If there is one recurring theme we’ve encountered time and again on this blog, it’s the propensity of researchers of all stripes to keep on copying from one another without recourse to primary sources. As promised yesterday, I’ve been looking into more claims that the Spanish conquistadors encountered giants in North America. Today, I started looking into the claim made here that in 1519 Alvarez de Pineda found “a race of giants from ten to eleven palms in height” at or near the coast of modern Texas, which is presented as though it were a direct quotation from Pineda. It appears as the words of Pineda’s “report” in Charles DeLoach’s Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend (Scarecrow, 1995). It’s not a quote from Pineda; it’s a quotation from Woodbury Lowery’s The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States (1901), which gives no source. This is a problem because I don’t have any way of knowing whose palms are being referred to. Are they original or a translator’s interpolation? The English palm, the one that an English translator might use, is but 3 inches in length (hardly a giant!) but the Continental palm varied from seven to eleven inches by country and time. At seven inches, the giants would be of above average, but normal height; at eleven inches, astonishing. Worse, every source that even vaguely hints of where to look for the information outside of other authors’ copies of Lowery has contradictory material. The nearest citation in Lowery, coming a paragraph later, is to page 147 of “Navarrete,” by which he means the Colección de los viages y descubrimientos que hieieron. Navarrete speaks himself of this on page 58. Here is the relevant text: Llamábase la provincia de Amichel: tierra buena, apacible, sana, provista de muchos bastimentos y frutas: sus habitantes traian muchas joyas de oro en narices y orejas; era gente amorosa y dispuesta para recibir la doctrina religiosa y política: su estatura variaba segun la diversidad de provincias. En unas dicen que vieron gente agigantada, en otras de estatura regular, y que en algunas eran casi pigmeos. Well that’s not exactly the same thing. The footnote tells us to see the primary sources, which are given on, yes, page 147ff. This is the account of Pineda’s boss, Galay, as preserved in a royal decree of 1521 giving him the right to colonize Amichel. Finally, success! The text gives us the same material Navarrete had summarized before, but with more detail that I’m sure you don’t care about. The relevant clauses are as follows: …é que hay gente en alguna parte desta tierra muy crecida de diez á once palmos en alto, y otra gente baja, é otra gente muy baja hasta cinco ó seis palmos… These words actually appear on page 149, but most subsequent authors merely copy page 147 from Lowery, probably because they did not actually read the original or note that Lowery was not sourcing these specific words.
However, while this seems superficially to support the idea that Pineda saw giants and pygmies, the important thing is to go all the way back to the beginning of the interminably long Spanish sentence, whose relevant clause, introducing a long series of “é que” (“and that…”) clauses. The grammar of the sentence does not make clear whether Galay asserted on his own authority that there were giants and pygmies or whether, as with the other “and that” clauses, he was following “segun que los indios,” according to the Indians. As I read the sentence, the information about the giants and pygmies seems to have come secondhand from Native informants; i.e., it’s a myth. Diego Ribero included the phrase “Rio de Gigantes” (Giants’ River) on a 1529 map of the world, applied to a region Pineda explored, apparently on the strength of this account. It’s now the Rio de Palmas. The interesting thing is that Navarrete’s use of the words “gigantic” and “pygmy” have influenced later writers, who have applied them indiscriminately, despite the primary source—the royal patent—not using those words. In Spain, a palm was about 8.2 inches (though it varied prior to partial standardization in 1801), so the “pygmies” were about 4 ft. tall, while the “giants” came in between 6.8 and 7.5 feet, as estimated, apparently, from a distance. This is still tall, but not impossibly tall, and more likely is a slight exaggeration of well-fed people who were perhaps a bit above 6 feet in height—assuming they actually existed. The gold-laden rivers and gold-covered Indians did not exist, so I am not sure I would vouch for the giants just yet, though the nearby Karankawans were often said to be very tall, at more than six feet.
9 Comments
Graham
7/6/2013 04:10:36 pm
I'm guessing that most of those who read the 'alternative historians' (& possibly the alternate historians themselves), accounts interpret the word 'palms' to read 'Palm trees'. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the initial quote
Reply
Coridan Miller
7/7/2013 12:20:13 am
My English friends are always measuring height in "hands" (4in) so my initial reaction was "wow that is more like a jockey"
Reply
There is a difference between hand measurements and palm measurements. The hand measurement covers the breadth of the hand from side to side and is set at 4inches. The palm measurement covers the length of the hand from wrist to fingertips and runs anywhere from 8 to 9 3/4 inches (depending on location).
Reply
Gunn
7/7/2013 04:26:47 am
Here, again, is blurriness in history and alternative history.
Reply
Bill
7/7/2013 11:15:16 am
Giant is an ambiguous term. How do you define it and more importantly, how did the people that told the original tale define the term. If your average tribesman is five feet tall, the six and a half footer in the next village could be your giant. If you're talking the extremely large giants of legend and fairy tales, then they apparently existed without leaving any trace of their existence beyond the legends.
Reply
Gunn
7/8/2013 04:03:52 am
It's fun to look for and find the traces of extremely large giants from beyond the Land of Legends...from the Land of Historic Reality.
Bill
7/8/2013 12:16:11 pm
Every "proof" of giants I've found on the internet, photographic and otherwise, has been shown to be either a fake or the result of unverifiable reports. If you have evidence beyond the internet and repeated "stories" you should bring to the public attention. I have no trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction, biblical or otherwise.
Dave Lewis
7/8/2013 05:08:34 pm
In my opinion it's a waste of time to argue with people who consider the Bible to be the ultimate source of truth.
Brenton Duffy
7/20/2013 05:29:46 am
There have been multiple accounts from farmers, ranchers, and land owners in general, throughout the mid western United States, that have discovered and unearthed these giants. Ohio and Minnesota are two places that have had Numerous accounts of giant burial mounds, many containing the remains of an ancient race of people ranging in height from 7'-12' tall.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
September 2024
|