Talk:Giant of Castelnau

Where are the bones now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.227.102 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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?

Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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. 174.25.79.148 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * :D Strange.... Misty MH (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Studies?
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? 90.204.30.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous well-documented discoveries of human giants. They would be a great museum attraction, and museums have displayed them in the past, but for some reason they all end up disappearing into the abyss.  I wonder why? 70.16.207.189 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good to see that this find has gained some minor but limited interest. Two contacts I have in France had attempted to get further documentation of this find via the Univ. of Montpellier, but records were difficult to find, better luck in the future I suppose. I First came across this find while perusing Google books in August 2009, long story short. Working with Jim Vieira, Chris Lesley, and half a dozen mostly unoffiliated/independent researchers, we've compiled something like 2,000 accounts from Victorianto early 20th century press clippings, journals, and publications regarding anomalous giant skeletons, and other oddities. If anyone with a background in science can get records on de Lapouges alleged discoveries in Castelnau, that would add further context and much needed answers to this article. Thanks -M.E. --75.175.68.195 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Without bones this is pseudoscience. Might well reference: http://gianthumanskeletons.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortoso (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 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)

Lingering questions
I'm not sure about the best way to handle this, but it would seem helpful to mention in the article that the bones are or might be lost, or something to that effect. I know there is sparse information, but I think it would be good to acknowledge the lack of information because that seems to be what readers are left wondering about. Pythagimedes (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)