Talk:Giant of Castelnau
|WikiProject Primates||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in France may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
This article needs expanding and updating. Follow-up studies? DNA? Carbon-14 dating?
This article needs expanding and updating. Even the cited references are from the 1890s. Can someone with knowledge and access to actual references expand and update it? Thanks!
Follow-up studies? It seems like all the information about this is from the 1800s. Surely there has been archeological interest since then?
DNA? Has the DNA, etc., from the various fragments been tested so as to provide a clear-cut basis for declaring they are all not only of human origin but from the same person?
Carbon-14 dating? If it hasn't been done yet, I would think that archeologists today would love to have this tested for possible age, using carbon dating. Where is archeology/archaeology on this?
Excellent points. I cannot find any reference to this discovery that is later than 1892 or 1894. My first suspicions were that this was a hoax, but it appears that this find was printed in a semi-respectable science magazine-- in-fact about a dozen contemporary magazines and journals re-printed the facts from the main article in "La Nature." The bones were apparently found to be abnormal by one pathologist, yet "double the normal size" according to the News Story. The find does seem to be very obscure. I seriously doubt anyone has heard anything about these bones in about 120 years.
What happened to the original bones and the other sets? Are they still at the Paris Academy of Sciences? I can't find any information about these bones anywhere else. It's like they disappeared on the way to the Academy! Does anyone have any more information? 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Without bones, it's dubious, but not pseudoscience. The sources given are from a reasonably reliable source, so it's more likely than not that the bones existed. They could have been a hoax, they could have been from an extinct hominid that the authors were unable to identify, or they could have been from a real (and very unhealthy) 11 foot tall man. The latter case seems unlikely, but given that ten people in the 8 foot high range are known to have existed in relatively recent history, it's not impossible that an 11 foot man could be a "once in a thousand years" type of fluke of nature. At any rate, the citations seem to make the subject notable enough to keep the article with some caution about whether its subject was actually described accurately by 19th century science. Chri$topher 05:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)