An article from a West Virginia newspaper (The Charleston Gazette-Mail), while ostensibly a travelogue about archaeological sight-seeing, highlights the many mound formations that have been found throughout the state in the last 153 years and the eerie, weird folklore that has sprung up around these mounds. While the article may seem like it brings some interesting information about giants and mound builder artifacts, it is actually just a tourism promotional piece that barely skims some poorly researched and previously debunked claims. It is important to understand the Mound Builder Myth in the context of all these sites the article discusses. The Mound Builder Myth refers to “19th century interpretations of the mounds and enclosures of eastern North America as the works of a lost civilization unrelated to the American Indian cultures that inhabited this region at the time Europeans arrived on the scene.” Basically, the Europeans who discovered these mounds did not believe that the “primitive” Native Americans could possibly have built these large, impressive structures. The Mound Builder Myth served as a justification for the genocide and displacement of the indigenous peoples of America. From the Ohio History research paper: “In most versions of the myth, the Moundbuilders were some non-Indian ‘race’ from Europe, Asia, or perhaps Atlantis that built a magnificent empire in this hemisphere only to be overrun and obliterated by the ancestors of the ‘savage’ American Indians.” If the Native Americans actually wiped out the European ancestors who were settled here, then the Europeans were completely justified in then wiping them out. It’s an ugly bit of racism and Eurocentrism that has all but disappeared from modern thinking, which is why it is so strange to find the Mound Builder Myth regurgitated in a travelogue. The article begins at Grave Creek Mound, an earthen mound that is about 240 feet in diameter and 62 feet high. The author, Jeanne Mozier, claims that the site is 295 feet in width, which immediately should call her research into question. She then says the Indians of the area called the mound builders “the old ones” but now refer to them as the Adena. This is misleading, however. The Adena are actually a mishmash of various Native American tribes found in quite a few northern States that “probably shared a burial and ceremonial system.” Mozier mentions that while the Adena were thought by archaeologists to be relatively short, there is “evidence of 7 foot tall giants” among the burial system. She does not explain what this evidence is, who found it, where the skeletons are now, or her source for this information: she just drops the "giant" bomb and moves on! She also references a mysterious tablet, which at first blush sounds very cool and appealing for those in search of the odd and fascinating. What she is actually referring to is the Grave Creek Stone, a small stone with markings on it that resemble a form of alphabet. But a very quick Google search and a bit of research illuminates a few problems: first, the stone is no longer available, and there is only one known photograph of it. A plaster cast is on display in the Smithsonian, but that’s the only way to interact with this particular artifact. Second, and more importantly, this tablet is almost certainly a hoax, as it is a verbatim copy of an 18th century Spanish book about unknown letters on coins and statues in Spain. They even shared the same mistakes, meaning the tablet was likely copied rune for rune from this book. The Bureau of American Ethnology's 12th Annual report shows that even 19th century archaeologists suspected the tablet was fake, writing that “The folly of relying upon such relics as this Grave Creek tablet as evidence of written language… yet made up of several alphabets… is apparent." As Mozier’s main goal is tourism and attraction, she does not put in the time or research, so validity and specificity do not factor into her article. Like the “giant evidence” bomb she drops in the same section on Grave Creek’s mound, she simply mentions the appealing and alluring bait, provides no context or evidence, and moves on. This trend continues in the article as we move on the Charleston Mound. The author writes, “A giant skeleton surrounded by a dozen others was found along with the requisite artifacts.” What? Where are all those skeletons now? Is there a museum we can visit to see this stuff? Again, there are no sources and absolutely no indication of where this information came from.
I think my favorite part of all of it is the “requisite artifacts” phrase. It feels like she's suggesting that she knows there should be evidence of the giants’ lives and homes, and yeah they found that stuff, but whatever you think should be there is there. It’s just bizarre language. The Bureau of American Ethnology's 12th annual report has information on the South Charleston mound as well. While it verifies her claims of being the second biggest mound in West Virginia next to Grave Creek, when it comes to giant skeletons, the only information is that of ”a decayed human skeleton… lying horizontally in a very rude box-shaped stone coffin. Beneath this were other flat stones, and under them charcoal, ashes, and baked earth, overlying the charred remains of at least three or four other skeletons.” Where are the reports of giant skeletons? Mozier then writes about the petroglyphs found inside of various cave formations. She acknowledges that most of the markings can be identified as Native American,, but then she sneaks in another bomb: “There are several sets of controversial petroglyphs including two that some claim are runic writings of 13th century Irish monks.” So this is two-fold interesting: one, she writes that “some claim” this wild thing (like certain political candidates we know of who like to suggest without specifically owning the claim themselves); and two, just like said candidates, she offers no proof, no specificity, and no source. It’s just a random nugget of info that has no actual basis in fact. I tried to find any other article or source that suggests this, and did not find anything concrete. All of these places seem very intriguing. Mozier has assembled a collection of sites that appeal to an innate fascination with mysteries, paranormal, and ancient beings. With some more research or maybe any kind of sourcing at all, this could have been an interesting, Americana-influenced take on giants and mounds. As it stands, it reads as merely a travel-bait paranormal hit piece, designed to make tourists curious and interested. I feel like that’s all she was trying to accomplish, so bravo to her for succeeding there. But as far as being any kind of evidence for the existence of giants or anything other kind of strangeness, it does not pass the scientific bar.
12 Comments
Geoffrey Sea
10/18/2016 03:47:40 pm
I'm not sure why you missed that in the Bureau of Ethnology report by Cyrus Thomas, there is indeed the report of a very large skeleton buried in a daisywheel with ten other tall skeletons. This individual was estimated as 6'9: which we might adjust to 6'6" given systematic problems of the time.
Reply
JM
11/8/2016 08:40:03 am
Wv Giants
Reply
JM
11/8/2016 08:51:25 am
Adena stature
Reply
JM
11/8/2016 09:01:01 am
Cyrus Thomas's 1884 write up in Science magazine about one of the "giant" Kanawha mound skeletons also refferenced in the Smithsonians Bureau of Ethnology's 12th annual report
Reply
11/8/2016 09:39:07 am
Col. Norris of the Smithsonian excavated the Adena mounds at Charleston in 1883 and 1884. His report of a 7.5 feet tall skeleton from the Great Smith Mound (in modern Dunbar) appears on page 426 of the official report of the Bureau of Ethnology linked below. He also excavated a 7 foot long skeleton at modern Spring Hill, described on page 419. Review this book enough and you will find the Smithsonian record 17 skeletons between 7 and 8 feet in length.
Reply
11/8/2016 09:42:45 am
The large skeletons are no part of any "myth", nor were they accidental measurements. The Smithsonian, and then William S Webb and Don Dragoo, discovered them. There are other archaeologists who put them on record also.
Reply
Jason, very good references here. I also tend to agree there seems to be an actual trend of potentially very tall individuals having been discovered, rather than them all having been systematic mis-measurements right into the 1950's. Webb and Snow even compared regression based height estimates from Long bones, v.s. the in-situ head to heal field measurements of the extended skeletons, and found agreement to within an inch or so in most cases. So, I think a strong counter claim from a reputable anthropologist needs to be made, who is qualified to study their methods and measurements in order to quantitatively disprove the documented finds made by Webb, Snow, & Dragoo as well as the earlier Smithsonian agents finds of the 17 other giants. Maybe a case can be made that they were all inflated measurements? I am not convinced that's the case just yet.
Reply
Greg Little
12/14/2016 05:17:57 am
The Grave Creek mound once had a circular moat around it, and the early measurements sometimes included the moat. That may account for the difference in diameter. But it is today quite a bit smaller than it was originally. You will find that the "published" measurements of many, many mounds vary greatly depending on when they were done, how they were done, and who did the measuring. And if you use Wikipedia you will find that there is an enormous number of factually-challenged entries in a lot of the mound descriptions. Maybe you might want to verify the claim I just made about different measurements... In general, I tend to lean toward accepting earlier measurements in estimating the original size of such formations. But I can guarantee that no matter what measurement you find on a given mound you can find a published account somewhere that will give a different measurement.
Reply
Normandie Kent
1/1/2018 09:51:13 am
I doubt Native Americans give a shit about you seeing their artifacts in a museum even though they were stolen from their ancestral grave sites. But I know that they especially disaprove of Anyone viewing their ancestors remains thru a glass patition, on display.
Reply
Normandie Kent
1/1/2018 09:40:29 am
Euro-American colonial invaders Have been trying to write themselves into the history of the ancient history of the Americas , since the beginning. They have also tried to write the Native Americans out of their own history, and cultural patrimony. A conscious sign of jealousy, envy, and inadequacy, that they know themselves to have no real ties to the land, or to any of the.cultural acheivements they see thru out the whole two continents.. This goes to show that Native Americans the true American race, should be in charge of their own Cultural patrimony and history, because thr invaders cant be trusted with it. The whole agenda of thr Euro colonist is to take everything from NAs land, live and that includes their ancestors remains, history, and acheivements, and delude themselves into believing they are the Native Americans and Native Americans are Mexicans. The sooner they realize that and face the fact that their history lies in Europe,, and the history of the Americas has always been saturated with the blood, sweat and tears of the ancient American race.
Reply
Kenneth Pittman
8/1/2018 08:58:16 am
"...trying to write themselves into the history of the ancient history of the Americas...". Essentially you are saying that any connection between the two hemispheres is unlikely because...what, Native Americans were not advanced and backwards? That any precolumbian connection between Europe and the Americas is a hoax? Then archaeology is a dead science and Native Americans are simply descended from illiterate cave men and reached their zenith before Europeans took their land? The history of man is what it is, if it dispels old theories and proves Columbus discovered an island but not a continent so be it. Incidentally, there were people here already so Columbus discover nothing actually. He stole it for Spain though.
Reply
Normandie Kent
3/29/2019 08:02:40 am
No, Im saying that Native Americans were fine on their own, and Europeans were not advanced enough to make it to the Americas before columbus. I also thing that if Europeans had any capabilities to successfully cross the Atlantic prior to 1492 then we would of seen proof by now, and not just a few islated hoax pieces The Europeans were cave men, and were never capable of crossing Atlantic ocean the way most Europeans say they did.And yes, white Europeann did invade and mass immigrated and stole Native American land. Im also sick of White European Americans trying to contaminate ancient American hstory by trying to write their pathetic selves into where they do not belong just because they feel inadequate and rootless.The Americas were the only place in the world where the Native Americans could evolve in complete isolation away from other races influences for over 20,000 years, unlike Eurasia. Where everything is just a big masb up, and you cant tell who did what. You act like Native Americans want to be apart of your hyper deffusionst wet dream, they are mostly content in knowing this is an indigenous continent with an indigenous history, who evolved high civilizations and trade between the different indigenous Nations. European Americans need to get over the fact that they have no deep ties, or history in the Americas, and lying about their role in the ancient American past is not going to change those fact!! Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThese blog posts were written by students in Forbidden Archaeology (Fall 2016) ArchivesCategories
All
|