Deriv; The Sutton Letter, courtesy authors, and a human skull. Representational image only.

The Giants of Doddridge County: Burials of a Vanished Race – Part I

(Read the article on one page)

“The body had evidently been placed in a sitting position on a large flat rock with the legs extended toward the large mound. Skull, chest, and pelvic bones were in one mass on top of the rock. The leg and foot bones extended beyond the rock in the direction of the larger mound.”

Interestingly, Sutton notes that even though no “artifacts or articles of adornment were found with the skeletal remains”, he and his assistant, Page Lockard, felt that the burial was “very unusual”, and that “the person who had been buried here was of more than average importance.”

Page Lockard himself seems to have had great interest in this particular skeleton:

“Mr. Lockard collected the bones and took them home with him.”

Sutton later removed the large stone upon which the skeleton was found, uncovering four cache blades, pipe fragments, a bone awl, flint scraper, black arrowhead, and a bluish gray banner stone broken in two.

Significantly, a comparative study reveals that the newspaper accounts, published 29 years before Sutton’s own document, were almost perfectly accurate in their details.

For example, the Clarksburg Daily Exponent notes that the first evidence of burial in the Zahn-Maxwell mound was “charcoal lumps and some evidence of burnt bone” found in an excavation trench from the east side of the mound.

Artifacts from Doddridge County Mounds in Sutton Report

Artifacts from Doddridge County Mounds in Sutton Report, courtesy authors.

Sutton himself describes the same area containing “dark organic material” and “bits of ashes and charcoal”.

The Exponent also mentions that “the entire mound had been covered by loose rocks”, while Sutton states that the “mound was covered with a good protective layer of rock, sandstone, of varying sizes”.

The Exponent describes the sandstone disk as three inches (7.6 centimeters) in diameter, with Sutton’s report giving the same diameter and a thickness of 3/16ths of an inch (0.48 centimeters). The Exponent even accurately describes the artifacts discovered by Sutton beneath the large stone platform in the Zahn Mound:

“…beneath the large rock upon which he (the burial) sat were buried his pipe, banner stone, arrow heads, spear points, and other instruments chipped from flint rocks.”

Sealed in Clay

Regarding the body being “hermetically sealed”, the Exponent suggests that the body had been “covered and sealed” in clay which was then heated in a process during which were “many different applications of clay and many different bakings,” which mirrors Sutton’s own interpretation that “the body had been encased in the puddled clay and then the clay baked or heated”.

The Charleston Gazette mentions that this skeleton, “enclosed in a casting of clay” was the “best preserved” in the mound, “with all the vertebrae and other bones excepting the skull” intact. This matches Sutton’s description of the burial, mentioning that “this was the first complete skeleton found, and that the “skull of this skeleton still remains in the mound”.

The purpose of this digression is to illustrate that in this rare instance, the accuracy of a newspaper account of mound excavations can be discerned by cross reference with the actual work of the excavator. The data presented by the two press articles is of near accuracy in regards to those features also described by Sutton himself, except for some discrepancies in mound size. This is in stark contradiction to the assumptions of critics of giantology who frequently attribute the claims of the press relating to excavations in the 19th and 20th centuries to pure sensationalism.

Giant Skeletons

One crucial element missing from Ernest Sutton’s report are the measurements of skeletons. However, there is evidence between the two newspaper accounts and Sutton’s report that would suggest that the claims of gigantic skeletons were also accurate. Both the Exponent and the Gazette attribute one gigantic frame to the Zahn-Maxwell mound (Do-2). The discrepancy is that the Exponent claims the “seven feet, six inches tall” skeleton was found near the center of the mound, while the Gazette mentions that it was the clay casted skeleton which was “seven and a half feet tall”. Since both articles, and Sutton himself, note that this clay casted burial was the best-preserved skeleton in the mound, we submit that this could have represented one of the two giants supposedly found on site.

The only other skeleton from the site with remains sufficiently intact for measurement, according to Sutton, would be the single burial in the stone chamber from the Zahn Mound (Do-1). Since the press reports unanimously attributed the 7.6-foot-tall skeleton to the Zahn-Maxwell Mound (Do-2), it would stand to reason that the single burial from the Zahn Mound (Do-1) was the source for the nine-foot tall skeleton reported by both the Exponent and the Gazette. Could the extraordinary size of this skeleton have been the reason why Page Lockard took it away?

Comments

Races of giant people are mentioned around the world in many cultures, including native American folklore and the Christian Bible. So much of the archeological discoveries seem to be suppressed and I have to wonder why.

Tsurugi's picture

Well, we can't have a few minor facts dislodging long-standing, well-respected theory, can we? That would just be silly. This is science, not anarchy!

(note: sarcasm)

It's obvious he got his measurements wrong. Sutton says in his letter that, in answer to their question about his measurements of the skeletons, he uses the formula that the "femur bone is approximately one third of the total length". The femur bone is 26.74% of the total length of a person's skeleton, it is a standard ratio across all ethnic types. There is no evidence of a cover up here - it's standard for Journals to only accept submissions in correct formats, and they were clearly asking for supporting evidence from him ie. the photographs and allowing him time to provide it. At any rate, the article seems never to have been published, probably due to these sorts of basic errors. "Professor" Sutton is a google phantom, and seems never to have had any articles published at all. If anyone has links to genuine articles or the report of 1958, these should be provided here.

While it is possible he did get his measurements wrong, then there would be no reason for him to later use the words giant skeleton numerous times when referring to what was taken from the mounds by others. Opportunity to correct subsequent reports of giants were never attempted by him? That is highly doubtful. Decades of excavating and he still cannot recognize an average femur Is that even plausible? To simply state he got it wrong would negate dozens of other references where he clearly states and alludes to very large femurs and giant skeletons. It is more likely to me that the reference (of 1/3) attributed to him is false, or fraudulent.

If he got the measurements wrong, and was under the impression the femur was 1/3rd the skeleton and his skeleton is 9ft, but the femur is actually ~26%, that implies either 6ft of skeleton, or a 3ft femur by the 'mistaken' calculations, and by the 'correct' one it means it's still a giant, either 7ft or much larger. This claim he flubbed his calculations does not make sense.

Pages

Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Top New Stories

Close-up view of the “Screaming Mummy” with its horrific expression. It was discovered by Émile Brugsch in the Deir el-Bahri (DB320) cache in 1881; design by Anand Balaji (Photo credit: G. Elliot Smith); Deriv.
The hideously contorted facial features of ‘Unknown Man E’ - also called the ‘Screaming Mummy’ - are unlike any we have witnessed in an ancient Egyptian mummy. It bears mute testimony to the gruesome end of an overambitious individual, who, goaded by his scheming mother and a band of conspirators, imagined he could murder the powerful reigning monarch...

Our Mission

At Ancient Origins, we believe that one of the most important fields of knowledge we can pursue as human beings is our beginnings. And while some people may seem content with the story as it stands, our view is that there exists countless mysteries, scientific anomalies and surprising artifacts that have yet to be discovered and explained.

The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.

We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

By bringing together top experts and authors, this archaeology website explores lost civilizations, examines sacred writings, tours ancient places, investigates ancient discoveries and questions mysterious happenings. Our open community is dedicated to digging into the origins of our species on planet earth, and question wherever the discoveries might take us. We seek to retell the story of our beginnings. 

Ancient Image Galleries

View from the Castle Gate (Burgtor). (Public Domain)
Door surrounded by roots of Tetrameles nudiflora in the Khmer temple of Ta Phrom, Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cable car in the Xihai (West Sea) Grand Canyon (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Next article