Of course we are told by conventional anthropologists that they only
painted themselves blue, but in our own advanced anthropology, they were
veritable blue ones--
_Annals of Philosophy_, 14-51:
Note of a blue child born in England.
That's atavism.
Giants and fairies. We accept them, of course. Or, if we pride ourselves
upon being awfully far-advanced, I don't know how to sustain our conceit
except by very largely going far back. Science of today--the
superstition of tomorrow. Science of tomorrow--the superstition of
today.
Notice of a stone ax, 17 inches long: 9 inches across broad end. (_Proc.
Soc. of Ants. of Scotland_, 1-9-184.)
_Amer. Antiquarian_, 18-60:
Copper ax from an Ohio mound: 22 inches long; weight 38 pounds.
_Amer. Anthropologist_, n.s., 8-229:
Stone ax found at Birchwood, Wisconsin--exhibited in the collection of
the Missouri Historical Society--found with "the pointed end embedded in
the soil"--for all I know, may have dropped there--28 inches long, 14
wide, 11 thick--weight 300 pounds.
Or the footprints, in sandstone, near Carson, Nevada--each print 18 to
20 inches long. (_Amer. Jour. Sci._, 3-26-139.)
These footprints are very clear and well-defined: reproduction of them
in the _Journal_--but they assimilate with the System, like sour apples
to other systems: so Prof. Marsh, a loyal and unscrupulous systematist,
argues:
"The size of these footprints and specially the width between the right
and left series, are strong evidence that they were not made by men, as
has been so generally supposed."
So these excluders. Stranglers of Minerva. Desperadoes of disregard.
Above all, or below all, the anthropologists. I'm inspired with a new
insult--someone offends me: I wish to express almost absolute contempt
for him--he's a systematistic anthropologist. Simply to read something
of this kind is not so impressive as to see for one's self: if anyone
will take the trouble to look up these footprints, as pictured in the
_Journal_, he will either agree with Prof. Marsh or feel that to deny
them is to indicate a mind as profoundly enslaved by a system as was
ever the humble intellect of a medieval monk. The reasoning of this
representative phantom of the chosen, or of the spectral appearances who
sit in judgment, or condemnation, upon us of the more nearly real:
That there never were giants upon this earth, because gigantic
footprints are more gigantic than prints made by men who are not giants.
We think of giants as occasional visitors to this earth. Of
course--Stonehenge, for instance. It may be that, as time goes on, we
shall have to admit that there are remains of many tremendous
habitations of giants upon this earth, and that their appearances here
were more than casual--but their bones--or the absence of their bones--
Except--that, no matter how cheerful and unsuspicious my disposition may
be, when I go to the American Museum of Natural History, dark cynicisms
arise the moment I come to the fossils--or old bones that have been
found upon this earth--gigantic things--that have been reconstructed
into terrifying but "proper" dinosaurs--but my uncheerfulness--
The dodo did it.
On one of the floors below the fossils, they have a reconstructed dodo.
It's frankly a fiction: it's labeled as such--but it's been
reconstructed so cleverly and so convincingly--
Fairies.
"Fairy crosses."
_Harper's Weekly_, 50-715:
That, near the point where the Blue Ridge and the Allegheny Mountains
unite, north of Patrick County, Virginia, many little stone crosses have
been found.
A race of tiny beings.
They crucified cockroaches.
Exquisite beings--but the cruelty of the exquisite. In their diminutive
way they were human beings. They crucified.
The "fairy crosses," we are told in _Harper's Weekly_, range in weight
from one-quarter of an ounce to an ounce: but it is said, in the
_Scientific American_, 79-395, that some of them are no larger than the
head of a pin.
They have been found in two other states, but all in Virginia are
strictly localized on and along Bull Mountain.
We are reminded of the Chinese seals in Ireland.