If you were beginning to worry that owning a rare "Roman sword" was out of reach for you, this morning brings good news!  This link to a sword for sale on eBay is all over the internet. For just 75 Euros (US $81), you can get a bronze/brass commemorative sword with a Hercules hilt that looks to my "non-expert" eye to be pretty much identical to the one allegedly found off Nova Scotia, the one in a Florida collection, and one recently purchased for $25 in California.  If you order now, you may be able to get this one delivered in time for Christmas!​

For those of you keeping score at home, that's four known "Roman swords" floating around there that appear to be cast from the same mold.

Just so no-one forgets what's at stake here, I'll just repeat for the record the original statement from the the story of the alleged Roman sword allegedly associated with an alleged Roman shipwreck in Nova Scotia:

   "Now lead researcher and historic investigator J. Hutton Pulitzer, who also stars in the show [Curse of Oak Island], has put a large white paper together with a group of academics from the AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society).
    The main discoveries include a Roman sword found submerged just off Oak Island - and what is believed to be a Roman shipwreck.
    Pulitzer says this sword is ‘100 per cent confirmed’ and described it as the ‘smoking gun’ to his theory.
    "The ceremonial sword came out of that shipwreck," he said.  "It is one incredible Roman artifact."

I'll leave it to the claimants to explain why more and more swords that appear identical to the "incredible Roman artifact" keep turning up. 

Actually, nah, of course I won't. This thing will be figured out soon enough, and it probably won't be by me. But I'll do what I can. The response to the original claim has been fascinating to watch:  initial information about the Florida sword, California sword, and now the eBay sword was all brought to my attention by others. The case of the "Roman sword" is showcasing the capacity of the internet to both serve as a vehicle for effective distribution of packaged information (i.e., the original story) and a tool for finding and assembling new pieces of data that help us understand the credibility of that packaged information. Bravo, internet!

Update (1/4/2016):  Some close-up photos of the Italian eBay sword.

If you've been following the story of the alleged Roman sword allegedly associated with an alleged Roman shipwreck in Nova Scotia, you'll be interested to learn what I learned this evening.  Not only is the sword from Nova Scotia nearly identical to one in the possession of a Florida man, it's also identical to one that was reportedly recently purchased in California.

Behold, I give you the California sword:

Does that look familiar to anyone else?

I learned of this sword though an email sent to me by a reader who wishes to remain anonymous. He gave me permission to write about the sword and use the images he provided.  

As you can see, the California sword is in better shape than either the Nova Scotia or Florida swords. Here is an excerpt of the text of the email:

"Two months ago, I bought an extremely similar sword, almost exactly the same . . . In fact, in comparison to the other two known swords, mine is more defined or clearer in its detail. You can see the lion's head/skin very clearly draped over Hercules' head and you can see the lion's paws on his thighs. It was sold as a replica, originally priced at around two hundred dollars, but I think I only paid twenty five, as there was no interest in it. . . . The sword measures 24 inches in length, about 5 more than the other two swords. The figural part is 7 inches, which is the same length as the others. The only difference I can see is that the blade on mine is not completely flat. It has blade "grooves", or whatever the technical term for these are, it seems a lot of swords have them."

The more of these swords turn up, the more likely it is, I think, that we'll eventually figure out the source. I'm betting it's not ancient Rome.

I've asked the owner of this sword to look for any distinguishing marks (such as a stamp) that might help determine the place/time it was manufactured. If anyone has any ideas of things to look for on the California sword, let me know and I'll pass them on to the owner.

Finally, I'd just like to repeat for the record the original statement from the the story of the alleged Roman sword allegedly associated with an alleged Roman shipwreck in Nova Scotia:

   "Now lead researcher and historic investigator J. Hutton Pulitzer, who also stars in the show [Curse of Oak Island], has put a large white paper together with a group of academics from the AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society).
    The main discoveries include a Roman sword found submerged just off Oak Island - and what is believed to be a Roman shipwreck.
    Pulitzer says this sword is ‘100 per cent confirmed’ and described it as the ‘smoking gun’ to his theory."

That's all the credibility of Pulitzer and the AAPS on the line right there, folks: "100 per cent confirmed."

J. Hutton Pulitzer has spent part of his day writing emails threatening me with legal action for a blog post that I wrote almost three months ago (September 20, 2015). He began commenting on the post himself on October 23, 2015, with this:

"Hey Andy, yes saw this and me calling you the "4A" made you quite famous. LOL, but yes archaeologists tend to not let themselves be interviewed. We did in fact offer you a spot to go on record with Wayne May, but yes you did decline. However, some of our new recordings are outing people like you and University coverups. BTW, HEY Holly MCFadden nice to see you trolling here as well, other than the Facebook Groups. Thanks for sharing the term."

He didn't express any issues with the original blog post or the comments until yesterday. Last night he specified which comments he thought should be removed, and, as I wrote this morning, I agreed to have a look at them. Apparently he didn't like that answer and has now moved the goal posts and demanded that the whole blog post be taken down or he will sue me. 

"No results here after legal notice of intent to sue if not remedied, then step 3 occurs. . . . They [the detractors who comment] basically will cost you a legal retainer, long running legal fees and a judgement.  See, takes nothing to file the suit, takes a tremendous amount to get out of one."

Anyway, I'm not in the mood to deal with this kind of stuff over the holidays. I don't think that I've done anything wrong, but I'm not a lawyer and will need some time to seek legal advice on the matter.  For the time being, I'm going to take the blog post down. If my legal counsel tells me I'm in the clear, I'll put it back up. I think that's the smart move for the long game.

I'm a strong advocate of free speech. That's why I don't require pre-approval for the comments of others made on my blog, and I don't delete comments unless they are way off-topic or over the line. Pulitzer and I obviously have a disagreement about what constitutes "over the line."  The legal definition of "over the line" is what is at issue here.  I don't trust Pulitzer's judgment on the matter, but I'm going to err on the safe side until I can get some advice of my own. 

I'll keep you posted.

Also . . . I wonder if him accusing me of being part of an academic cover-up constitutes libel? It's certainly not true. Neither are his characterization of where I work and how much money I make.  It seems to me that his demonstrably false statements are meant to defame me.  Now that's funny.

J. Hutton Pulitzer emailed me yesterday afternoon requesting that I "remove all the fake and libelous comments" from this blog post. It wasn't clear to me exactly what he was calling "fake" and "libelous," so I asked for clarification on which comments, specifically, he was referring to.  Eventually he sent me 15 screenshots.  He also sent me a definition of libel and threatened to take legal action if I did not remove the posts he considered libelous.

I think there are several different issues here.  First is what the law says.  The common definition of libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation."  There are several things you have to do to demonstrate libel.  This is what Pulitzer emailed to me:  

1. The first thing you must prove is that the statement constitutes a false statement of fact. A fact is different than an opinion. A fact can be proven true or false. Opinions are typically not actionable as defamation.
2. The false statement of fact must harm your reputation. There are many false statements posted across the internet. In order to constitute libel, a statement must not only be false but must harm you or your company’s reputation and cause harm.
3. The false statement of fact causing harm must be made without adequate due diligence or research into the truthfulness of the statement. Alternatively, plaintiffs often attempt to prove that the false statement of fact was made with full knowledge of its falsity.
4. If the person who is the subject of the false statement of fact is a celebrity or public official, the plaintiff must also prove “malice.” Malice is proven when the person posting the information on the internet intended to do harm or acted with reckless disregard of the truth in making the statements.

That's pretty standard.  The first one is probably the most important (if it's opinion, it's not libel; if it's true, it's not libel).

The fourth one is also notable, given Pulitzer's status as a celebrity. He claims that my "intentional use of Philyaw shows the act of malice." If that's the case, then these other web pages are also malicious: 

• Jovan Philyaw or Jovan Pulitzer – Who’s Cats Daddy?
• Jovan Philyaw CueCat Radio Interview Transcription
• J. Jovan Philyaw

There's also apparently a Twitter account for Jovan Philyaw that I doubt is actually legitimate. 

Anyway, Pulitzer alleges that some of the comments by his detractors on my blog are, in fact, libelous.  Just for the record, I deleted several derogatory comments aimed at Pulitzer as soon as they were posted (back in November).  After deleting those comments, I stated in the comments section that "I'm going to delete comments that appear to be accusations of potentially criminal or illegal conduct." Those cross the line, and I don't want them on my blog.

I'm going to take Pulitzer's claim seriously and look carefully at the comments that he alleges are "libelous."  I will consider removing them on a case-by-case basis. It's not my intention to create a space where people can state untrue facts - I don't think it's helpful or constructive. But I'm also not going to simply agree that every comment that expresses a negative opinion has got to go. As stated clearly above, opinion cannot be libel. So I'll have a close look at the comments that Pulitzer has pointed out.

But what if the comments from others on my blog actually do constitute libel?  Am I responsible for that?

My understanding of the law is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives me some protection. Here is what the Electronic Frontier Foundation has to say on the issue:

"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do." 

And this:

"CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

That seems pretty clear to me: I may not actually be legally responsible for my reader's comments. That doesn't mean I want untrue statements left in the comments of my blog (I don't). I'll take Pulitzer's contention that some of the comments are libelous and have a look at them. But if they're purely statements of opinion that he just doesn't happen to like, there's no reason they should be deleted.

Finally, there's the issue of the "imposter."  Pullitzer claims that someone was posting comments pretending to be him. I was unaware of that until he brought it to my attention yesterday. He is correct in that there was an exchange between a "Hutton Pulitzer" and "Ron," neither of which provided an email address. I have no way of knowing who was posting those comments, so I took Pulitzer at his word that it wasn't him and deleted the whole exchange.  I think I'll make that a policy: no email address = comment deleted. 

Anyway, I've closed the comments on the post and will consider Pulitzer's contention that some of the comments are libelous. If I agree, I'll remove them. If not, they'll stay. I'll update this post when I've had a chance to sit down and go through the comments carefully.

I wasn't planning on writing one blog post today, let alone two (we've got relatives coming for the holidays and I spent most of the morning crawling around in my attic trying to figure out how the #$&@ some previous occupant had wired in the three-way switches for the hallway light). But when duty calls, you answer.

I wrote a short post earlier today about J. Hutton Pulitzer's latest claim: an alleged Roman sword allegedly discovered some years ago in the waters off of Oak Island, Nova Scotia. Knowing nothing about Roman swords, I asked for assistance from whoever might be reading. An alert reader who identified himself as Doug Crowell pointed me in the direction of the website "Roman Officer Arts & Design," where a very similar sword is pictured. That website is attached to a store in South Beach, Florida, run by David Xavier Kenney.  

For the sake of clarity, I'll call the sword in the Pulitzer article the "Nova Scotia sword" and I'll call Kenney's sword the "Florida sword."

We still don't know much about the Nova Scotia sword. As far as I know, the "white paper" that Pulitzer has promised is not available. I emailed Pulitzer to ask when it will be available. I will let you know if/when I get a response.

Kenney's description of the Florida sword (with images dated 2005) identifies it as Roman gladiator ceremonial sword made of "solid caste brass using the lost wax technique," dating to the 2nd-3rd century AD.  Kenney says the sword came from "An Art Dealer from the Netherlands, purported to have originated from a German Collection."  He says the sword appears in the series Experiencing Rome -- I'm going to try to get it though the library.  

The hilts of the Nova Scotia and Florida swords are, as far as I can tell, identical.  I don't see anything in the comparison to suggest these swords were cast using different molds. (It's also possible one was made as a copy from a mold produced using the other). The measurements are consistent, also: Kenney reports that the "statue handle" of the Florida sword measures 17.5 cm, which is just what the tape measure next to the Nova Scotia sword shows. [Update: I have received written permission from Mr. Kenney to use his sword image, which you do not control, Hutton].

The hilts are so alike that I originally wondered if these could actually be the exact same sword. The blades of the swords appear to differ in length, however, with the Nova Scotia sword being at least a few centimeters longer (it appears to measure about 50 cm in the photo in the article, while Kenney says the Florida sword is 46.5 cm long).  When you scale the Nova Scotia sword so that the size of the hilt matches the size of the hilt on the Florida sword, it appears much longer than the Florida sword.  Apparently one or both photos were taken at a somewhat oblique angles.

Other than the obvious physical similarities, is there some other connection between the Florida and Nova Scotia swords?  I don't know.  But consider this statement at the top of the Roman Officer Art & Design main page:

"There have been several extremely important new discoveries made concerning ancient non-indigenous peoples in North America. Two of the discoveries have been made by separate historical archeological research teams; both of the team leaders have shared information that coincides with some of my research on this subject." 

(As you might guess, Kenney's main interest in pre-Columbian contact with the America's is the Romans: you can read about it on this page.)

Is Hutton Pulitzer one of the "archaeological research teams"? Do Kenney and Pulitzer know each other?

What are the chances that a sword nearly identical to one kept in a Florida collection turns up in Nova Scotia? 

Perhaps all of these questions will be addressed in the "white paper" when it is released.  

I've sent out some feelers to my friend who work in the Mediterranean, hoping to get some decent opinions about the sword(s) and whether or not they could be Roman. I have also inquired to the email address on the Roman Officer website about any additional details available about the Florida sword. I'll let you know what I find out.

There are two clear points there that are worth noting: (1) Pulitzer claims to have absolute, certain proof that the sword is an authentic Roman artifact; and (2) he's going to give us that proof in a "white paper."

So I guess we can look forward to the "white paper" to tell us how we can be sure this is a Roman artifact. If anyone sees it, please let me know.

Without seeing the "white paper," two main things about this story cause me to immediately raise my eyebrows.  

First is the provenience.  It's kind of a shaggy dog story, not unlike that associated with Cinmar biface: 
​
    "Pulitzer explained: “Some years ago, a man and his son were scalloping off Oak Island, which sees them hang rake-like object off the back of their boat. When they brought this up, the sword came up with it.
    They thought they were going to get into trouble due to restrictions in Nova Scotia which made all private shipwreck diving for treasure outlawed. So they freaked out about it.
    The father kept it for decades, and when he died it went to his wife, then his daughter. Then when she died many years later it went to her husband. It was he who came forward to the island and said ‘I think you should know about this and where it was found.'"”

So best case scenario it changed hands four times. When was it actually found? By whom? Where?

Second is the sword itself.  I have zero expertise in the area of metal weaponry, so I'm not qualified to make a credible judgement just by looking at the photo.  The sword is apparently bronze or brass, which strikes me as odd for the Romans.  And look at the hilt (there's a close-up in the original article).  It doesn't look what I would expect a functional military sword to look like (why would you cast the hilt in the shape of a human figure?), and it appears to have been handled frequently in the recent past (the patina is worn from high spots such as the knees).  Again, I'm no expert so I'm prepared to be corrected.  I would love the opinion of someone who specializes in Roman weaponry.  Have you ever seen anything like this?

I'm glad Pulitzer has promised us a comprehensive "white paper" for this new "smoking gun."  I'm still waiting on the results of his analysis of copper artifacts he claims were associated with the Minoans. And I think at one point he said he was going to do a bunch of DNA tests. But, you know.

As I wrote yesterday, I was hoping that my next post would be about body size estimates for Gigantopithecus. It's taking more time than I hoped to track down some of the information I want for that one, so it will be on hold for a bit. I'm trying to find a source of raw metrics for individual Gigantopithecus teeth (I think there may be some in this new paper by Zhang et al., but I haven't been able to access the supplementary information from off campus) and I'd like to have a look at Russell Ciochon et al.'s (1990) book Other Origins (which I'll have to get in hard copy through the library, the old-fashioned way).

I'm interested in Gigantopithecus both out of professional curiosity and because it's one of those topics (like the Nephilim) that is nicely situated at the intersection of science/pseudoscience.  That's what makes it interesting to write about on a blog: it's a legitimate area of scientific inquiry that matters to the "fringe."

There's no question that the strongest fringe appeal of Gigantopithecus is among Bigfoot enthusiasts, some of whom contend that Sasquatch and the giant ape are one and the same. I'm not really that into the Bigfoot phenomenon, but when you talk Gigantopithecus online you get attention from the Bigfoot crowd. So I'm learning a little bit about how that world works.

(Aside: In my opinion, Bigfoot fans are the soccer hooligans of the fringe world.  If you want to see some ridiculous displays of racist, sexist, homophobic, scatological, immature, ad hominem attacks, go and read some of the comments on Bigfoot forums like this one. I get discussed on there when I write something related to Bigfoot.  What a compliment. I can't even tell who is who or what exactly they're trying to say . . . anyway, moving on.)

Perusing one of the Bigfoot forums, I stumbled across this story about a possible "skunk ape" arm being investigated by Stacy Brown, Jr. Brown has apparently proclaimed himself to be the best Bigfoot researcher on the planet, so we should take his claims seriously, right?  The links in the story are no longer active, so I'll reproduce a quote and an image that is reportedly from Stacy Brown's  original announcement (you can get the same information from this video):

"We recieved a non-human primate arm this morning. FWC officials ruled out bear and human by the makeup of the bones. What kind of primate arm this is we dont know as of yet. Here is a photograph of the arm. We are in talks now with people to test the samples we send. We are hopeful this may be a skunk ape's arm."

That was on September 1 of 2014.  A week or so later, the verdict was returned: alligator limb.

Case closed, right?

Wrong!

A few weeks later, Robert Lindsay reported that the "alligator leg" story was actually a fabrication designed to cover up the discovery and sale of a possibly legitimate partial skeleton of a Bigfoot.  Lindsay alleges that

"Within one hour after taking possession of the arm, Brown received a phone call from a very wealthy Bigfoot enthusiast in Ohio. He wanted to get involved. Brown said no. The man asked how much would it take you to give up that arm. Brown quoted a very high figure – I can now reveal that that figure was $500,000. The man bit, unbelievably enough. The sale was made immediately, and incredibly, the entire $500K was wired into Stacy’s account, and the arm was in the mail just like that."

Lindsay goes on to say that Brown then went and bought an alligator arm from a taxidermist and "started putting out fake stories about how they were going to test the arm even though they didn’t even have possession of it anymore."  While the actual Bigfoot arm was in a mail truck, Lindsay alleges, Stacy Brown was covering his tracks and counting his money.

The reason I'm relating this tale is not because I care much about any of this nonsense, but because the story has so many of the elements of the accounts of "giant" skeletons discoveries from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Note these four similarities:

Appeal to Authority: First, there is an appeal to an authority to establish the credibility of the find.  How do we know we're onto something out of the ordinary?  Because an FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) or FWS official said so! Interestingly, Lindsay also made an appeal to authority to bolster his counter-claim of conspiracy:

"I know someone who saw the arm with hair on it and was there when the FWS made that determination. In order to believe Stacy Brown’s insane story, we have to believe that a FWS biologist is so stupid that he cannot tell a reptile arm from a mammal arm."

Well . . . I doubt "stupid" is really the issue.  I would not expect every employee of a wildlife management service to have enough expertise in comparative anatomy to correctly identify a set of isolated limb bones. There are numerous documented examples of medical and anatomy professionals making mistakes in the past, identifying the bones of animals such as mastodons, salamanders, and turtles as those of giant humans. And I know from anecdotes that medical professionals of today don't have a great track record of being able to differentiate isolated human and animal bones from one another (and there's no reason to expect that of them - it's not part of their job or their training).  Anyway, the FWC/FWS person on the scene was actually not "stupid," but correct as quoted: the bones were not those of a human or a bear.

Jumping to Conclusions: Second, it seems that it was important to Brown for whatever reason to announce the "find" prior to doing even basic investigation.  My guess is that the FWC/FWS person was called to the scene to rule out the possibility that the bones were human (and thus not the purview of law enforcement).  In my opinion, if you go from an on-the-scene FWC/FWS conclusion of "not human" to "let's announce to the world that we MAY have a Bigfoot arm," you're skipping over a few steps that you could've taken yourself to avoid some embarrassment. I'm no expert on reptile bones, but it seems to me the "is it from an alligator" question would be a natural one to ask, given that you're in Florida.  If you Google "alligator skeleton" you come up with some pretty good drawings and photos (here's the source of the taxidermy image).  It's not that tough to see the resemblance to the alligator, or to discern that the limb has very different proportions than the arm of any primate.

So what's the rush? As in many old accounts of "giants," the sensationalism of the claim comes through loud and clear. Announcing that you found something that turned out to be part of an alligator doesn't get you much attention. Announcing that you found something that COULD be Bigfoot does get you attention.  So if attention is what you want, it makes sense to go ahead and announce your "discovery" before it has time to come under any scrutiny. Searching on the phrase "Stacy Brown skunk ape arm" returns thousands of hits. I would guess that most of those are about the "discovery" story rather than the "oh sorry it's just an alligator" story.

Conflicting and Foggy Details: Some of the stories/postings about the arm say that Stacy Brown found it. Others say that it was found by someone else and reported to Stacy Brown's team, which then went to investigate. None of the stories that I saw provide much additional detail about the "discovery," which should be a red flag to anyone who is paying attention.  When even the basic details are absent and what's there doesn't line up, your story has problems from the get-go. Just as in accounts of "giants," however, the absence or inconsistency of details doesn't really seem bother those who just want the story to be true (e.g., Joe Taylor's 47" femur sculpture, the "eyewitness" account of a giant skeleton from New York).

Conspiracy to Hide Evidence.  Those familiar with the conspiracy thread woven through giantology will immediately find familiar the "evidence purloined by a mysterious outsider" component of this story. Once the evidence is swept away, we'll never really know what happened, will we? So there's still a possibility that the story could be true, isn't there?  Making evidence disappear actually helps those who like to tell tales that could be falsified by that evidence: if the alligator limb was still out there, it would make it much harder to insist that it was the arm of a Bigfoot. But saying it was purchased by some millionaire in Ohio both makes it seem more likely it was legitimate (why else would the man have paid half a million dollars for it?) and explains why you can't see it anymore. That's pretty convenient, just like the Smithsonian-evolutionist conspiracy to hide all the giant skeletons.

The Stacy Brown alligator limb story makes me wonder if we're in the midst of a Bigfoot "fad" that will, in retrospect, look a lot like the giants fad that reached its peak in the late 1800's.  I think many of the fundamental ingredients are there: public interest, lack of basic scientific acumen about the actual evidence, profit motivations, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.  We're clearly not in the 19th century, however, in terms of our communication infrastructure. The internet is both a faster and more democratic speader than traditional print media, and one would expect that those differences would have some significant effects on the patterns and processes of information spread, persistence, and error creation and transmission.  I think the rise of the internet probably underlies (and maybe even partially explains) the current re-emergence of the giants fad. Maybe the same could be said for Bigfoot.  Maybe I'll figure it out someday.  There's no rush:  I doubt that either giants or Bigfoot are going to disappear anytime soon. 

The large teeth of a creature that would become known as Gigantopithecus were first encountered by science in 1935 after several were purchased from a Hong Kong drugstore.  Those teeth -- without any other parts of the skeleton -- were interpreted by physical anthropologists working in Asia as the remains of a huge creature.  While there were differing opinions as to whether the teeth had belonged to gigantic apes or gigantic humans, Ralph von Koenigswald, Franz Weidenreich, and W. C. Pei all agreed that Gigantopithecus was enormous.  

Those large teeth still fuel discussions of what the anatomy of Gigantopithecus was like. Estimates of very large body size (1000 lbs . . . 1200 lbs . . . ) attract a quantity of attention from Bigfoot enthusiasts, Creationists, and other "fringe" theorists that far exceeds that paid to other fossil apes. But where do those estimates come from? As I discussed briefly in this post, all of our information about Gigantopithecus is based on isolated teeth and a handful of mandibles.  That's something to go on, but not a lot. The complicated nature of the relationships between body size and tooth size, problematic when the first teeth of Gigantopithecus were discovered in the 1930's, remains an analytical issue today.  

How do we go from tooth size to body size?  Very carefully. Stanley Garn and Arthur Lewis discussed the matter in a 1958 paper in American Anthropologist titled "Tooth-Size, Body-Size and 'Giant' Fossil Man:"  

    "On the basis of morphology and size together, Von Koenigswald decided that the Hong Kong and Sangiran teeth and jaw fragments came from “giant apes.” However, Weidenreich later concluded that both the 1935-1939 Hong Kong [Gigantopithecus] teeth and the 1939-1941 Sangiran [Meganthropus] tooth-jaw fossils were the remains of true men, though extraordinarily large men, from the early Sino-Malaysian fauna (Weidenreich 1945:123-24). Finally, in his recent article, W. C. Pei reverted to the idea of a giant anthropoid and estimated that the “giant” ape of Luntsai stood “some twelve feet” high (Pei 1957:836).
    What is the evidence that these three sets of finds, separated from each other by space and time, all came from gigantic beings? How convincing is the evidence that big teeth necessarily indicate extraordinary stature? Lacking the postcranial skeletons, direct proof of body size does not exist. What remains is such indirect proof as can be gleaned from tooth-size relationships in man and apes. “This” admitted Franz Weidenreich . . . “is a very ticklish question. . . "

The question is "ticklish" because of the fact that tooth size, in addition to being related to body size, is also related to things like diet.  Similar-sized animals that eat different things emphasize different teeth. Animals that have to grind a lot of tough plant food tend to have cheek teeth (molars and premolars) with large grinding surfaces.  Animals whose diet consists of softer foods (like fruits) or involves lots of cutting and tearing (as in carnivores) typically don't have large chewing teeth relative to their body size because they don't need them (they're not selected for).

At the time Weidenreich wrote his 1945 monograph "Giant Early Man from Java and South China," the known fossil remains of Gigantopithecus consisted of just three teeth. Weidenreich's detailed comparative analysis of those teeth convinced him that Gigantopithecus was a hominid and a human ancestor. His discussion of the possible size of Gigantopithecus, while following from that conclusion, was cautious (pg. 111):

'In Gigantopithecus the length of the lower molar row is only twice that of modern man, not eight times, as in the lemur example. When the dimensions for the femur are calculated on the basis of the lemur ratio for the femur and the hominid ratio for the length of the molar row, the Gigantopithecus femur proves to be little longer than the femur of modern man and only slightly thicker. The same holds true for Meganthropus. Therefore, we can dismiss the body dimensions of the giant hominids, Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus, with the very general statement that they must have had large, heavy, and massive skulls, large strong trunks, but only slightly longer and stronger leg bones. No more precise statement can be made." 

Weidenreich died in 1948 and never got to see the Gigantopithecus mandibles that were discovered in the late 1950's. Consideration of those mandibles (and the growing number of isolated teeth available for study), led Elwyn Simons and Peter Ettel to argue in a 1970 article in Scientific American that Gigantopithecus was a large, herbivorous ape weighing as much as 600 lbs (272 kg) and standing about 9' (2.7 m) tall when upright. Simons and Ettel reconstructed Gigantopithecus with a posture and body plan like a gorilla. The body size estimate of Simons and Ettel was somewhat informal, based on a general appraisal of the size of jaw and assuming ​a proportional relationship between jaw size and body size.  

The 1980's saw the publication of studies that considered the allometry of tooth/body size relationships across primate taxa. A 1982 paper by Philip Gingerich et al. ("Allometric Scaling in the Dentition of Primates and Prediction of Body Weight From Tooth Size in Fossils") considered how tooth area scales to body weight among extant primates and used that information to estimate the weight of fossil primates. I have reproduced the figure from their paper that shows the logarithmic relationship and the regression formula based on that relationship.

While there is a general, positive relationship between tooth area and body weight among extant primates (which is a good thing for those of us interested in fossils), Gingerich et al.'s (1982) analysis makes it clear that there's a lot more going on than a simple, direct relationship.  What part of the relationship is based on geometry (bigger teeth as a result of bigger bodies) and what part is based on dietary adaptations (tooth size related to diet)? Good question.  Gingerich et al. (1982:99) concluded that

"Much remains to be learned about allometric scaling of tooth size and body weight in the dentition of primates and other mammals.  Our results demonstrate that there is a coherent pattern of differences in scaling at different tooth positions across the whole range of generalized primates.  We have not investigated how this general pattern might change if primates were subdivided into smaller taxonomic groups or into dietary guilds." 

As far as I can tell, that remains at least somewhat true today (I have yet to make a concerted effort to get into the current literature on tooth/body size scaling . . . hopefully I can get around to it soon).  Although we clearly know more about tooth/body size relationships than we used to, the estimation of primate body size from isolated teeth remains problematic.  While there are general relationships, they're not necessarily proportional. A big tooth doesn't necessarily mean a proportionally giant creature.

The large tooth from Denisova Cave is good example of how "big" is still equated with "giant" in the absence of other evidence.  According to this 2010 paper, the Denisovan tooth (probably a second molar) is the largest human tooth ever discovered. Because of its size (and because there aren't any other Denisovan fossils that can tell us something directly about body size), it has been interpreted by the fringe as evidence of giants (I wrote a little about it here). The tooth reportedly measures 13.1 mm by 14.7 mm, giving an area estimate of 192.5 square mm. Notably, it is smaller than the corresponding teeth of some austalopithecines (who were smaller in body size than humans but had a very tough diet, and, hence, big chewing teeth).  If I plug that area into the Gingerich et al. (1982) regression shown above (yes, I know it was based on areas of first molars, not second molars, but bear with me for the sake of general comparisons)  I get a body mass estimate of about 200 lbs (91 kg).  

Two hundred pounds: is that a giant? It's surely above average for humans today, but it's really a stretch to call a 200-lb individual a "giant."  Even allowing for that 200 lbs to be an underestimate (because it's based on a second molar rather than a first molar), how do we know that the the large tooth size isn't somehow related to the evolutionary history and/or diet of Denisovan populations? There are just a few teeth to go on - that's it. Just like with Gigantopithecus, I think we've really got to be aware that we're effectively blindfolded on the issue of body size until we've got some decent postcrania to look at.

As a final note, I think it's fascinating that Weidenreich saw the East and South Asian fossil record as supporting the idea that body size decrease through time was a major trend in human evolution. That is, of course, opposite of what the African record from the last 4 million years or so has now demonstrated. Weidenreich was wrong, but he was no lightweight and no dummy.  He based his ideas on the direct evidence that he had: fossils.  We'll never know what he what he would have thought of the decidedly un-human Gigantopithecus mandibles that were discovered just a few years after his death, but I would bet a large sum of money that he would not have stuck with the "giant phase of Man" idea that he outlined in his 1945 monograph.  Accepting that new evidence can falsify a hypotheses is part of doing science. 

Weidenreich's published ideas about also give the lie to the fringe/Creationist notion that 20th century academics have conspired and are continuing to conspire to suppress the "truth" about giants in the past. Or maybe someone just forgot to send Weidenreich his conspiracy brochure. I guess that's possible, since I have yet to receive mine, either.

Next up:  The history of body size estimates of Gigantopithecus.

References
​
Garn, Stanley M., and Arthur B. Lewis. 1958. Tooth-Size, Body-Size and “Giant” Fossil Man.  American Anthropologist 60(5):874-880.  

Gingerich, Philip D., B. Holly Smith, and Karen Rosenberg.  1982.  Allometric Scaling in the Dentition of Primates and Prediction of Body Weight From Tooth Size in Fossils.  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 58:81-100.
​
Simons, Elwyn L., and Peter C. Ettel. 1970. Gigantopithecus. Scientific American (January 1, 1970).

Weidenreich, Franz. 1945. Giant Early Man from Java and South China. Anthropological papers of the AMNH, Volume 40, Part 1.

I'm neck-deep in end-of-semester grading, and probably won't have time today to finish the blog post I've been working on.  Without the benefit of the PlagiarismCat, I'm forced to go through the tedious process of researching and writing my own content, which just takes a while sometimes. It doesn't seem fair, but I guess that's life.

In lieu of a blog post today, I offer you the song "Antediluvian Man" by the Reno-based trio Red Mercury (here is a studio version).  Add this one to Rasputina's "Holocaust of Giants" and the musical starts to write itself.   

J. Hutton Pulitzer, who self-identifies as "one of the foremost Inventors in modern times" has apparently done it again, inventing another revolutionary technology that will change everything. While there has been no official announcement from Pulitzer and his team, I have detected a pattern in recent blog posts at HistoryHeretic.org that hints at the existence of a new weapon in his war to reveal the "forbidden truths" that the academic establishment has been trying to keep from the masses.

Still riding the high from the massive success of the CueCat, Pulitzer appears to have succeeded in creating an optimized version of the computer keyboard that can be used to generate web content with a minimum of effort. Used in concert with an interface for viewing existing online writing (such as an internet-connected computer with a browser) and a device for selecting text (such as a standard mouse), the new keyboard apparently allows one to produce and claim credit for entire articles and blog posts with far fewer key strokes than would be required using the standard "write it yourself" method employed by the rest of us cave people (image source). Pulitzer has done it again!

My first inkling that Pulitzer was up to something new came in his November 27 post asking the important question "What do Presidents, Explorers and Inventors have in common?"  Rather than wasting his time writing his own answer to the question, Pulitzer just copied and pasted text from Wikipedia and a website about inventors. The plagiarism seemed ironic at first (the apparent point of Pulitzer's post, after all, was to argue that his own creativity and originality should place him in the pantheon of daring thinkers and doers that includes such towering figures as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln).  I now realize, however, that I just didn't get it: he was actually demonstrating his inventiveness in a more subtle way, dropping a clue about the existence and capabilities of his new invention.

You know the saying: fool me once . . .  I'm onto him now! Pulitzer tipped his hand that something new was on the way with his latest blog post about a Spanish shipwreck located near Colombia.  Although the story is signed "Hutton Pulitzer reporting for Investigating History Daily," the vast majority of the content is copied directly from other stories and papers that Pulitzer did not write.  Here is the first paragraph, for example:

"History notes, that On the morning of May 28, 1708, the British Commodore, Charles Wager, wrote in his journal “Little wind round the compass, calm, cloudy and some rain.”  Commodore Wager commanded a squadron of four British warships, which lay in wait off the Spanish Main, hoping to surprise and capture the treasure-bearing galleons of the Spanish fleet as they approached the port of Cartagena. One victim of the surprise attack was San Josà galleon."

Here, for comparison, is the first paragraph of a document titled "The Sinking of the San Jose," attributed to Jack Harbeston, Managing Director, Sea Search Armada, October 24, 2011:

"On the morning of May 28, 1708, the British Commodore, Charles Wager, routinely noted the weather in his journal: “Little wind round the compass, calm, cloudy and some rain.” Commodore Wager commanded a squadron of four British warships which lay in wait off the Spanish Main, hoping to surprise and capture the treasure-bearing galleons of the Spanish fleet when it approached the port of Cartagena."

I think it's probable that Pulitzer's new invention (which I call the "PlagiarismCat") still has a few bugs. Neglecting to change the capitalization at the beginning of the plagiarized passage, for example, is a rookie mistake for a human plagiarist. Hopefully they can get those issues worked out before the PlagiarismCat becomes available on store shelves.

The text of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Pulitzer's story comes from this article about the wreck written by Bill Blare. Portions of the last paragraph of Pulitzer's story are taken from this story in the Miami Herald by Jim Wyss.

Despite the bugs, I think it's fair to say that the PlagiarismCat is going to save Pulitzer valuable time producing his blog posts and articles. Just think of all the content that's already out there for the taking, with more being produced daily by hard-working (foolish, some might say) writers toiling away on their old-fashioned QWERTY keyboards. It's all fair game!  Pulitzer has established once again that he has no need for such anachronistic practices as "writing" and "research" - let the mere mortals busy themselves with all that boring stuff!

I hope the PlagiarismCat is available by Christmas. It would make a great gift for that "fringe" writer in your life who already has everything.