Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

A Note to Giantologists: "Double Teeth All Around" is Not the Same Thing as "Double Rows of Teeth"

12/21/2014

3 Comments

 
I have been trying to press home the point that 19th and early 20th century accounts of “giant” skeletons that use the phrase “double teeth all around” (or some close variant) are not describing “double rows of teeth.”  I have spent some time providing examples of how the phrase was used and looking carefully at several accounts that use the phrase and have been misinterpreted by giantologists (New Mexico; Deerfield, Massachusetts; Ohio). 

I have been clear that I am not proposing or assuming that historical/linguistic explanations involving the synonymy between “molar tooth” and “double tooth” apply to all the accounts.  This is what I wrote in my post about the Deerfield skeleton:

“There may be some accounts for which one can make a good case that the presence of actual “extra” teeth was being described (there are many cases today of individuals with extra teeth - it is not difficult to find them online), but I guarantee there will be many more accounts for which the interpretation of “double rows of teeth” cannot be justified under closer scrutiny.  I suggest that giantologists need to go through their "evidence" for double rows of teeth.  Evaluate these accounts critically in their contexts, one by one, rather than simply saying there are hundreds or thousands of them.  Many of these cases of "double rows of teeth" will disappear.” 

In this post, I want to expand on my discussion of the phrase “double teeth all around.” This is a specific phrase that is fairly common in 19th and early 20th century accounts of large skeletons.  I briefly discussed this phrase in my first post on how the historical/linguistic contexts of these accounts can help us understand them.  Based on some discussions I've seen online, I'm not sure my first post on the subject was completely effective in explaining what this phrase means and clarifying why it is not equivalent to “double rows of teeth.” So I'm going to talk about it some more.  Here’s what it means, when it was used, and who it was used to describe.

“Double Teeth All Around:” What the Phrase Means

The phrase "double teeth all around" is a colloquial phrase that was used to describe a pattern of heavy tooth wear that involved the front “single” teeth (the incisors, canines, and premolars) as well as the “grinding” or “double” teeth (the molars). The phrase was used to communicate the (mistaken) impression that a person had all "double teeth" (molars aka “grinders”) rather than a mixture of "double teeth" and "single teeth" (incisors, canines, and premolars) as in a normal human dentition.

But don’t take my word for it -- listen to what some turn-of-the-century dentists had to say (emphases added).

This passage from a 1900 paper by Alton Howard Thompson titled “Mechanical Abrasion of the Teeth” (printed in The Western Dental Journal, Vol. 43) (available here) describes exactly what is meant by the phrase “double teeth all around” and how the phrase has been used to describe the heavily worn teeth observed in skeletal remains:

    “Among ancient and savage peoples the excessive wear of the teeth is almost universal, and is often quite remarkable.  It is almost constant in adult skulls, as an examination of the specimens in museums will show.  This is due to the hard, uncooked, or gritty nature of the food employed.  The writer has recently examined nearly two thousand skulls in the museums of Philadelphia, and the destructive wear of the teeth in ancient savage races is almost universal. Only in young skulls could the cusp patterns be made out with any degree of certainty.  The pulp usually recedes before the encroachment of abrasion, but frequently it is exposed, and its death and alveolar abscess ensue.  This disease from this cause is quite common in ancient skulls where the teeth are much worn.  Inexpert observers of ancient skulls are disposed to classify the much-abraded teeth as being different from the teeth of Europeans, and as having “double teeth all around.” Many old travelers thus describe the worn teeth of savage people, and even recently a newspaper archeologist writes of the teeth of the ancient Cliff-Dwellers of Colorado as being different from those of later man in being “double teeth all around.”  Some of the early explorers in Egypt described the teeth of the ancient mummies as being “thick at the edge,” and different from those of living races.  In the collections above referred to the writer found no ancient skulls with “double teeth all around,” but did find that destructive abrasion was almost universal, the anterior teeth being often worn to the base, and showing the round section of the tooth at that point which so often misleads inexpert observers and perpetuates the popular illusion.  The mistake is pardonable in the laity, but is inexcusable in anthropologists who have a knowledge of human anatomy and are exact as to the anatomical variations of other parts of the human body” (pg. 252-253).

The following paragraph is from a paper entitled “The Significance of the Natural Form and Arrangement of the Dental Arches of Man, with a Consideration of the Changes which Occur as a Result of their Artificial Derangement by Filing or by the Extraction of Teeth,” by Isaac C. Davenport from the journal The Dental Cosmos (1887, Volume XXIX, No. 7) (available here):

    “One appreciates the beauty of the general relation of the articulating surfaces as one notes the effects of wear upon the teeth.  For example, as the cusps wear down the lower jaw moves forward, and the inner surfaces of the upper incisors become thinner and thinner.  When the flat surfaces of the molars alone remain, the cutting edges of the incisors, which projected over the lower teeth, have also been worn away, and we have the characteristic grinding surface called “double teeth” all around” (pg. 420).

Davenport’s theory it that heavy wear on the molars naturally changes the way the teeth come together and causes the jaw to move forward, bringing the cusps of the incisors into opposition and causing them to be worn down as they are used for grinding rather than cutting. 

The following passage from a 1907 paper entitled “Jumping the Bite in Senile Abrasion” in American Orthodontist (Volume 1) (available here), also by Alton H. Thompson, speaks volumes:

“ . . . The incisors of man when worn to the thick part of the neck, show the broad outlines of this portion of the crown.  This broad and grooved appearance of the incisors gives rise to the popular saying of having “double teeth all around,” when such a condition is observed by the laity. Unfortunately, there is much misleading pseudo-science that assists in perpetuating this absurd error by magazine and newspaper writers when describing antique skulls.  I have seen accounts of scientific men, archeologists, who have insisted upon a fundamental difference in the anatomy of the teeth of ancient Egyptians, Mexican and other antique races, which happened to have worn teeth in their skulls.  Such ignorance and stupidity is exasperating” (pg. 29).

Amen, Dr. Thompson. 

“Double Teeth All Around:” When the Phrase Was Used

The phrase “double teeth all around” appears to have been used in North America between about 1820 and 1920, with a peak in usage between about 1880 and 1905.  I am basing this conclusion on two sources: newspapers and books. 
Picture
The top portion of the figure to the right shows a histogram of the occurrence of the phrase, generated using the search tool on Newspapers.com.  The search identified 55 matches of the phrase, the earliest being in 1821.  The latest occurrences of the phrase were in 1945, 1949, and 1960.  In all three of those post-1900 cases, the phrase was used in a re-telling of a story from the last half of the nineteenth century (i.e., 1850-1900).  These later occurrences of the phrase were completely consistent with the idea that the phrase was not in common usage after the 1920s.

The bottom portion of the figure shows a Google Ngram of the phrase “double teeth all around.”  As with the newspaper data above, the post-1920s occurrences are re-tellings of 19th century stories. 

 “Double Teeth All Around:” Who the Phrase Was Used to Describe

Who had “double teeth all around”? Was this phrase only used to describe the teeth of giant skeletons? 

No. Not even close. 

While the phrase “double teeth all around” surely was used sometimes to describe the teeth of skeletons, it certainly was not limited to that use.  I have provided some examples of where the phrase was used to describe the teeth of living individuals.  Here are a few more:

    “There is a boy named Kimmery in Riley township, Vigo county, who is eleven years old, weighs but ten pounds, has long hair and eyebrows, and a set of double teeth all around.  He is dumb, but not deaf” (Indianapolis News, January 20, 1872).

    “The Hartford Times tells of a man near Pomfret, Conn., thirty years old, who was born deaf and blind . . . He is well developed physically, is of ordinary height, has a stout, thick neck, and looks strong and robust. . . . This man had a full set of strong double teeth all around, and every one of them had to be pulled out, as he tore his clothes to pieces with them” (Oskaloosa Independent, February 8, 1873).

“ . . . Little Crow was one of the most savage of savages, and when he was killed his head was cut off, a stake or pole was run through the rear part of the skull, and the head was then paraded through the streets of Hutchison.  He had double teeth all around in both jaws—not wholly a novelty in an Indian’s mouth” (The Valley Republican, December 14, 1878).

“ . . . Hawkins, who was sixty-five at the time of his death, had been known to sleep out doors without covering on the coldest nights; he had double teeth all around.  On frequent occasions he would, on a wager, eat up, masticate, and swallow an ordinary seven by nine pane of glass in the presence of a dozen spectators; . . .” (The Intelligencer, September 30, 1880).

“ . . . In 1827 an inquest was held on a drowned body recovered from Lake Ontario.  The description agreed with that of the missing exposer of Freemasonry’s harmless mummeries, and Mr. Weed’s committee decided on another inquest.  Before it was held he obtained from Mrs. Morgan an account of what was most striking in her husband’s personality.  She said he had double teeth all around, and a dentist confirmed this peculiarity” (The New York Times, November 29, 1882).

    “Old Polka Dot was a firm man, with double teeth all around, and his prowess got into the personal columns of the papers every little while.  He had a daughter named Utsayantha, which means “a messenger sent hastily for treasure,” so I am told, or possibly old Polka Dot meant to imply “one sent off for cash” (The Salt Lake Herald, September 7, 1890).

    “—John McDarby, of Salmon Falls, Mass., has double teeth all around, and a stomach which doesn’t rebel when he chews and swallows glass, stones and other indigestibles” (Pittsburgh Dispatch, August 1, 1892).

The alert reader will have noticed that none of these stories is about a giant skeleton.  It seems to me that if “double teeth all around” was some kind of trait that was associated exclusively with giants, it wouldn’t have been present in this wide assortment of living individuals of various ages, heights, ethnicities, and capacities to eat glass.  Am I missing something? 

What the Giantologists Got Wrong

The phrase “double teeth all around” has nothing whatsoever to do with "double rows of teeth."  In previous posts I have discussed several cases where the phrase was misinterpreted.  There are many, many more examples out there.  I'll get to some of them in the coming days, but it should be pretty obvious by now that a skeleton with "double teeth all around" is nothing anomalous, at least in regards to the dentition.  My impression is that the misinterpretation of “double teeth all around” goes back to the beginnings of modern giantology: perhaps just a generation or two after the phrase fell out of use. 

Whatever the origins of the first errors misinterpreting this phrase, it is clear that “double rows of teeth” has become an integral part of the modern mythology of giants. As part of that modern mythology, the phrase “double teeth all around” is automatically and uncritically interpreted as “double rows of teeth.”  It shouldn’t be. That’s not what it means.  That should be obvious by now.

Perhaps this misinterpretation was initially an honest mistake.  “Double teeth all around” is, after all, an archaic phrase that was falling out of common usage (along with the term “double tooth” as a synonym for molar) a century ago and today sounds pretty strange.  I would buy that explanation in the 1980s or 1990s, but not today.  I have a hard time understanding how giantologists, having the same ability as me to quickly search old books and newspapers online, didn’t crack the code of “double teeth all around.”  Almost everything I quoted here shows up in basic internet searches.  I got the histogram of newspaper occurrences by paying a whopping $7.95 for a one month subscription to Newspaper.com.  On Search for the Lost Giants they fly around in helicopters, crisscross the country, go caving, hire a sketch artist, and consult with a dental anthropologist, but nobody thinks to type the phrase into Google? 

I’m one guy. With a full time job. Doing some basic internet searches between preparing lectures, washing dishes, and changing diapers.  Honestly, I have to say, it wasn’t that tough to figure out.

That makes me question whether the giantologists really wanted to figure this out, whether they really want to figure anything out.  I wonder if they’d rather have the warmth of a tall tale instead of a solid explanation that could be used to reduce some of the “noise” that permeates these accounts.  I’m a little surprised by how quiet they’ve been in response to what I’ve been posting. I appreciate the few responses that I’ve gotten, but I really thought there would be more.  I’ve begun engaging their claims by having a new look at the evidence.  I’ve come to different conclusions –conclusions that I can strongly support.  And I’ve heard almost nothing.  To me, that’s what is really strange.


3 Comments
Scott Hamilton
12/22/2014 02:43:02 am

I know it's besides the point, but is the spike in mentions of "double teeth all around" in the 1950s because of the reprinting of giant stories? Or was there some other reason that stories of (apparent) dental anomalies became popular?

Reply
Andy White
12/22/2014 02:53:50 am

As far as the newspapers, there are stories from 1945 and 1949 that are re-telling tales of finding skeletons in 1898 and either 1865 or 1901 (the story isn't clear).

The mid-20th century hits that come up on the Google Ngram are related to a variety of things: folklore, reprinting of some older dental articles, and some things actually directly related to giant skeletons. One book from 1939 that pops up features this passage:

"The notion that the Mound Builders had "double teeth all around, a peculiarity which distinguishes them from all other known races," has been discarded. Their tough diet may explain why their front teeth are flat instead of sharp."

Google Ngram lets you see the books from which it is drawing information. It's a pretty neat tool.

Reply
Max McNabb link
1/2/2015 03:41:12 pm

Interesting, but what do you make of newspaper accounts which said "double ROWS of teeth?" I know there were several such cases.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly