Talk:Si-Te-Cah

Height?

Hmm.. Actually, as the legends go, they were more than simply tall.

There is, if my sources are correct, a 7 foot skeleton kept under storage at the Mark Twain Bookstore in Virginia City, Nevada.

But like most stories, the whereabouts of the giants disappear mysteriously. Contrary to popular scientific belief, I do very much think these Si-Te-Cah historical existed. Many of them were 6 to 6ft6 inches tall and some 7 footers were found. They had reddish hair, either stained that way from age, or because they were Caucasian.

There still exists a lower mandible and cranium of one of these alleged Si-Te-Cah found at Lovelock cave. It resides at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, Nevada.

Links with some photos:

• http://www.sektor7blau.de/lexifixion_lovelock.htm
• http://www.treasurecenter.com/treasure_diary.htm
• http://www.ccmuseum.org/heritage/lawrence_william_crehore.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.204.61 (talk • contribs) 09:15, December 26, 2005

What is it with you people and a non-Amerindian presence in the Americas?! They WEREN'T "caucasian" and this isn't a forum to spread unscientific, impossible nonsense! - The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.11.167 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Myth?

Smells like bullshit to me."Only to you" Wareq
to That is to say: an ancient race of red-headed 2-meter natives of Nevada? N*γa, puh-leaze. Go to Uncyclopedia or the Weekly World News or something. Or at least stick in that old fake photo of a woman unearthing a "giant" skeleton. Wareq (04:00, April 25, 2006) (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss the Si-Te-Cah as utter bunk just yet. There is enough anecdotal and historical, and even hard evidence which deserves more investigation.--207.225.65.89 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it's amazing how this has received such little attention from archaeologists. One of these jawbones is sitting in a museum in Nevada, and it is almost twice the size of a normal jawbone. You'd think this would be something that would be well publicized. Edrigu 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. and the teeth themselves are much bigger than average. The rest of the skull is probably still located at the Humboldt museum there in Winnemucca. Furthermore, I've contacted some museum staff down in Reno who basically said that mummies found in Lovelock cave were handed over to the Natives for re-burial. Also, a rumor has it that an ex-museum in Virginia city Nevada still possesses the remains of a seven foot Indian skeleton with reddish hair that was found near Washoe lake in the 1930's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.65.89 (talk • contribs) 23:08, June 1, 2006

While the "si-te-cah" did exist, they were most likely not redheaded giants. All the supposed giant bones and so on are utter bullshit, the legends dont discribe them as being giants either, just cannibals. But those sorts of legends are very VERY common (the windego for instance, which was a spirit that in some cultures would cause a madness in men who ate human flesh, and in others would turn him into essentially a 12 foot tall zombie monster made out of ice.). Youll notice most of these websites not only talk about aliens and nephalim (which were probably based on the philistines and sea peoples) on the same pages as the disgussions of giants, but they also say they were mummies, how exactly were they mummified if they were under 4 feet of bat guano? and if they were indeed giants they would have been covered in the current research journals, since at the time archeologists and anthropologists were trying to come up with a european explanation for the origin of mayan temples, which also got you types thinking aliens did it, and the people who lived in the cave were already notable for having some of the best preserved duck decoys in america, and one of the richest archeological caches in america, its obviously untrue that they would just toss aside human bones like that. also notice you are only seeing pictures of this supposed jaw, assuming the regular cast of a human tooth imprint is real and normal sized, there are plenty of explinations that do not require insanity or alien anal probes, namely gigantism. There is a very remote possiblity that these could represent a very isolated population of a northern european incursion, as there is evidence of those. But the lovelock culture was believed to have been exterminated around 500 AD, well before any europeans could have made a foothold. All in all, this is why wikipedia is a mixed blessing, it allows ufo nuts to write articles about native american legends and actual people and events. While it is probable that the native legends have a source, it has to be assumed that the distortion between the legend and actual event is VERY great, namely because the legends were spread by word of mouth for many hundreds of years, and typically after a few generations relied on circumstantial evidence to help support the now outragious claims. Tall becomes giant, angry competitors become cannibals, etc. in short, stfu and go back to abovetopsecret.

So you simply dismiss actual physical evidence by saying it’s made up, you dismiss historic and oratory history by saying they made that up also? You are also extremely naive if you don't believe archaeological evidence has been hidden or conveniently destroyed countless times throughout history. Did you ever consider that the legends of Giants and Gods are so VERY common because they were real? Or at the VERY least an interpretation of real events, Did the South Americans not also think the Europeans where Gods when they turned up with their advanced technology? Why do you dismiss our ancestor’s memory and education as fantasy? Don't you realise that if what you say is true it would be like you believing Star Wars is real?

Anyway back on topic The hole I am curious about, provide this is the actual evidence from the cave.

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/lovelock.htm

Why do they only compare the jaw bone? Why not the whole skull side by side? Appears to me something is being hidden here.

But in saying that there are far too many occurrences of Red Haired Giants across the world to be so easily dismissed as fantasy, especially consider your argument is basically “Na ahh” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.90.214 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Source?

I found some very interesting info about this: http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/article.php?id=91

Here is the story by Sarah Winnemucca from her book "Life Among the Paiutes":

Among the traditions of our people is one of a small tribe of barbarians who used to live along the Humboldt River. It was many hundred years ago. They used to waylay my people and kill and eat them. They would dig large holes in our trails at night, and if any of our people travelled at night, which they did, for they were afraid of these barbarous people, they would oftentimes fall into these holes. That tribe would even eat their own dead— yes, they would even come and dig up our dead after they were buried, and would carry them off and eat them. Now and then they would come and make war on my people. They would fight, and as fast as they killed one another on either side, the women would carry off those who were killed. My people say they were very brave. When they were fighting they would jump up in the air after the arrows that went over their heads, and shoot the same arrows back again. My people took some of them into their families, but they could not make them like themselves. So at last they made war on them. This war lasted a long time. Their number was about twenty-six hundred (2600). The war lasted some three years. My people killed them in great numbers, and what few were left went into the thick bush. My people set the hush on fire. This was right above Humboldt Lake. Then they went to work and made tuly or bulrush boats, and went into Humboldt Lake. They could not live there very long without fire. They were nearly starving. My people were watching them all round the lake, and would kill them as fast as they would come on land. At last one night they all landed on the east side of the lake, and went into a cave near the mountains. It was a most horrible place, for my people watched at the mouth of the cave, and would kill them as they came out to get water. My people would ask them if they would be like us, and not eat people like coyotes or beasts. They talked the same language, but they would not give up. At last my people were tired, and they went to work and gathered wood, and began to fill up the mouth of the cave. Then the poor fools began to pull the wood inside till the cave was full. At last my people set it on fire; at the same tittle they cried out to them, “Will you give up and he like men, and not eat people like beasts? Say quick —we will put out the fire.” No answer came from them. My people said they thought the cave must be very deep or far into the mountain. They had never seen the cave nor known it was there until then. They called out to them as loud as they could, “Will you give up? Say so, or you will all die.” But no answer came. Then they all left the place. In ten days some went back to see if the fire had gone out. They went back to my third or fifth great-grandfather and told him they must all be dead, there was such a horrible smell. This tribe was called people-eaters, and after my people had killed them all, the people round us called us Say-do-carah. It means conqueror; it also means “enemy.” I do not know how we came by the name of Piutes. It is not an Indian word. I think it is misinterpreted. Sometimes we are called Pine-nut eaters, for we are the only tribe that lives in the country where Pine-nuts grow. My people say that the tribe we exterminated had reddish hair. I have some of their hair, which has been handed down from father to son. I have a dress which has been in our family a great many years, trimmed with this reddish hair. I am going to wear it some time when I lecture. It is called the mourning dress, and no one has such a dress but my family.

Edrigu 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent visit

I just visited the cave Saturday July 28, 2007. Might be worth starting a page called "Lovelock Cave" and merging some of the material from this page to the new one. There is a wealth of internet information about the cave site, and I have to say being there personally is a great experience! Kidshare 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done so.--Auric (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Si-Te-Cah

One of the most common misconceptions is that only europeans and/or caucasian-type people have diversity among themselves. If they were red-headed(if not really painted), doesn't mean they were any euro type. I myself have seen(personally) red colored(some wheat-type looking) hair among natives(especially is south america). Some had their dna tested, and oh, guess what? They turned out to be native american after all. So it was a native tribe they talked about(they even spoke the same language). Or hell, possibly even neanderthals(strongly doubt it though). Silly way of thinking really. Diversity(different hair type, eyes, skin tone, etc) exist among all people(ethnicities), it's just a little more frequent among us(Europeans and/or caucasian-type). Native Americans(just like anybody else), come in different shapes, colors, and sizes.etc.Schweinsteiger54321 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Giant Red Heads.

Thank you Edrigu for giving us a great quotation from the Paiute princess Winnemucca (who wrote that down in 1883) and establishes that there was a long standing tradition of a Red headed tribe considerably before any excavations of Lovelock cave occurred (there was 10 to 14 feet of bat guano covering the remains). How is it that every single one of the mummies in the cave had every bit of their dark hair "stained" red by chance bat guano and it is just a "coincidence" that the Paiutes had a tradition of encountering Red haired people in that very vicinity generations early? I think the article should mention these pre-existing facts so that the reader can come to his or her own conclusion.

What about Giants? I agree, the earliest legends do not mention the size of the Siwash/Si-Te-Cah directly, only that they were cannibals and very fierce warriors. And it is very tempting as Adrianne Mayor has pointed out, and very possible that some mistaken Sloth or Cow bones got mixed in with the human skeletons and were later exaggerated... but that still does not acount for:

• Many of the mummies recorded at the first excavation in 1911/1912 -- stood 6 ft 6 to considerably over 7 feet, and were generally intact bodies.

• Some complete human skeletons 7 to 10 feet have been reported in central Nevada, regardless if they were Si-Te-Cah or not.

• Among the many thousands of artifacts from Lovelock Cave is an ancient fiber woven sandal just short of 16 inches in length. That would roughly approximate a size 21-22 US men's shoe, or 39 cm insole.

• A human jawbone 8 1/4 inches between TMJ's, and correspondingly large skulls have been recovered from the cave. Some of these can be seen at the Humboldt Museum, Winnemucca.

These facts alone are anomalies, but when added together do deserve some serious answers. Can animal bones explain extremely large sandals? can they explain extremely "robust" homo-sapien mandibles and skulls, or complete mummies intact? The reader can decide.

Caucasians?

As someone has pointed out Red heads have been documented among South American Indians, and such a phenomenon is within the diverse Native American DNA. It is very possible these "Si-Te-Cah" had different DNA and different ancestry from the Paiutes, or at least originally did. Perhaps like Spirit Cave man, they may have been more related to the the Ainu of Japan than to any modern Native Americans. It is only speculation at any rate.

--75.175.81.187 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a complete overhaul

First, this article should be based on reliable sources, not newspaper articles, etc. The subject is a bit complicated, but we need to be clear that Hopkins doesn't mention giants (which you can see from the quote above which is her only mention of this tribe)[1]. You can download an interesting article here[2] about this "small tribe of barbarians" and I've found more sources. I'm trying to find what sources actually call them giants. This[3] says "Lovelock Cave (Sai'itoo or "Sai's hole ): The story about the enemy people who were killed by le Northern Paiutes in Lovelock Cave is well known to [modern Northern Paiutes (see Appendix l) (which says "” Loud and Harrington (1929:166) questioned Hopkins name identification for Saydo-carah. They state (1929:166): “The Northern Paiute applied to the ancient people the name sai-duka’a, “tule-eaters,” a name which might be applied to any people with this habit. This may account for the application of the name or its shortened form sai’i to the Pit Rive Indians and the form Saidyuka to Indians of eastern Oregon.” "" . According to different renditions of th story, the people had red hair, were cannibals, and were known |by several similar names - Sai'ru'qa', Say-do-carah, Sai-duka'a, Sa-duc-ca, Sai-duokas, Saiduka'a..." - (see sources as well). A museum webpage does call them giants, but also that they may be 'fairy tales' used by parents to keep their chldren away from dangerous places.[4].

This article "John Reid's Redheaded "Giants" of Central Nevada: Fact or Fiction?"[[5]] is a gold mine about the bones in the cave and the 'giant' label. I'm keen on reliable sources and the Brooks qualify as reliable sources, see [6] and [7]. On the other hand, books like Return of the Stargods are not (and I'm not convinced about Daniel Ricky's book on Nevada[8], can't find out who he is). The 'Saiduka', an alternative name, are discussed here [9] (on at least 3 pages). Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This source[10] writes about Paiute mythological giants and their confusion with real local groups with a marsh-culture economy (the names relate to the names here).

And finally, but about another Paiute giant story not related to this article at all, [11].

[12] is Paiute-oriented, not sure if relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like, this https://www.paiutetribelovelock.org/ mentions some more accounts of the legendary giants, but doesn't give any references besides the names of the people who said this. I'm not sure whether that counts as a source suitable for Wikipedia given the usual scrappiness of a lot of the sources on Native American legends. Wombat140 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovelock Cave

[13], [14], Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Mayor

Adding: most of the article is based on the Loud/Harrington book but there also is a more recent book from Mayor; relevant updates are probably appropriate... —PaleoNeonate – 05:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Adrienne Mayor? I like her. We've corresponded in the past. What more recent book? Fossil Legends of the First Americans is already used there, possibly by me as I have it. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the same one already listed in the references; I just noticed when fixing citations that the text was mostly based on the much older 1929 book, so likely that more could eventually be added supported by the 2005 one. —PaleoNeonate – 15:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Dating of remains?

I'm surprised not to find any dating of the remains and artifacts acquired at this location. Are they 1,000 years old or 100 years old? Is there any additional testing that has been done? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the article Giant of Castelnau, it would seem these sorts of finds tended to mysteriously disappear in the period. I would reason that information on these finds and the study of such remains was suppressed by the fledgling scientific community. Or perhaps John Rockefeller took a liking to collecting giant bones and preferred to keep it under wraps :P You might be able to find out more by personally visiting the universities involved in the excavations. Road trip?

Or maybe the article doesn't cover all available information. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent DNA analysis of a skull found in Lovelock Cave revealed that the Saiduka carried genes that originated in Bronze Age Central Asia and migrated into Europe. The Saiduka (perhaps from Duchy, Sedosii, Sadducees, or Sadozai) were Huns belonging to haplogroup Q-YP4004. The skull was dated to 177 AD, meaning that these Eurasians were living in North America some time after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple of Jerusalem, during a time of Roman conquest throughout Northwestern Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia. These European Huns may have brought the symbol of the swastika and mound building to North America, and may have contributed to the rise and fall of the Anasazi culture of Chaco Canyon who were farmers that used the symbol of the swastika.

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0622-4

.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6345020/

.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav2621 Jedague (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like, it doesn't say that the genes originated in Bronze Age Central Asia but that the skeleton is from the Bronze Age but the genes originated in Central Asia about 14700 BC (if I'm understanding the DNA chart it quotes https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L53/ correctly) - so it could equally well be that those genes crossed the Bering Straits with the Native Americans' ancestors (possibly even along with the swastika), and that seems like a more likely explanation, especially considering that the other three Lovelock Cave skeletons they tested all showed up as Native American. Wombat140 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikipedia needs to stop being a propaganda machine.

Throughout various articles, this one notwithstanding, there is a general bias towards explaining things of unknown origin based on what we have seen or otherwise already know, along with a smug "suspicion" and "debunking" motif that is weaponized to shut down any controversy before it begins. This is a mistake, a stupid one, as entirely dangerous as dismissing the subject matter altogether. Take this article: The so-called "Archeology" section is a giant heap of assumptions and is near entirely unscientific, yet reads like it is fact. It is not. The unpalatable truth of the matter is that there is not, as yet, sufficient historical or scientifically valid material to write or even outline a definitive chronicle of the Si-Te-Cah or " red Haired Giants." Though this is far from the only article that suffers from this inconvenience, and indeed, is becoming so prevalent as to render many articles into rhetorical flummery, packed with assumptions, and touting the most current homogenous narrative, it is a good place to start. If you're going to stick with the story that the natives have given, don't put some wish-wash that some archeologists spouted on assumption. I hope this can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Such sources say that local myths tell of red haired, giant cannibals and that archeologists found little evidence to support the stories, other than some evidence of some local cannibalism.

Wikipedia says lots of things some people won't like, because independent reliable sources say lots of things some people don't like. There are lots of theories in the world that simply don't find favor with those examining the evidence. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Si-te-cah

Recent DNA analysis of an individual from Lovelock Cave, identified as Lovelock4, carbon dated to 1,800 years before present was found to belong to a Bronze Age haplogroup that originated in Central Asia and migrated into Europe, Turkic people known as Huns. It may be the arrival of Huns from Europe that carried the symbol of the swastika to North America. 2600:100C:B05F:BCF9:A819:E15A:EEBC:4D18 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Source? Doug Weller talk 19:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav2621 https://www.newsweek.com/dna-10000-year-old-spirit-cave-mummy-reveals-secrets-native-american-history-1208975 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218315975 https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/ctig/ctigspring2019/Americas%20ancient%20DNA%20popular%20story%20article%20in%20Science.pdf ? I'm not sure it mentions Huns though. Wombat140 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wombat140 did I miss something in those old articles mentioning 1800 BP Z or the subject of this article? Doug Weller talk 14:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems like, those were just what I got from doing a web search for "lovelock4 haplogroup" and then following some citations (e.g. from https://www.family-tree.co.uk/dna-testing/newly-identified-male-lineage-may-reshape-the-story-of-the-first-ameri/ ), and I didn't look through them that closely. It looks like, I left the family-tree.co.uk one out because it wasn't a very scholarly-looking source, but it does mention 1800 years before present and Lovelock Cave, and, on a closer look, those four don't except a little bit in the fourth one (the one from Science Magazine), at least not in the non-paywalled parts (I didn't have access to the paywalled parts) - sorry about that. Wombat140 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovelock4 was found to belong to haplogroup Q-YP4004.

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0622-4

.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6345020/

.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/11/07/science.aav2621.DC1/aav2621-Moreno-Mayar-SM.pdf

.

https://jeffspence.github.io/assets/early_human_dispersal_americas_supp.pdf

.

“Lovelock Cave: During his visit to meet with the members of the Fallon Paiute- Shoshone Tribe to discuss the analysis of the Spirit Cave remains, co-author Eske Willerslev was also offered the opportunity to sample the remains of the Lovelock Cave individuals. These remains had for many years been curated at a local museum, but had been previously returned to the tribe. The tribe was interested in having those remains examined for DNA as well, and with their permission these were sampled on the occasion of that visit. The remaining parts after DNA testing were subsequently retuned to the tribe. Although the Lovelock Cave specimens had not been recovered from public lands and they were already owned and possessed by the tribe, the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe agreed with Eske Willerslev to authorize the genetic analysis of the Lovelock remains. We note here too that Len George, chairman of the Fallon Paiute- Shoshone Tribe, is a co-author of this paper.” Jedague (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The articles don't back your claim, and [15] makes it pretty clear you are wrong. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Paiutes?

It seems like, the article says "archaeologists were still able to retrieve 10,000 Northern Paiute artifacts from the cave", but https://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/lovelock-culture seems to think that the artifacts (and human remains) are more likely to be from a different tribe who weren't the Paiutes, and Loud and Harrington don't seem to say anything either way. Is there a source for this, or maybe should it be changed to "Native American artifacts"? Wombat140 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Look at the source I added today. It’s online but I didn’t link it. I can find it tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently, I didn't think to do a Web search for the title after hitting a dead end. It looks like, this is much more recent than Loud and Harrington, though without much (possibly any) mention of the legends - I've added a lot of stuff based largely on Loud and Harrington, but if you happen to have stuff from this that goes against any of that, by all means hack at it. Wombat140 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Describing the artifacts as Paiute artifacts is not accurate. The Saiduka had a unique culture that was uncommon in North America. Once the DNA analysis revealed that these people belonged to haplogroup Q-YP4004, it became obvious that these people were not Native Americans. The date of the remains, 177 AD, is equally interesting because it is after a time of Roman conquest in Northwestern Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia. Jedague (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What DNA study? This seems nonsense. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, [16]. Nope, that doesn't prove they were from Europe or were not Native Americans. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like, the Saiduca's culture was quite unusual but I've never heard of any Eastern European nation that lived on floating rafts made of reeds either so that wouldn't really make any more sense than saying they got it from the Paiutes - in fact, off-hand, the only people I can think of that did that are the Urus of Lake Titicaca and the Aztecs, who were, of course, both a lot closer to where the Saiduca lived (oddly enough, the Science article Jedague mentions does say that one of the Lovelock Cave skeletons they tested showed some Mesoamerican ancestry, so maybe they did get this strange way of living from further south, or maybe they came up with it by themselves). Wombat140 (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wombat140 Yes, the reed rafts are interesting. As I've said, I can't see the Paiutes as anything but Native Americans. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"Redheads", "cannibals" and "giants" in the lead paragraph

It seems like, most versions of the legends just do not back up the "giants" thing, from what I've been able to find out - it's only a small, much-publicised minority of them that say that - and even "cannibals" isn't unanimous, but "red-haired cannibal giants" seems to be the best-known thing about the Si-Te-Cah legend and people keep putting it into the lead paragraph, so I've tried to address it there. Wombat140 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say most versions, are they in reliable sources? If so we should cite them. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems like, honestly, I can't find any Wikipedia-style "reliable sources" that go into it except Winnemucca and Loud and Harrington, which are both already cited a lot (or are there some particular rules about things having to be cited all over again for the lead?) - the Online Nevada Encyclopedia ref says "giants" but doesn't go into detail or say where it got that, and paiutetribelovelock.org says "very tall" and "cannibals" (also describes them as having red hair "all over their bodies"), giving names of various people who presumably supplied these accounts, but I'm not sure whether it counts as respectable or not. Wombat140 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wombat140 No need for citations in lead normalcy. The tribe's web page isn't a reliable source. The book "Numa: A Northern Paiute History" might have useful material as it seems to include material from interviews etc by the names mentioned. This searchable version does mention "Tule Eaters" and a search for red hair turns upt what is clearly part of the legend but you can't see whole pages.[17]

The book is very expensive. I'm dubious about this website.[18]. Scratch all that, here is a searchable and downloadable version!

"Lovelock Cave [Sai§ itoo or “Sai’s hole”]: The story about the enemy people who were killed by the Northern Paiutes in Lovelock Cave is well known to modern Northern Paiutes (see Appendix A). According to different renditions of the story, the people had red hair, were cannibals, and were known by several similar names–Sai'ru’qa’n , Say-do-carah, Sai-duka’a, Sa-duc-ca, Sai-du-kas, Saiduka§ a (Bard, Busby, and Findlay 1981:109; Fowler 1992:42; Fowler and Fowler 1971:218; Hopkins 1994:73-75; Loud and Harrington 1929:164; Lowie 1926:205; Scott 1966:46)" There may be more, I don't have time to look.

I'd love it if you'd look more into this. Let me know if I can help find any of the source mentioned. I've got other priorities at the moment and I don't know how long my cancer is going to give me to deal with them all. I'm really pleased you are looking at this, thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)