on to giant skulls for all these years, then why not the Smithsonian or UC? Obviously the other skulls exist, so it's a safe bet to assume that Loud's excavation notes were accurate and that he did, in fact, find several dozen more just like it which the other institutions summarily "lost".

I'm no Christian, but your attempt to attach the existence of giant skeletons to yellow journalism and religious fundamentalism is just nonsense. They're still digging up 6.5' tall dolichocephalic skeletons in northern Mexico to this day, so why is it so hard for people to accept reality?

Reply
Hugo Luz
07/30/2013 3:30am

It's sad that you need to state that "I'm no Christian" just to be taken seriously on this site. Not judging, just wanted to point that out.

Reply
07/30/2013 6:29am

If 6.5 feet is a "giant," that makes my grandfather, at 6'6", Goliath. While unusual for their era, these sizes are not unheard of for human beings and are therefore neither shocking nor supernatural.

Reply
Eric Johns
07/30/2013 9:25am

A 6'6" man generally has a cranial capacity of around 1700cc. The four skulls sitting at the Humboldt museum all have capacities over 1900cc (even the two females). The largest (male) has a capacity of 2500cc. Based on the formula, that corresponds to a height of around 7'8" tall.

Also, the skulls are all caucasoid. That is a fact.

You can argue semantics about what constitutes a "giant" but I think it's safe to say that to any 5'6" native a 7'8" dude would be worthy of the title.

You're argument is a bit of a red herring. Your grandfather is only one person, but if he were part an entire tribe of people his height and larger, they would certainly be considered a "race of giants" by anyone's standards.

In this instance no one needs to rely on old newspaper reports or hearsay. There is empirical evidence now, today, sitting on a shelf in the Nevada desert that very large people roamed the ancient Southwest. Get in your car and take a look. Admission is 3 bucks.

I've also made a good argument that yes, the Smithsonian has, in fact, mysteriously "lost" the large skeletal remains associated with that find.























Leave a Reply