I received an email recently from Doug Weller, who is one of the great resources of our profession. Doug is the moderator of the long-lived "Doug's Archaeology Site: Skeptical Views of Fringe Archaeology", and daily he fights the good fight of debunking crazy claims about archaeology and the past.
Doug wrote that he had noticed that people were using my "Why don't we call them CroMagnons anymore?" article to support a theory that there were giants in prehistory. That article of mine was sorely in need of updating anyway, and so I was happy to go dig around some.
According to the latest information, there are physical differences between the Early Upper Paleolithic form of Homo sapiens (once called Cro-magnon, now more commonly Early Modern Human [EMH] or Anatomically Modern Human [AMH]). The earliest EMH (as it is abbreviated these days) have been discovered at a couple of sites in Ethiopia: Bouri and Omo Kibish, at dates somewhere in the range of 165,000 to 190,000 years ago.
Early Modern Human Sites
For those who are eager for the details, we got 'em, Here's a list of a handful of sites with EMH/AMH skeletal materials and their dates.
- Omo Kibish (Ethiopia) 104,000-195,000 BP
- Bouri (Ethiopia) 160,000 BP
- Skuhl Cave (Israel) 100,000-134,000 BP
- Border Cave (South Africa) 74,000 BP
- Klasies River Caves (South Africa) 70,000 BP
- Kostenki (Russia) 40,000 BP
- Mladec (Czech Republic) 31,000 BP
- Dolní Vestonice (Czech Republic), 27,000 BP
- Predmosti (Czech Republic) 24,000-27,000 BP
So, all these sites and all these data: was EMH taller and more robust than us? Yes, it appears to be the case that the initial and early Upper Paleolithic folks (about 40,000 years ago) were a few inches larger than us at about 12,000-20,000 years ago, according to the length of their femurs. Scholars debate how much shorter we are: the measurements are a matter of statistical averages based on measurements of a leg bone. They also debate why we shrank or became smaller over time---decrease in mobility as we left long-distance hunting and gathering for settled agricultural life is the designated culprit (although the dates are a little weird for that--agriculture didn't really get fired up until about 6,000 years ago).
Cut to the Chase, Dang it! Were there Giants in Prehistory?
Giants? Well, the tallest estimates for men of the early Upper Paleolithic are 176.2 centimeters or 5 foot 9 inches, which is hardly gigantic. Hunter-gatherer males who lived between 20,000 and 12,000 years ago averaged 165.2 cm or 5 foot 5 inches. And, with advances in health care, modern humans are as tall or taller than AMH/EMH. You can find all the data sources and discussion now in my revised Why don't we call them Cro-Magnons anymore? article.
Very interesting. By the way, all this is part of my putting together the Upper Paleolithic part of the Human History Project, which is in progress. Thanks, Doug!
Comments
I am amused by sites like yours that imply that so-called early human fossils are over a hundred thousand years old.Face the facts your dating methods are dodgy at the best and vary widely.What led you to be so duped by this evolutionary nonsense.
Also what about the giant tribes in Africa that have been around even now.?
Agreed Dennis! Mainstream archaeology has lost it’s credibility with a lot of humans. When they try to explain away our ‘Real’ past. Yes it is very hard for them to accept that indeed once humans perhaps thousands of years ago were technologically more advanced then we are today and that we traveled the skies and oceans.
thanks………….it was awesomly usefull
A Biblical account is made in several passages, see the book of Genesis regards to giants. The Amylikites and many groups of with similar references to groups ending with the name kytes.
The story of David as a boy who killed a giant with his sling shot. This giant was named Goliath, he was a small figure of a giant, being about 9 feet tall. Now if this goliath was small and only 9 feet tall, how tall were other giants that are referred to in the land. The palentology, anthropology and all the rest of the ology’s do not have any evidence that the carbon dating nd etc that the earth is 100,000′s of thousands years old, there is no work to back up these fields, it is only guess work at best. It goes back to the monkey trial in Tenn regards to creation verses evolution……………….
Thom,
A work of fiction cannot be used as an argument against fact
Dear Miss. Hirst,
Sadly, and yet not sadly, I have to agree with the comments of some of the readers above. This isue really isn’t about whether there were giants or not. You have to choose… either you believe in evolution or you believe in a Creator God… do not make the mistake… these are both religions and cannot be reconcilled. In any case, if you believe that the Creator made everything then you must believe that there were giants. Why? Because the Bible (the Word of God) says so, piont. If you however believe in evolution, sorry then you must be the evolutionary by-product of a boboon and ape, sorry but its the truth, use the Adam and Madam brains the Lord gave you, not the monkey business inside of you!!! If an Amoeba evolved into a fish, and a fish into a reptile, and a reptile into an elephant and an elephant into a boboon and a boboon into a human… then why do we still today have the Amoeba, fish, reptiles, elephants, boboons and humans today??? This is simply the biggest lie ever, even the best scientists do no longer agree with this Darwinian liying theory which was preached as truth in the past… i urge you to rethink your ways and ideas in which you were indoctrenated… because by selling them to innocent uninformed readers you might become part of the false prohets which we were warned about in the Bible… please study prayerfully!!! Regards, a friend.
One more question. If we all started as an amoeba, where did it come from???? Just saying!!!!
Hello
The Urantia Book reconcile religion and science, I recommend reading!
Thanks