Skeletal Remains of “Old Giants” Reportedly Found in Russia

Modern researchers and proponents of the idea that a lost race of "giants" once existed on Earth have often looked to old newspaper reports for evidence of discoveries that involve human bones of exceptional size. Specifically, nineteenth century dailies were once rife with such reports, which are often dismissed offhandedly by skeptical researchers as being hoaxes.

It may be, in fact, that occasionally there are still such discoveries, though the latest among them leaves much to the imagination. A Spanish-language report featured recently by RT has described the discovery of ancient human skeletons in Russia in a Bronze-age burial site containing four bodies, each purportedly eight-feet in length.

The report, posted on October 14, 2014, describes that similar bodies were supposedly found, possibly of even larger stature, in the same location:

Russian archaeologists found in the Krasnodar region (northern Caucasus) the skeletal remains of old "giants," said an employee of the Archaeological Society in the region, Vasili Matáyev, quoted by the Interfax .

As Matáyev stated, the findings have more than 4,000 years. During the excavation of an ancient burial mound belonging to the Bronze Age were discovered the skeletal remains of about four people, two men and two women.
As explained by historian, men were about two meters tall and women over 1.7 meters. Matáyev noted previously in this place were found the bones of human beings even larger.

There are issues with this announcement; for instance, only this Spanish-language version of the report seems to exist, at present, as pointed out by fellow MU blogger Red Pill Junkie, who noted this morning, "I don't understand why I can't find any reference to this in English, not even on the English version of RT!"

The report, if anything, does resemble a number of the previous similar reports from decades past, lending to the idea that this may have been a fabricated story. The key here, however, is not to dismiss it on such grounds (i.e. speculation alone), but to seek corroborative information, as can be done with previous reports in conjunction with Smithsonian records.

I've addressed this in the past, and outlined here the way newspaper reports, for which details can be corroborated with actual accession card data on file with the Smithsonian Institute, does prove that some of the newspaper items aren't mere hoaxes. It does not prove, necessarily, that the remains in question were anomalous, or necessarily even of what could justifiably be called "gigantic" in stature.

This is a point, I should note, that some critics of the "giant skeleton" claims continue to miss. I have read at least one skeptical blog about past observations I've made on this subject, which interpreted these corroborations with Smithsonian data as my personal attempts to "downgrade giant skeleton stories" so they'll seem more plausible, while offering evidence of height measurements which, despite being connected with a scientific organization, still don't lend merit to the "giant" claims. To focus on the question over validity of the Smithsonian's measurements is missing the point entirely. Again, the fact that some articles can be corroborated with the institute's own data shows that skeptics who have dismissed all nineteenth and early twentieth-century newspaper reports is bad logic, as well as a fundamental lack of research on their part.

There is also no need to have to "downgrade" anything here, especially when the only verifiable reports of what people have called "giants" in the past tend to involve human remains that are generally under eight feet in length. Perhaps one day we will also find verifiable data about humans that were even larger, which somehow existed in the past (I say "somehow" because of the tremendous strains that would be imposed on one's body from carrying so much weight). It would be highly unlikely, yes, but to be of this general range of size (eight feet, give or take) is not impossible, as our record of abnormal height among individuals even within the last century has shown.

Hence, apparently there are some "Skeptics" who really only think they must be skeptical of other people's skepticism which is doing nothing to advance our scientific knowledge. I would argue that hubris of this sort is actually worthy of study, to an extent, as it helps one understand the ideological framework we're dealing with in terms of attempting to discern, at the end of the day, whether there is indeed any merit to the discussions about supposed giant skeletons.

It is interesting, looking back again at all the hubbub that supposed "giant skeleton" discoveries once caused, particularly in North America, that we don't seem to come across more modern discoveries of skeletal remains, specifically which involve groupings of the remains of several individuals who appeared to be above average height. What would be the cause of this? Is there indeed a cover up of the data, or does it bring us back to the previous argument that there was really no substance to the old reports anyway, despite corroboration with organizations like the Smithsonian?

Nineteenth century newspaper accounts of "giants", or even similar news stories from the last week or so, won't do it by themselves... and yet, we can already see that the search for corroborative information is often the component that isn't undertaken in the quest for knowledge with regard to the fabled "giants" of yesteryear. If there is any mystery to be solved here, therein may lie the keys to understanding it.