10,000 year old giants of the Sahara

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Teeky

I never said you were being racist...and the comment to which I was referencing concerning racism was not as benign as just questioning what they looked like.

The comment you referenced is benign. Anthropology once was very racist, especially when it comes to categories such as caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.

a reply to: Teeky

Not to be overly pedantic here but Anthropology was never racist. It's a science and a tool for looking into our history as humans. Some of the Europeans who concocted and promoted terms like caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid etc...(Johann Friedrich Blumenbach) were certainly racists or at least European Supremacists, but 'Caucasian' as a racial identifier originated at the tail end of the 18th century, long before Anthropology or at least Anthropology as it exists today. The term was first used in the 17th century but at that time referred to the study of anatomy and physiology along with psychology( or in the nomenclature of the time the parts of the body and how the connected to the soul). What we refer to as Anthropology today never existed prior to the publication of On the Origin of Species. But I'm just ranting now so I'll quit while I'm ahead!

a reply to: Kantzveldt

I'm struggling to understand how they could have been caucasians considering they were not from Caucasus.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: FeistyFemme
I find it funny that an ancient North African tribe/race of people are "Caucasoid". I love the way how Africans get downplayed on their own damn continent. So...the Kiffians were first, then the more "negroid" group, the Tenerians, were black. Makes no sense to me. For the love of God, just say white people discovered and did EVERYTHING.

Caucasoid does not mean white it's a grouping of physical characteristics for people in Europe, middle east, north africa. Nothing to do with colour.

Specifically a group of people from Europe, Western Asia (e.g. large parts of modern Russia) and certain northern parts of India. Although not signifying a certain skin colour (except for in the USA, where "caucasian" has became a politically correct substitute for "white"), few if any of those people are dark in colour. The dark indians are generally from the south (e.g. Chennai etc).

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Shiloh7

Caucasian is a very general term, i don't think this group were ever in the Caucasus, but they were an interesting ancient people. It's not just their height that impresses me but their supposed build and strength and there was as you suggest a period of over sized game animals were this would have been required.

Given their height and supposed complexion, they then clearly migrated to the Netherlands and to Scandinavia.

a reply to: moniker

It's just a general term for similar shaped skulls across a broad range of areas, the Mechtoids of North Africa despite having the classification also had marked differences to other groups, but with regards to those that had Eurasian Mit Dna there are white people seen in Tassili cave art, that can also perhaps be seen wearing a turtle carapace on their backs, which is curious as Dilmun culture has turtle people relating to the cult of Enki and his creatures of the Abzu that taught humanity.

originally posted by: TeekyThe comment you referenced is benign. Anthropology once was very racist, especially when it comes to categories such as caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.

Sure, and I'm willing to bet that with the last name of Taylor, that I had tailors in my family history--does that mean that I'm a tailor now, or that I magically possess that quality without any proof of me being a tailor?

Just because something (e.g.: Archaeology) used to be something (e.g.: Racist) does not mean that it is now, nor that comments implying or stating that it is are valid.

We'll just disagree on how benign the comment was and move on.

So many Giants that have lived here, it's a shame they won't let you look at the remains of the Lovelock Cave giants without a degree in Anthropology

a reply to: LuckyYurg

Even with an Anthropoloy degree you won't be able to view the remains of the legend red haired Giants. Mostly because none were found. It's one of the most well documented dig sites in America and the only remains found were of average sized humans in every single layer.

a reply to: peter vlar
I've just finished reading Elaine Dewar's "Bones"(2002), and in one section she is observing while anthropologists are going over indian remains for repatriation, and they actually do find a "giant" among the remains of a pre-piute cemetary, near spirit cave.
The researcher also noted that the piute have only been in their current locations in nevada for maybe 2000 years and they have found the "battle" between the piute and washoe, they were the red haired giants enemies of the piute. The piut are also much smaller in stature that the washoe, hence the giant legends.

Bones is a fantastic book that looks into some of the most contentious early man sites in the new world, with a distinct "no beringia corridor available during the last galciation" outlook.
The first section is on NA, with a lot about spirit cave, wizards beach and kennewick, which she delves into quite rigourously. Section 2 is SA, with interview of the majopr players in SA arch and anthro, and visits to many sites.
In the interview with Niede Guidon, she drops a bombshell, teeth found at an excatvation at Pedra Furada, when run through multivariate analysis against otheer populations the one they are closest to is neanderthal from Skhul.

a reply to: punkinworks10
And they didnt have red hair, straight black just like other native people of the basin.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Section 2 is SA, with interview of the majopr players in SA arch and anthro, and visits to many sites.
In the interview with Niede Guidon, she drops a bombshell, teeth found at an excatvation at Pedra Furada, when run through multivariate analysis against otheer populations the one they are closest to is neanderthal from Skhul.

Sounds like an interesting read. I'll keep an eye out for it. I was reading about Pedra Furada yesterday, there was no mention of Neanderthals but "facts" change quickly these days, so my sources were probably dated. The Neanderthal aspect helps makes sense of the 60,000 to 32,000 BP dates thrown around for first known use of the rock shelters. I was trying to figure out how an earlier wave could have got through and couldn't do it, I didn't think Neanderthals, so you've been a big help. I read that the art though is dated from 11,000 to 5,000 BP, does the author of your book concur with that? Nothing prior to that even remotely art-like?

Cheers.

a reply to: Anaana
Hi Anaana,

The author made no conclusions or critiques of the work, just detailed it and interviewed authors and visitied sites.
It is one of the best Non fiction books ive read.
There has been much work published on the pedra furada sites, but its all in portugese or french, and most hasnet been translated into english or even read by the english speaking researchers.
Also what i didnt know is the area is 40,000 sq km of sites, literally hundreds of sites.
The section on the rock art is good but no pictures.
I was quite surprised with the neanderthal association, had never heard of it before.
One thing about the book is it goes into good detail the intra personal shenannigans within the field, there are some researchers, that ive held in high esteem, that now i might call them out as being a jackass, if id met them, over some of the things said and done

a reply to: punkinworks10

There is a book, Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, where the author relates how it is quite usual for archaeological discussions between factions to, literally, descend into food fights. Even those things set in stone are not set in stone.

I wonder, is it like at Skhul where there is no interactive crossover with AMM? I hadn't thought about it previously, but climatically, Brazil is way, way out of the neanderthal zone.

OK, white people discovered and did so many things. They didn't discover paper or gunpowder, though. What are you worried about? Black people are part of civilization now, and as time goes on, their list of accomplishments will grow. What did Dark Age Europeans accomplish? Nothing.
a reply to: FeistyFemme

The categories rely on skull shape. Skull shape is how they classify human ancestors as well.
.a reply to: FeistyFemme

a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for the heads up. I just added that book to my Amazon queue. To
Be fair though, I was only referring to Lovelock when I said there were no Giants. Interestingly though, some remains did in fact have red hair but it wasn't natural, it was a result of chemical changes after death due to the soil content. I'm pretty excited to get the book you reference and read up on similarities in the SA teeth compared to those in Skuhl cave. It would be a wet dream come true to have evidence of a Neanderthal or hybrid presence in the Americas long before any established sites currently accepted. It would also be interesting to see if there was any tie in to Huryatlaco. It's an insanely large stretch of the imagination to tie it all together but hey... Science would be terribly boring if we didn't daydream once in awhile!

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter,
A little teaser

"The incisor was peculiar. When measured and compared to others, modern and ancient, it appeared to be midway between the size and shape of the incisors of European Neanderthals found in caves dating from the middle of the Ice Age, and incisors found in Qafzeh, in Israel, dating from the early part of the last Ice age."

Elaine Dewar, "Bones, Disovering the First Americans" (2002)
So I had that a little mixed up, the teeth were closer to European Neanderthal than to the human remains a Qafezh and not the Neanderthal from Shkul.
It's still a fascinating turn of events that has been ignored.
And just before I read "Bones" I read
"Lost World, Rewiring Prehistory-How New Science Is Tracing America's Ice Age Mariners"
Tom Koppel(2002)
It about the work being done along the Pacific coast, focusing on the islands of British Columbia, with a lot about On your knees cave.
He also goes to the channel islands of California, it as well questions the primacy of the inland ice free corridor.
The two books covered some of the same materials, I'm surprised to authors didn't run into each other.

   Peter,

 Last year member Haslune, posted a thread about the oldest example of gigantism in the archeological record, and it's a native Californian.


 

originally posted by: Hanslune

Acromegaly 

The remains of a man buried 3,800 years ago in a richly decorated California grave bear some unusual but unmistakable features — a protruding brow, a lantern jaw, thick leg and arm bones, and teeth so crowded together that at one point they erupt in rows three deep.Text

Everyone likes giants here is a poor guy who was ill and had some interesting features - do these features bring to mind any legends about Giants in North America?


This is interesting in that the skeleton shows signs of gigantism yet he was only 170 cm tall but his teeth and other parts of his body shows he was affected by the disease.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter,
A little teaser

"The incisor was peculiar. When measured and compared to others, modern and ancient, it appeared to be midway between the size and shape of the incisors of European Neanderthals found in caves dating from the middle of the Ice Age, and incisors found in Qafzeh, in Israel, dating from the early part of the last Ice age."

Elaine Dewar, "Bones, Disovering the First Americans" (2002)
So I had that a little mixed up, the teeth were closer to European Neanderthal than to the human remains a Qafezh and not the Neanderthal from Shkul.

That make it even more interesting

Thanks for the additional.

They were initially regarded as transitional from Neanderthals to modern humans, or as hybrids between Neanderthals and modern humans. Neanderthal remains have been found nearby at Kebara Cave that date to 61,000-48,000 years ago,[6] but it has been hypothesised that the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids had died out by 80,000 years ago because of drying conditions,[7] suggesting that the two types of hominids never made contact in the region. A more recent hypothesis is that Skhul/Qafzeh hominids represent the first exodus of modern humans from Africa around 125,000 years ago, probably via the Sinai Peninsula, and that the robust features exhibited by the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids represent archaic sapiens features rather than "Neanderthal features".[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

This is starting to make tremendous sense. The movement, like later migrations, could have been encouraged by the warmer climates of the Eemian interglacial period, pushing them further north to the temperate zones that they had adapted to. Nice!

Thanks again.