Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
I haven't posted here in years and I seldom post anywhere. But the question about "Public Archaeology" (doing archaeological surveys before roads and buildings are constructed) is a good one. All of the 17 skeletons that were from 7 to 8 feet in height and reported by the Smithsonian were excavated from mounds. Virtually all of the others mentioned by Hugh (and found by academic-affiliated archaeologists) were excavated from mounds. All of these findings were published in either journals or institutional (Smithsonian, Carnegie, U. of Kentucky) issued volumes. Today it is virtually impossible to excavate a mound in the US. It is virtually impossible to build a road or a building on a mound site in the US. (The exception is on private land especially if the landowner doesn't notify the officials about his or her plans.) I know of one set of credible reports of "giant" skeletons found when a road was built. It is the Chickasawba site in Arkansas. Numerous 7-foot skeletons were found there in the 1800s at a large mound. In the late 1970's a 7-foot skeleton was found during roadwork adjacent to the mound. All of that information was published in The Arkansas Archaeologist in an article written by two academic archaeologists. They simply wrote the facts about it without any comments. All of the skeletal remains were given to tribes after 1990. They were burned or reburied on reservations.

The Smithsonian received over 100,000 skeletons starting in the 1800s but nearly always stored them in sealed boxes and bags. They simply had too many to display. When they started their mound survey project they specifically ordered the excavators to find 2 things: skulls for display and good artifacts for display. They got far more than they could ever examine or display. A 1989 law specific to the Smithsonian caused them to get rid of all of the skeletons found in mounds as well as any artifacts that were associated with burials. A 1990 law (NAGPRA) led to the same for all of the other museums and institutions that received any government funds. Thus, all of the large skeletons found in mounds by the Smithsonian were either cremated by Native American Tribes or reburied in secret sites on reservations. The boxes of remains were shipped to tribes that officially claimed them or the tribes closest to the excavated site listed on the sealed boxes/bags. The same was done with hundreds of thousands of burial artifacts. In essence, other than the written reports and the photographs and illustrations of the excavations, nothing else remains. If one doubts that any of these were "giant" (7-8 feet in height) because the skeletons no longer can be examined, then you should also doubt that the Smithsonian and the many other university-affiliated archaeologists who recovered the large skeletons even did the work they reported. None other burial artifacts are in existence either. Perhaps the alternative is that all of these archaeologists just took the money for the work but they never really did anything other than just "claim" they performed excavations. Personally I know they excavated them and reported their findings accurately. But unfortunately American laws, no matter how strange they may seem, forced the evidence to be put out of sight and beyond research. Today there is virtually no DNA analysis done on Native American burial remains. Keep in mind that the famous Kennewick Man case took 9 years of legal work. Jim and Hugh have put together a great synopsis about this in their book. They included some of the hoaxes and identified them as hoaxes to put the whole thing into perspective. Last, if you actually read the archaeological reports regarding the giant skeletons you will see that they were nearly always found to be shaman or tribal leaders. Some were female.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 2138 Graham Hancock 02-Nov-15 08:09
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 568 Misterx 02-Nov-15 13:04
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 651 Hugh Newman 02-Nov-15 14:53
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 491 Aine 02-Nov-15 19:10
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 597 Hugh Newman 02-Nov-15 21:41
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 455 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:03
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 480 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:21
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 463 Aine 03-Nov-15 19:38
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 508 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:46
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 435 Aine 06-Nov-15 14:15
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 448 thirdpal 06-Nov-15 15:02
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 483 Aine 06-Nov-15 15:13
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 411 thirdpal 06-Nov-15 15:29
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 422 Aine 06-Nov-15 15:37
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 494 carolb 03-Nov-15 17:26
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 616 Hugh Newman 03-Nov-15 18:09
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 417 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:49
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 485 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:11
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 486 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:15
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 424 Aine 03-Nov-15 19:20
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 407 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:30
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 473 Misterx 02-Nov-15 22:37
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 424 dong 03-Nov-15 22:59
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 435 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:21
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 460 robert2467 02-Nov-15 19:31
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 584 Hugh Newman 02-Nov-15 21:36
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 547 carolb 03-Nov-15 00:03
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 418 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:08
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 493 carolb 03-Nov-15 17:14
Karankawa 474 Dr. Troglodyte 04-Nov-15 00:57
Re: Karankawa 398 Aine 04-Nov-15 01:17
Re: Karankawa 439 Dr. Troglodyte 05-Nov-15 17:10
Re: Karankawa 422 thirdpal 05-Nov-15 20:29
Re: Karankawa 461 Dr. Troglodyte 06-Nov-15 00:46
Re: Karankawa 403 Aine 06-Nov-15 14:36
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 545 Greg Little 04-Nov-15 16:39
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 440 Aine 04-Nov-15 17:40
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 443 thirdpal 06-Nov-15 15:18
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 460 Aine 06-Nov-15 19:17
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 424 thirdpal 05-Nov-15 19:27
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 512 Aine 04-Nov-15 00:22
Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 479 Ratcho 03-Nov-15 06:32
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 421 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:09
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 509 Ratcho 03-Nov-15 16:21
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 466 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:38
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 442 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:33
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 403 Aine 03-Nov-15 19:39
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 429 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:53
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 444 Aine 03-Nov-15 20:03
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 451 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 20:22
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 433 Aine 03-Nov-15 20:33
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 408 laughin 06-Nov-15 00:49
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 467 Aine 06-Nov-15 14:33
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 380 carolb 06-Nov-15 14:53
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 502 Aine 06-Nov-15 15:00
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 395 carolb 06-Nov-15 15:25
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 453 laughin 06-Nov-15 15:55
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 395 Aine 06-Nov-15 16:52
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 497 laughin 06-Nov-15 20:31
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 480 Aine 07-Nov-15 02:19
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 414 Jim Vieira 11-Nov-15 16:05
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 482 Aine 11-Nov-15 23:06
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 462 thirdpal 12-Nov-15 22:07
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 423 Jim Vieira 13-Nov-15 15:56
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 486 Aine 13-Nov-15 17:52
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 448 thirdpal 12-Nov-15 23:10
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 450 Jim Vieira 13-Nov-15 13:19
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 446 thirdpal 13-Nov-15 15:54
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 478 Jim Vieira 13-Nov-15 16:06
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 456 thirdpal 13-Nov-15 17:31
Mod Request > New Topics 821 Dr. Troglodyte 13-Nov-15 18:07


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.