Jim Vieira has made a career out of imagining that old newspaper stories about giants are true, and Hugh Newman has done just as well by attaching his name to other people’s fringe theories, whether it be the ancient astronaut theory on Ancient Aliens or gigantology on Vieira’s History Channel series Search for the Lost Giants. The pair have teamed up for Giants on Record: America’s Hidden History, Secrets in the Mounds and the Smithsonian Files, a book that is nearly identical in form and content to Richard Dewhurst’s Ancient Giants Who Ruled America (with one notable exception discussed later), and it made me wonder who exactly would need more than one collection of similar newspaper reports about giants interspersed with conspiracy theories about the Nephilim and Atlantis.
Before we begin discussing the text as such, I want to make a few notes about the production of the volume, which is officially credited to Avalon Rising Publications (not to be confused with the band or the erotic romance novels), a website affiliated with Hugh Newman. The book is poorly produced. It looks like it was laid out in Microsoft Word by someone who wasn’t entirely familiar with the conventions of book publishing. For example, paragraphs are indented a full half-inch, for example, a standard Word tab, instead of the industry-standard quarter inch. The copyright page informs me that Newman did the interior layout himself. The typeface is overly large, perhaps size 12 or so, and the pages are a riot of fonts, lines, italics, and other stylistic tics, with too little white space. One page alone featured three typefaces, two divider lines, and blocks of boldface and italics. But Newman also appears to either have produced his interior layout with images below the recommended 300 dpi for clear reproduction, or else used crappy internet images and/or an inferior print-on-demand service, as most of the photographs were heavily pixelated, blurry, or had digital artifacts from where they were scanned and reduced to black and white without compensating for the effects of the conversion. Some images, such as the book page reproduced on page 171, seem to be screen grabs from archive.org scans of old books.
I’m sure the History Channel is thrilled that Vieira and Newman have placed the History Channel’s name and the trademarked Search for the Lost Giants logo on the cover of their book. There is no acknowledgement in the text that they had permission to do so, and the lack of a ® sign beside the Search logo suggests they don’t have it.
The two men open the book with acknowledgements in which they both cite Graham Hancock as their inspiration and offer their thanks to Ross Hamilton, Micah Ewers, Greg Little, and a host of other fringe figures. They then proceed to inform us that they refuse to use “modern forms” of dating, such as the Common Era system and years Before Present, preferring the BC/AD system. They also explain that they define a “giant” as “anyone 7 feet tall or over.” These note precede the Preface, which precedes the Forward, which precedes the two Introductions. In an unusual move, this front matter is numbered inconsistently, with each of the four pieces carrying a Roman numeral sort-of chapter identifier, but the page numbers switch from Roman numerals to Arabic at the first introduction. Newman also hasn’t learned how to create a section break in Word to allow him to omit printed page numbers from mostly blank pages, such as the dedication (appearing, weirdly, on a left page) to “all Indigenous Americans” in honor of their legends of giants.
The opening foreword by Ross Hamilton, the godfather of gigantology and the first to apply David Childress’s Smithsonian conspiracy to giants, offers a very interesting reversal of the typical criticism of gigantology as recycling racist claims, such as when Richard Dewhurst declared giants to be a “pre-Indian Caucasian culture.” Hamilton says that when we consider “the dark aspects of racial prejudice and the understanding that Native people were without rights, alive or dead, and you have a mojo cocktail of white sectarianism that would disorient the most sober and reliable jurist.” He goes on to say that Washington elites conspired to impose a racist view of Native Americans and to use those views to make it impossible to believe in a superior race of giants that would have outstripped the Aryans. He even cites the Native American activist Vine Deloria to support his views and says mainstream scholars as enforcing “Jim Crow” mentalities when it comes to Native American history. In other words, Hamilton would like to cast the giant deniers as the true white supremacists by aligning the imagined North American giants with the Native Americans, despite repeated evidence that those who believed in giants back then specifically claimed that the giants were racially distinct from Native Americans and were affiliated with a lost white race of Mound Builders. It’s a clever rhetorical trick, and one that might be convincing to anyone not intimately familiar with the literature in question.
Well, I can’t say it’s good rhetoric in a literal sense since Hamilton’s writing is often confusingly obscure: “Such conditions coupled with their believed hierarchically structured village systems giving leeway to an overall egalitarian vision, may have stayed the grand stature resulting in so many such skeletal remains being witnessed by the European settlers in the Eastern U.S.” Or when he claims he is using “giant” “in the spirit of, though not as, a homonym; i.e., having more than one aspect,” which isn’t the definition of “homonym” at all.
Hamilton argues for the Biblical theory of degeneracy, and suggests that the reason that the giants became less common over time due to the running down of the earth, prompting Native Americans to turn to selective breeding to try to keep the giants alive. This is why, he suggests, there are so few giant skeletons from historic times—simply inbred members of a dying race, whose compromised immune systems (!) led to smallpox killing off the last giants.
Anyway, the reversal of the historic norm on who the “giants” were and how they fit into American racism was an interesting development, and one that almost seems purposefully designed to absolve the gigantologists of the accusation that they are perpetuating Victorian-era imperialist and colonialist ideologies, particularly after Dewhurst laid them bare with his emphasis last year on the Caucasian might of the white giants who ruled America. I’ll be interested to see if the theme plays out in the rest of the book.
I have only just started the book, and I’m not sure if I’ll be posting the rest of the review in sequence or if there may be a couple of days’ gap between sections. It will depend on how fast I can read it.
11/23/2015 03:18:01 pm
I'm looking forward to hearing more about the book.
11/23/2015 03:46:48 pm
At the least take a look at the book's interior: http://www.amazon.com/Giants-Record-Americas-History-Smithsonian/dp/0956786510/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448311511&sr=8-1&keywords=giants+on+record
11/23/2015 05:10:38 pm
Never mind the interior, read the customer reviews! I haven't seen such shameful displays of manufactured hyperventilating praise in a while, but these take the cake.
11/24/2015 08:52:11 am
OK, I took a look at a random page (4) in the "Look Inside" and learned that "Heydon Ditch, also in Cambridgeshire, has eerie stories of giant warriors, but when it was excavated in the 1950s several taller-than-average skeletons were unearthed."
11/23/2015 04:36:30 pm
Sooooo...are the giants white or not?
11/24/2015 08:24:08 pm
I can't find the reference, but I thought it was on this blog about unusually large stone spear points being attributed to giants.
11/23/2015 05:00:18 pm
"they refuse to use “modern forms” of dating, such as the Common Era system and years Before Present, preferring the BC/AD system"
12/1/2015 06:41:37 am
BC / AD is more 'accurate' in principle. The present (year) is always changing, so BP is only accurate in the year when it was written. 2000 BP in the year 2000 becomes 2019 BP in the year 2019.
12/1/2015 07:46:28 am
What's wrong with BCE and CE? My understanding is it basically refers to them same time frame as BC/AD.
12/1/2015 10:36:54 am
"The present (year) is always changing, so BP is only accurate in the year when it was written."
12/1/2015 10:57:52 am
I also forgot to add, BP (before present) uses 1 January 1950 as the commencement date of the age scale for the following reasons:
11/23/2015 11:32:28 pm
They are racist trash who hate native americans and are trying to make a buck out of old racist lies and that is the bottom line.Con men.
11/24/2015 07:28:31 am
So the big meteor must have wiped out these giants, eh ?
11/24/2015 08:18:52 am
Why would anybody buy this book?
An Over-Educated Grunt
11/24/2015 07:18:46 pm
I'm not even sure this book is worth reviewing. Seriously sounds worse than the TV show. The typography alone would drive me nuts. I'd say it's a nadir but I'm sure someone else will find lower depths to plumb.
11/24/2015 08:33:13 pm
It's hard to imagine much lower than giantology, but if they do a sequel, perhaps it will be more focus on the Smithsonian Conspiracy.
11/24/2015 08:40:41 pm
I wonder if the Smithsonian is in cahoots with NASA, or if they have their own separate conspiracies going on.
11/24/2015 08:49:41 pm
The NASA thing is the conspiracy territory of the ufologists. Alternative history guys have the Smithsonian.
11/24/2015 08:53:40 pm
11/24/2015 02:18:27 pm
Got to admit I find the term "fringe" problematic because New Age is, correct me if I'm wrong, the biggest selling segment of books (maybe Romantic fiction sells more)
An Over-Educated Grunt
11/24/2015 03:38:44 pm
By that reasoning, everyone who does a DIY project is an engineer.
11/24/2015 03:58:19 pm
Hmm, I'd say, the mainstream of DIY is being able to cobble together some shelves or a shed from easy to manage flat pack materials bought on a Saturday at a great big busy DIY superstore. I can do that. I'm mainstream, the majority.
11/24/2015 10:51:18 pm
Dearling, what you don't seem to realize is that "mainstream" doesn't akways refer to "general population." When we say "fringe historian," we are talking about mainstream HISTORIANS, not mainstream readers of books from the history section at Barnes & Noble. As Grunt tried to point out and you completly ignored.
11/24/2015 11:16:03 pm
Yeah fair enough within the context of academia. But it's kind of like the beach referring to itself as the mainland.
11/24/2015 06:39:22 pm
"They then proceed to inform us that they refuse to use “modern forms” of dating, such as the Common Era system and years Before Present, preferring the BC/AD system."
11/25/2015 01:46:22 pm
How does one go about comparing the Hancock-style history market with the academic history market ?
11/25/2015 02:30:20 pm
If by "market" you mean "number of authors, number of titles, and sales per title" you could probably start by spending a year entering the top 100 rankings in each relevant field on Amazon (not entirely straightforward, as "Archaeology" for example seems to contain Military History of Naval Forces) into a spreadsheet at the same time each day ...
11/25/2015 10:14:37 pm
Ow, no, don't fancy that.
5/2/2017 01:00:21 am
Did I read this correctly?
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I 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.
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.
Terms & Conditions
Please 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.