Ancient Giants. Did 10-Foot-Tall Men Walk the Earth Once?

All over the planet archeologists find bizarre remnants of what at first sight looks like regular human skeletons. The first sight, however, doesn't last for long, as unusual features of the skulls and bones are clearly visible even to an untrained eye.

Ancient Giants

 
One of recent discoveries was a mummified elongated skull found in 2011 in Peru in the city of Andahuaylillas in the southern province of Quispicanchi. The strangely shaped head is almost as big as its 50cm (20in) body. Anthropologists involved agree that the skull is “not of a human being”.(more)

giant skull Peru

Giant skull found in Peru

Peru skeleton

Peru skeleton

Back in 1912 the New York Times heralded a discovery of “unknown race of men”. The unearthed skulls were much larger than those of any race known to science. Peculiar features of the skulls where also described, which were also significantly different from modern-day human heads. The skeletons were found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin.

1912 New York Times on giant skeletons.

1912 New York Times on giant skeletons.

And this was only one of many news flashes on the subject that appeared in various papers and magazines at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of them can be found under these links:

NYT release May 25, 1882 – “Abnormally large body bones”.

NYT release May 5, 1885 – “Skeletons seven feet (213 cm) long”.

NYT release December 20, 1897 – “Man over nine feet (274 cm) high”.

Marietta Daily Reader release September 10, 1899 – “Bones of a giant over eight feet (243 cm) high”.

The Saint Paul Globe release January 24, 1904 – “Bones of a human skeleton eleven feet (335 cm) high”.

NYT release September 7, 1904 – “Gian Indians’ bones found”.

One can argue whether the sensationalist headlines are justified for those finds where skeletons were “merely” just over 7 feet because people of this height are nothing unusual these days (if in doubt – watch NBA). This could be attributable to the fact that back in those days people were significantly shorter (on the average) than today (see here) and a person over 7 feet tall could have appeared as a “giant” to the contemporary men. However, this reasoning fails for those finds where the skeletons were significantly larger. Tall as we may be today we are still yet to see a 9 or 11-foot-tall men walking the streets.

Again, a skeptic will say that neither NYT nor other regular newspapers (especially local ones) should be treated as a source of credible scientific information as they lack resources to verify the information properly. Lacking a dedicated scientific desk they may easily fall victim to manipulation or simply try to grab a reader’s attention with flashy headlines. But what if such information came from a respected, household name title like Scientific American? Let’s take a look. Here is a word for word quote from Scientific American issue of August 14, 1880, page 106:

Ancient American Giants.

The Rev. Stephen Bowers notes, in the Kansas City Review of Science, the opening of an interesting mound in Brush Creek Township, Ohio. The mound was opened by the Historical Society of the township, under the immediate supervision of Dr. J. F. Everhart, of Zanesville. It measured sixty-four by thirty-five feet at the summit, gradually sloping in every direction, and was eight feet in height. There was found in it a sort of clay coffin including the skeleton of a woman measuring eight feet in length. Within this coffin was found also the skeleton of a child about three and a half feet in length, and an image that crumbled when exposed to the atmosphere. In another grave was found the skeleton of a man and woman, the former measuring nine and the latter eight feet in length. In a third grave occurred two other skeletons, male and female, measuring respectively nine feet four inches and eight feet. Seven other skeletons were found in the mound, the smallest of which measured eight feet, while others reached the enormous length of ten feet. They were buried singly, or each in separate graves. Resting against one of the coffins was an engraved stone tablet (now in Cincinnati), from the characters on which Dr. Everhart and Mr. Bowers are led to conclude that this giant race were sun worshipers.

For those interested we have found the entire issue of the magazine in the pdf format and you can find it here: Scientific American, August 14, 1880 (page 106)

As with any story falling under “conspiracy” or “mystery” one must be very careful when examining evidence at hand. The ancient giants legend goes around fueled by recurring stories which pop up on the web clockwork. Every modern-era “finding” that hits the Internet needs to be examined for source of information, expert opinion involved and, possibly, by media coverage. Once the three prerequisites are present, chances are the discovery is a real finding rather than a hoax.

Fake ancient giant photo

Fake ancient giant photo

This picture is an example of a doctored photography which may seem genuine to a non-expert eye. Without a certain threshold of skepticism one could easily fall for it’s authenticity. The digitally altered photograph created in 2002 shows a reclining giant surrounded by a wooden platform—with a shovel-wielding archaeologist thrown in for scale. By 2004 the “discovery” was being blogged and emailed all over the world — “Giant Skeleton Unearthed!”.The story of the photography, along with an official denial of alleged discovery was published in 2007 by National Geographic (more).

To see how difficult it is to find actual, credible source of information on a subject like this you can make a little experiment. Try googling up this exact phrase: “At Agadir in Morocco, reports Peter Kolosimo, the French captain Lafanechere discovered a complete arsenal of hunting weapons”. This is an excerpt from a longer paragraph, which reads as follows:

At Agadir in Morocco, reports Peter Kolosimo, the French captain Lafanechere “discovered a complete arsenal of hunting weapons including five hundred double-edged axes weighing seventeen and a half pounds, i.e. twenty times as heavy as would be convenient for modern man. Apart from the question of weight, to handle the axe at all one would need to have hands of a size appropriate to a giant with a stature of at least 13 feet.”

This exact excerpt can be found all over the Internet, all copy-pasted from one site to another. And on all these sites the same source of the information is always quoted (Peter Kolosimo, Timeless Earth (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1968), p. 32). We did find the book on Amazon, yet no other trace of the find can be (easily) found. We were not able to track any note on the find in any respectable magazine or journal of science, or to find a photography of the unearthed axes or hunting weapons even with a very precise, boolean query on Google Image search. Conclusion? Popular as the information may be around the Web, it should be treated with caution. If in doubt – trust no one but yourself. Go and verify as much as you can.

We do trust, however, that the available, verifiable material does make the question from the title of this article valid after all. Below you will find an interesting documentary on ancient giants.

  • HLo

    1st 16 ft.10

  • Joy Januari

    Story from billy eduard alber meier.. tell the story that he gets from pleidaians as their contactee… That 22 million years a go humans from another planet that twice the size of planet earth came for the first time in this planet… It was a white race like european and had an enormous height from 7 to 9 metres tall… This because their planet have a greater size than our planet… They made a colony 144.000 man..

    could it be all this giant skeleton refere to this race… BEAM called it Lyrians

    • Nándor Németh

      Yeah, sure… the only problem is, the bigger size of the planet, and the greater gravitation would result smaller body size… Think about the difference of sea/land animals… What do You think, what would a whale-sized animal do on land? Die for sure :D.

      Don’t make a fool of Yourself guys, the only homo genus species, which could exceed the homo sapiens height, was the homo heidelbergensis, with an ancient average of 175-180 cm (the average homo sapiens was 165-170 that time).

      • Ryan

        Don’t be so quick. Dinosaurs were just as big as whales and they certainly lived long lives. Not to mention they evolved here. Just because modern day man isn’t as big doesn’t mean a large humanoid race is not possible.

  • jalon dickson

    okzs, yes it is true that their were giants. but the tallest of the giants never hit anything taller than 18 feet tall.

  • jalon dickson

    △ ▽

    Reply

    Share ›

    incorrect Joy Januari Avatar, no giant on planet earth exceeded 18 feet tall

Advertise with us!

If you wish your product or service advertised on our website we have many options to chose from. Please drop us an e-mail describing your business and advertising needs and we will be with you in no time to discuss the details. You can reach us via our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/unacknowledged.info. Thank you.