Giants?

[inquiringmind]

I was surprised by the Wikipedia article.

The Giant of Castelnau was a fossil bone discovery which may represent one of the largest humans known to have existed. The bones, found in a Bronze age burial tumulus, date back to the Neolithic period and consisted of a humerus, tibia, and femoral mid-shaft. The scientist who made the discovery in 1890, estimated from the bone size that the human may have been almost four metres tall. The bones were discovered by the anthropologist Georges Vacher de Lapouge at the Bronze age cemetery of Castelnau-le-Lez, France in the winter of 1890. His findings were published in the journal La Nature, Vol. 18, 1890.[1][2] The height of the individual was estimated at about 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in) according to de Lapouge, and the bones were dated to the Neolithic period, since they were found at the very bottom of the Bronze age burial tumulus. The journal includes a photo engraving of what was identified as the humerus, tibia, and femoral mid-shaft of the giant compared to a normal size humerus in the center...It is of some interest that in 1894, press accounts mentioned a further discovery of bones of human giants unearthed at a prehistoric cemetery at Montpellier, France (5 km Southwest of Castelnau) while workers were excavating a water works reservoir. Skulls "28, 31, and 32 inches in circumference" were reported alongside other bones of gigantic proportions which indicated they belonged to a race of men "between 10 and 15 feet in height." The bones were reportedly sent to the Paris Academy for further study.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_of_Castelnau

Any thoughts?

[Anijen]

I was surprised by the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_of_Castelnau

Any thoughts?

I have not heard of this giant but other giants have been discovered before in the US see the fake cardiff giant here. It made a lot of money for the land owner and later on the circus tour.

Perhaps it was the bones of a man who had suffered from gigantism. Still a cool find.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Anijen

[zerinus]

I was surprised by the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_of_Castelnau

Any thoughts?

Maybe it was Goliath!

1 Samuel 17:

4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

If that figure is correct, that would have made Goliath more than 2.6 meters (8.7 ft) tall.

Edited February 18, 2012 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I was surprised by the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_of_Castelnau

Any thoughts?

Yes. It wasn’t unusual in the 19th century for scientists to mis-identify bones of mammoths and dinosaurs as human. The first dinosaur discovery in North America occurred in 1818 in Manchester, Connecticut. What was later identified as the remains of an Anchisaurus were originally attributed to human origin. One of the interesting connections along this line between mythology and ancient animal life includes elephant skulls that many scientists believe perhaps gave rise to the Greek cyclops tradition. So this misidentification of fossils as giant humans seems to have been going on for a long time.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I have not heard of this giant but other giants have been discovered before in the US see the fake cardiff giant here. It made a lot of money for the land owner and later on the circus tour.

Perhaps it was the bones of a man who had suffered from gigantism. Still a cool find.

Hoax, I'm afraid. But it did make a lot of money. True enough.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Maybe it was Goliath!

1 Samuel 17:

4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

If that figure is correct, that would have made Goliath more than 2.6 meters (8.7 ft) tall.

That Goliath seems to derive from the tradition in 2 Samuel 21:19, which tells how Goliath, whose "spear was like a weaver’s beam," was killed by Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Minos

[maklelan]

That Goliath seems to derive from the tradition in 2 Samuel 21:19, which tells how Goliath, whose "spear was like a weaver’s beam," was killed by " “Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim."

Wow, that is a remarkably uninformed and manipulative discussion of Elhanan.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Wow, that is a remarkably uninformed and manipulative discussion of Elhanan.

Where's the "roll your eyes" feature when you need it?!

[Peppermint Patty]

Wow! He was 11 feet, 6 inches tall?

It's too bad he can't play for the Utah Jazz. Heaven knows we need him.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

For anyone interested in the Goliath issue, you may wish to consider the following observation. Even though this book was written for a popular audience, Brettler is one of the most respected authorities in the field of historiography and the Bible:

“Historians follow a well-known principle in their research: if two sources each attribute the same action—especially a heroic one—to a well-known figure and to one who is otherwise unknown, it probably happened with the unknown figure; and the story was later transferred to the well-known person. Thus, if there really was a giant named Goliath, then Elhanan killed him—not David. Even if we deny that this tradition about a giant-slayer was historical, we would still think it likely that the Israelites told this story first about Elhanan, and only secondarily about David.” Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 107.

He then goes on to discuss the reasons why the story of David should be read as political propaganda that appropriated the Goliath tradition. While someone like Makelain is certainly free to disagree with this reading, labeling the view of an expert as a “remarkably uninformed and manipulative discussion” is rather silly.

[maklelan]

For anyone interested in the Goliath issue, you may wish to consider the following observation. Even though this book was written for a popular audience, Brettler is one of the most respected authorities in the field of historiography and the Bible:

“Historians follow a well-known principle in their research: if two sources each attribute the same action—especially a heroic one—to a well-known figure and to one who is otherwise unknown, it probably happened with the unknown figure; and the story was later transferred to the well-known person. Thus, if there really was a giant named Goliath, then Elhanan killed him—not David. Even if we deny that this tradition about a giant-slayer was historical, we would still think it likely that the Israelites told this story first about Elhanan, and only secondarily about David.” Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 107.

He then goes on to discuss the reasons why the story of David should be read as political propaganda that appropriated the Goliath tradition. While someone like Makelain is certainly free to disagree with this reading, labeling the view of an expert as a “remarkably uninformed and manipulative discussion” is rather silly.

What? What leads you to believe I disagree with Brettler? I was referring to the Wikipedia article as uninformed and manipulative. If that was unclear, I apologize.

Edited February 18, 2012 by maklelan

[Cushan Rishathaim]

What? What leads you to believe I disagree with Brettler? I was referring to the Wikipedia article as uninformed and manipulative. If that was unclear, I apologize.

Nope, my bad, not yours. I misunderstood, and admittedly hadn't even read the Wikipedia article I somehow accidently linked. You're right. It is uninformed and manipulative.

Sorry.

[Calm]

Phew! My world was being shaken for a moment....that maklelan could ever be silly! No way!

[Calm]

Wow! He was 11 feet, 6 inches tall?

It's too bad he can't play for the Utah Jazz. Heaven knows we need him.

You live in Utah? What general area?

[Calm]

So even if one bought the Elhanan being changed to David in his later life (is this an actual practice or one created to fill the need?), how does "son of Jair" equate to "son of Jesse"?

PS: you might want to delete the wiki link since it is so bad to avoid confusing people. Your later post provides the needed info, doesn't it?

Edited February 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[maklelan]

So even if one bought the Elhanan being changed to David in his later life (is this an actual practice or one created to fill the need?), how does "son of Jair" equate to "son of Jesse"?

That was not an actual practice in Israel, it's a rationalization. When there are genealogical conflicts, the normal apologetic recourse is to argue that "son of" might refer to grandchildren or some other distant connection. That Elhanan refers to David is an incredibly uncommon appeal, though, precisely because it is forced to account for so many things. The most common defense is just that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.

Edited February 18, 2012 by maklelan

[Cushan Rishathaim]

So even if one bought the Elhanan being changed to David in his later life (is this an actual practice or one created to fill the need?), how does "son of Jair" equate to "son of Jesse"?

PS: you might want to delete the wiki link since it is so bad to avoid confusing people. Your later post provides the needed info, doesn't it?

I would. But I can't seem to go back and edit a post. Everyone should know to ignore the link. Honestly, I don't even know how that happened to appear in the post. Must have been a blotched cut and paste.

[Calm]

I would. But I can't seem to go back and edit a post. Everyone should know to ignore the link. Honestly, I don't even know how that happened to appear in the post. Must have been a blotched cut and paste.

Go to Social Hall and the three word story thread (or create your own) and make 9 more quicky posts. That will get you to 25 and allow you to edit it....assuming you can edit the pre25 posts.

Or you can just be patience for a mod to come in and edit it for you as I reported it for you.

[CV75]

Any thoughts?

Go Patriots!

[inquiringmind]

Yes. It wasn’t unusual in the 19th century for scientists to mis-identify bones of mammoths and dinosaurs as human. The first dinosaur discovery in North America occurred in 1818 in Manchester, Connecticut. What was later identified as the remains of an Anchisaurus were originally attributed to human origin. One of the interesting connections along this line between mythology and ancient animal life includes elephant skulls that many scientists believe perhaps gave rise to the Greek cyclops tradition. So this misidentification of fossils as giant humans seems to have been going on for a long time.

But these seem to be human bones.

Writing in the journal La Nature, de Lapouge describes the bones in detail: "I think it unnecessary to note that these bones are undeniably human, despite their enormous size.... The first is the middle part of the shaft of a femur, 14 cm length, almost cylindrical in shape, and the circumference of the bone is 16 cm.... The second piece is the middle and upper part of the shaft of a tibia.... The circumference is 13 cm at the nutrient foramen... the length of fragment is 26 cm.... The third, very singular, was regarded by good anatomists as the lower part of a humerus... The volumes of the bones were more than double the normal pieces to which they correspond. Judging by the usual intervals of anatomical points, they also involve lengths almost double.... The subject would have been a likely size of 3m, 50."[1

http://en.wikipedia....nt_of_Castelnau

If that figure is correct, that would have made Goliath more than 2.6 meters (8.7 ft) tall

But The Giant of Castelnau would have been over 11 Ft. tall, and "may represent one of the largest humans known to have existed."

http://en.wikipedia....nt_of_Castelnau

Perhaps it was the bones of a man who had suffered from gigantism.

And maybe Goliath suffered from gigantism, but how would you explain the 9 ft long, 64 lb sledge hammers found in a prehistoric copper mine in the North of Wales?

There is an ancient copper mine near the coastal town of Llandudno in North Wales. This area rises 220 meters above the Irish Sea, and it is known as the location of the Great Orme Copper Mine. It dates to the Bronze Age, about 3500 years ago. More than 2500 hammers at the mine have been recovered at the mine .It is believed that the mine stretches for many kilometers, with six kilometers already surveyed. It is known to have nine levels within it, and over 1700 tons of copper are known to have been removed from the mine. This is quite a staggering accomplishment for a society of that era without the use power tools, or at least as we know power tools today.Fig. 1 - Modern 20 pound sledge hammer. Head on hammer is about the size of a standard house brick. Standing up, the handle is about 3 feet long. [1] Fig. 2 ­ Scaled-up 20 pound hammer shown in Fig. 1 (300%) to the size of a 60 pound sledge hammer (which is not currently manufactured.) The handle would be 9 feet long, with the metal head about the size of a cement block. An even bigger 64 pound sledge hammer was found at the copper mine by archeologists. To lift this 60 pound hammer using only the far end of a 9 foot long handle would be beyond the strength of any man. To swing it with force would be virtually impossible. So who or what could have wielded one of these back-breakers? If we scale the up the size of the ancient people so they could use this tool, the giants at the copper mine may have been perhaps 12 to 18 feet tall, or about 3 times taller than an average human being of today. To put this in perspective, the height of the wall in an average home in the United States built within the last 50 years in any given room is just 8 feet.

http://www.rense.com...al79/giants.htm

Yes. It wasn’t unusual in the 19th century for scientists to mis-identify bones of mammoths and dinosaurs as human.

Did mammoths or dino's have any interest in copper (or any use for sledge hammers)?

Edited February 19, 2012 by inquiringmind