Archaeologica.org

From the news pages a few days ago.

Gigantism, three rows of teeth, lantern jaw!

Evidence of Gigantism-Like Disease Found in 3,800-Year-Old California Skeleton
http://westerndigs.org/earliest-evidenc ... -skeleton/

Note that this is not a new discovery.
But new study of the ancient skeleton, first found in 1938.

“It is the earliest evidence of this condition in humans, the only documented case from prehistoric California, [and] one of the more complete skeletons documented with this condition,” he said in an interview.
"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"
Labeled as Burial 37, the grave was originally excavated in the 1930s and dated to 3,750 to 3,950 years old.
The man was part of a hunter-gatherer culture known as the Windmiller
The body was daubed with red ochre on the head, chest, pelvis, left elbow, and on both hands and feet.
So while the Burial 37 man wasn’t exceptionally large for his time — about 170 centimeters, or five feet five inches '

Opps, sorry, not a "giant," just "gigantism. "

I was going to link it but decided it would be futile, given that the author spins it as (memory) one of the very few" (translation : "one of the very few not consigned to the memory hole").

I kind of don't like giving people like that more exposure -- same as there are those here who take principled exception to my linking "nut job" stuff.

What I suspect they don't consider is that, when the "usual and proper" avenues of publication are closed to what you're saying on ideological grounds, you use whatever other avenues you can to reach people. The alternative is to just be censored. That's letting the dark side win by default.

uniface wrote:I was going to link it but decided it would be futile, given that the author spins it as (memory) one of the very few" (translation : "one of the very few not consigned to the memory hole").

I kind of don't like giving people like that more exposure -- same as there are those here who take principled exception to my linking "nut job" stuff.

What I suspect they don't consider is that, when the "usual and proper" avenues of publication are closed to what you're saying on ideological grounds, you use whatever other avenues you can to reach people. The alternative is to just be censored. That's letting the dark side win by default.

I agree. Just put it out there and let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Nothing wrong with keeping you opinions to yourself.
But then, nothing wrong with letting them hang out there to be shot at either.

I just thought it was interesting that, in this case, both sides have evidence.

Three rows of teeth but in an average sized body.

I know nothing about Gigantism.
Does it affect the teeth before the general bone structure?
Could this guy be a “giant in process?”
He just died too soon?

Why can't it simply be a case of gigantism? What has the writer done wrong that "giving him exposure" is wrong?
What does this have to do with the notion that there was a race or races of giants? It sounds like an over abundance of growth hormone. I think it can be reported as gigantisim without we blacklist the guy so to speak simply because he didn't think to add that giants may have roamed the Earth....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002157/