I had three skull size comparisons from different friends on Facebook and so I pasted them together for an overall view. The fisrt skull here is Grover Krantz's reconstruction of the skull of Gigantopithecus: one of my Friends madethe alternative reconstruction shown in three views below. I hope to get a fuller discussion from him later on. torist who feels Bigfoot is Homo erectus and so it shows a really big erectus skull next to a normal-sized Home sapiens skull. I have it here representing Homo heidelbergensis since I feel it shows the degree of variability that is possible within that species. And the last skull is a "Giant skull from a Mound burial" shown at the reported dimensions-ALL of these skulls are being shown at the SAME scale.
My purpose in showing all of these skulls together ot in North America is more likely two types of beings rather than only one type: the population centered on the West Coast (including the Patterson film female) has a smaller cranial capacity and a more pointed head, and the other one more common in North America (and indeed worldwide) is much more human-like but of a lower grade, cruder type human. And the last one shows the original for the "red headed giants": Cromagnon stock but larger than usual, and the later, larger more inbred example accumulating more freakish characters such as extra fingers, toes and teeth (Polydactylity and polydonta). The point being that we have more than one problem and more than one species involved in stories of "Giants" and the ony thing which Giants have in common is their very large size.
 |
| Adena Moundbuilder skulls reported with extra toothrows |
 |
| Double toothrow in mouth of a living man. |
Don Jeff Meldrum is getting a duplicate set of these photos.
Horned skull of Sayre, PA-some mound burials suggest the mound giants could also develop bony growths in the skin forming nodules, and sometimes extra bone deposited on the skulls in the form of horns. It has been suggested that the extra bony growths in the skin were a desirable result of inbreeding because it did provide a degree of natural armour.
Geez, the Sayre horned skull story was debunked in 1916. Why are you still clinging to it?
ReplyDeleteExcept that's not one of the "horned" skulls, I don't believe, as I think they're lost, or at least that's how the story usually goes. I'm not sure what it is, I've seen that picture as well. Louise Welles Murray cleared up about the "horned" skulls in "Aboriginal Sites in and Near 'Teaoga,' Now Athens, Pennsylvania" (American Anthropologist 23:2, Apr-June 1921). Miss Murray was a resident of the property where the excavations took place (it was in the family's back garden). She does reproduce a picture of one of the skeletons found in the yard, which is now at the Tioga Point Museum, I'm not certain if that's where these skulls ended up or not.
ReplyDeleteAccording to her, the story of the horned skulls was a misinterpretation by a passerby of an exclamation made by a worker commenting on the crown worn by the skeleton of what may have been a chief. Presumably, though, even if the horned bit was a myth, the stature was not.
Even if the Sayre skull was falsely accused of bearing horns (Which has NOT been demonstrated, only alleged)other skulls can have and do have them: living human beings are known to have horns, it is a known medical condition. Say otherwise and you will only be proving your ability to gainsay a demonstrated point: go and look it up before you do say so. Human beings arre known to develop all sorts of wierd bony or horny growths in the skin-sometimes they just get attached to the skull. The fact of these growths is what I was interested in because it is one of those things giants of legend are said to have fairly frequently. I have mentioned the Elephant man as one unfortunate individual who fell victim to such bony growths in the skin and subsequently became much deformed: it is the notion of "Deformity" which the myths of the giants is getting across. Scott, I will thank you to speak in a more civil tone in the future. as to the alternative explanations of why the horns were supposed to be there when they were not-they don't signify: as I saifd it is a known medical disorderand the fact I was trying to establish was that it IS a known medical disorder. You see it mentioned sometimes in Ripley's Believe it or Not-it seems wierd but it still HAPPENS
ReplyDelete