Category: Double Rows Of Teeth

I Spent $20 to Find Out that Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman Have Learned Nothing About "Double Rows of Teeth" Over the Past Year

11/24/2015

I spent my $20, but look at all this fake money I've got now. That's a metaphor of some kind.

About a month ago, I found a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk while I was walking to work and listening to Hutton Pulitzer interview Jim Scherz. While I didn't learn a whole lot from that interview, the twenty bucks was nice. I spent it on "Giants on Record," the new book by Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman. That was not a great investment.

I purchased the book because I was mostly interested in seeing what Vieira and Newman had to say about "double rows of teeth." That strange phrase (repeated by Vieira ad nauseam in his writings, online videos, and episodes of Search for the Lost Giants) is one of pillars of Vieira's belief in a "lost race" of giants. I was curious to see if my own work on the phrase, which I know that Vieira has seen, has had any effect.

Based on Chapter 7 ("Double Rows of Teeth"), the answer to that appears to be an unqualified "no."

Following a brief preamble where they discuss the mention of "numerous rows of teeth" in the Talmud (see this post by Jason Colavito for more on that), Vieria and Newman move on to the now time-honored giantologist tradition of recycling old newspaper accounts as evidence. While there were a few accounts that I hadn't seen before, many were familiar (including several that I have discussed directly).

In the majority of cases, the language in the accounts presented by Vieira and Newman is clearly referring to the presence of "double teeth" (molars) or "double teeth all around" (the appearance of a mouth filled with molars), not multiple layers of teeth. I have written extensively about 19th century linguistic idioms associated with teeth, but they apparently chose to just ignore all that and throw a bunch more baloney at the wall in the hopes that something would stick.

Oh well . . . let's go through them in order:

"all of them are double" (1856): this is clearly a reference to teeth looking like "double teeth" (molars);
"The teeth are all in their places, and all of them are double" (1870): another reference to the teeth looking like molars;
"Each had double teeth in front as well as in the back part of the jaw" (1893) molars again (note how the writer is pointing out what is unusual - double teeth in the back are expected, of course);
"The teeth were still sound, and double all around" (1878): there's that pesky idiom again that actually means "molars all around";
"the teeth were described as 'double all around'" (1881): just describing teeth that appeared to be molars because of their wear (I discussed this particular case in this post);
"all double teeth" (1892): again, referring to molar-like wear (I discussed this particular case in this post);
"one jaw had evident signs of a third set" (1875): I've already written about this one, and I think there's good reason to suppose that this account, from Florida, is actually describing the germination of a "third set" of teeth following the permanent teeth (which would be the "second set");
"A set of almost round double teeth" (1900): again, this is referring to "double teeth" (molars), not "double rows of teeth";
"double teeth in front as well as in the back of mouth and in both upper and lower jaws" (1872): very similar to the 1893 phrase above (and also covered in this post);
"two rows of teeth in the front upper jaw" (1912): while this one actually appears to be describing multiple layers of teeth, it is almost certainly a case of a reporter misunderstanding a phrase like "double teeth in front" (this is the Ellensburg case - I've written about it here);
"the full number of teeth, and double all around" (1880): this one even specifies the "full number of teeth," making it plain that "double is describing the kind of teeth, not the number;
"double teeth all around" (1895): molars again (this is the Deerfield account that is part of Vieira's arrival story - I've written about it here)
"entire rows of double teeth" (1854): again, teeth that look like molars because of wear;
"row of double teeth in each jaw" (1854): same old, same old . . . ;
"a full set of double teeth, all around" (1849): an individual that still has all his teeth, highly worn so that they appear to be molars;
"two distinct rows of teeth in the massive jaw" (1902): this could well be referring to an individual the the normal rows of teeth (one on each side) in the mandible;
"the teeth are double both front and back" (1912): similar to the 1872 and 1893 accounts above;
[some report from 1819 that doesn't even mention teeth];
"skulls with double rows of teeth" (1862): I would bet dollars to donuts that this is simply describing skulls with full sets of teeth, as the phrase "double rows of teeth" was commonly used in the late 19th century to describe living people, some creatures, and inanimate objects with opposed rows of teeth;
"An unusual feature was a complete double row of teeth on both upper and lower jaws" (1908): while this one really does sound like writer is trying to describe a dental oddity, the late date suggests we shouldn't rule out a miscommunication error with someone using the phrase "double teeth all around," which was waning in use by the early 1900s.
"The jaws of each were filled with double rows of teeth" (1870): the simplest explanation here is, like the 1862 account above, just a description of a mouth filled with teeth;
"two had 'double teeth' in front" (1890): this is clearly describing the kind of teeth (double teeth, or molars) rather than the number of teeth, even putting the idiomatic phrase within quotation marks;
"the teeth, which were all double, were perfect" (1907): again, I would bet this is referring to the kind of teeth (teeth that look like molars) rather than the number;
"one row of double teeth all around" (1822): again, description of kind of teeth, not number - it even says "one row";
"the upper jaw had double teeth all around" (1821): same old, same old . . . again;
"while the teeth were double in front as well as behind" (1906): this is very similar to the 1872 and 1893 accounts above.

Then the authors go through several accounts of Euroamerican colonists with similarly described teeth, and then rehash the conversation with dental anthropologist Shara Bailey that they showed us on Search for the Lost Giants.

Among the 25 accounts that Vieira and Newman reproduce to highlight the "mystery" of double rows of teeth, I see very little that can't be explained by what I've already written. If you're really interested "double rows of teeth," go read through some of those posts. If what Vieira and Newman have presented is the best evidence for something strange going on . . . I don't think there's a whole lot more to say on what the original writers were actually attempting to convey with their descriptions. I think we can mark this one "case closed."

Vieira and Newman cement the case for their own intentional analytical blindness with the second to last paragraph in the chapter:

"After looking carefully at all the possibilities, the phenomenon of double rows of teeth could either be: 1) Literally two sets of teeth (double) 2) molars and premolars in the front of the mouth resembling 'double' teeth - an unusal anomaly in itself; 3) supernumerary teeth that are just occasional 'extra' teeth in the mouth, that could be seen as double sets of teeth, but not 'full sets.' 4) teeth so worn down that only the two roots exist that resemble two separate teeth."

Well, no, not really. They completely miss the explanations that I've been writing about and exploring since last November when I first saw them on TV (this was my first post on the matter). This is especially ironic given the tone set by Ross Hamilton in his foreword, depicting Vieira and Newman as courageous visionaries who are daring to explore topics that mainstream "academically controlled archaeologists" ignore. Well, I suppose I'm one of those "academically controlled archaeologists" and I've put quite a bit of effort into exploring those same topics. I've used historical, linguistic, and quantitative research to construct what I think is the most reasonable explanation to date for the "double rows of teeth" phenomenon, and these authors chose to ignore all that work in order to preserve the mystery for their book. That's a joke, right?

So this was $20 down the tubes . . . easy come, easy go, I guess. Given what I got for my money, I decided to share the misery and I sent my copy of the book to Jason Colavito. He's begun reviewing it chapter by chapter on his website.

22 Comments

Happy Thanksgiving, Critical Thinkers: "The Argumentative Archaeologist"

11/21/2015

7 Comments

I'm about to get on airplane for some holiday travel. I'm hoping to spend much of the coming week not doing much work, but I've been working hard over the last few weeks to finish a "beta" (i.e., mostly complete) version of The Argumentative Archaeologist website. It's done! Go have a look! Please spread the word.

I don't have time to write much about it now, so I'm just going to paste in the content from the About page:

The Argumentative Archaeologist is a website that organizes and compiles links to fact-based information and analysis related to fantastic claims about the human past. While not all "fringe" (i.e., non-mainstream) claims have been shown to be untrue, many have (some of them over, and over, and over again . . .). The goal of this site is to provide road maps to information that will help you both identify what's BS and understand the history and context of some of the many claims about the past that can be shown to be false. They can't all be true, right?.

Who Are the Intended Audiences?

This site was conceived and designed with three main audiences in mind:

The Public. Almost by definition, most "fringe" ideas come from outside the professional archaeological community. The marketing and selling of those ideas, not surprisingly, are largely targeted to audiences that are also outside of the professional archaeological community ("bypassing the mainstream" is a common part of the pitch). The "fringe" community has done a good job of exploiting traditional print and television media as well as utilizing the internet to uncritically spread sensational claims about the past. While many of those "fringe" claims can easily be shown to be false, the voices of the few individuals and organizations that have made a concerted effort to address the factual basis of those claims are often drowned out the megaphones that the "fringe" community has built for itself. This site is an attempt to assemble links to openly available, critical analysis of "fringe" claims into one central location to make it easier for interested members of the public to get the other side of the story. It wasn't aliens - see for yourself!

Educators. College courses that engage with the history, context, and evidence associated with "fringe" claims about the past are becoming increasingly common. I know several people that teach them, and I myself am planning on teaching one in the Fall Semester of 2016. While traditional textbooks are available that cover many facets of pseudo-archaeology, I feel that much of the real work that is being to address and understand "fringe" claims as they emerge and develop is being done online in formats such as blogs. Blogs can and have been used to address many different aspects of "fringe" claims with a timeliness and forthrightness that would be impossible in the context of a traditional textbook. I hope that people teaching courses on pseudo-archaeology find this site useful in terms of both the kinds of information it presents and the organization of that information.

Researchers (Both Kinds). I hope the links compiled on this site will help those of you out there interested in performing research on many different facets of pseudo-archaeology: where do these claims come from? why are they popular? what do we know about artifact x or site y? I know that I have learned several things I did not know just through the process of initial construction of the site (and that is without actually reading in detail the large majority of the content to which this site links). While many claims have been addressed repeatedly and are fairly well understood, many have not and are not. I think it would also be of great benefit to "fringe" researchers to make an effort to understand the arguments against their claims. I know that may be difficult when you really, really, really want something to be true . . . but if you want your ideas to be taken seriously you will have to someday address an evidence-based critique. I'm not optimistic that will happen (evaluating the willingness to actually test an idea is one of the key ways to discriminate between archaeology and pseudo-archaeology), but it would be nice. Maybe try not just repeating the same dumb, incorrect thing that someone else already said? Just an idea.

How Do You Choose the Content?

The content in this site was not chosen to give "equal time" to skeptical and "fringe" voices. As mentioned above, the "fringe" side of the equation has developed a powerful set of tools to communicate its various messages: it does not require any assistance. This site is intended to serve as a counterpoint to "fringe" claims, providing links to critical analyses of components of those claims, links to critical reviews of "fringe" media, and a structure that lets the user explore and understand how various components of "fringe" claims are inter-connected.

During the initial construction of this site (October-November 2015), I mined the blogs of several of the major skeptical online voices of which I am aware: Jason Colavito, ArchyFantasies, Bad Archaeology, Glen Kuban, Skeptoid, Le Site d'Irna, Michael Heiser, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Hot Cup of Joe, and my own website (Andy White Anthropology). This site does not link to all posts on those websites, of course, but it links to many that are related to the topics of interest here. My plan is to monitor those sites and add links to new posts (and new topics) as they become available. I would love to hear about articles, posts, and other skeptical sites of which I am unaware (please use the Suggestion Box).

Why Do You Present the Content the Way You Do?

The work of critically evaluating "fringe" claims about the human past is being done by very few individuals. I hope that this site brings attention (and web traffic) to their efforts. My guess is that most of us who take the time to investigate and write something about the nonsense that's being sold as knowledge aren't making any money by doing so (in stark contrast to the "fringe" side, which has a large commercial component). Credit should go where credit is due: write an email and thank your favorite skeptic for his or her hard work.

I have used block quotes to introduce many of the topics, artifacts, and sites for which I have created entries. Many of those quotes are from Wikipedia. I chose to do this not because it is the best source of information, but because it probably reflects a reasonable consensus view. And it's designed to be "open." I've attributed the textual quotes that I use, and I've attributed the sources of images that I use by linking to my sources. I have added internal links (i.e., links pointing to other pages within this website) and indicated those changes with the designation [links added]. I do not believe that I am violating any copyrights or other prohibitions by presenting the material the way I do. If you disagree, please let me know via email (aawhite@mailbox.sc.edu).

What Do I Do Now?

Begin your search for information by Topic, by Person, by Geographical Area, by Title of a book, film, or television program, by Meme or Image, or Alphabetically. Please use the Suggestion Box to offer topics or links to information, and please sign the Guestbook.

Enjoy!

7 Comments

Six Fingers AND "Double Rows of Teeth"? Show me.

5/28/2015

40 Comments

If I had a nickel for every time I've read online that accounts of "giants" describe them as having "six fingers and toes on each limb and a double row of teeth" I would be sleeping in a pile of Benjamins tonight. Do a Google search for "six fingers double row teeth" and you'll see what I mean. You can find the idea repeated time and time again, for example on this page and this one apparently put together by Kristan Harris, crappy pages like this one, UFO-related books like this one, Adam Schwartzbauer's paper, Nephilim fiction, and in the book that L. A. Marzulli will let you have for fifty bucks. Those are just a few examples.

Is there an association between polydactyly (having extra digits) and "double rows of teeth" in accounts of giants? Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether giants are actually real, let's just focus on whether this often-repeated association between extra fingers and extra teeth has any basis.

Until someone proves me wrong, my answer is "no:" there is no association between polydactyly and "double rows of teeth" in the accounts of giants.

I can't recall a single instance that I've seen of a report of a giant skeleton from North America (or anywhere else) that specifies that both a "double row of teeth" and "six fingers" were present. I think these two "traits" have gotten welded together by the uncritical imagination of giant enthusiasts. The "and" joining these two sets of traits should actually be an "or."

I've argued that the phrases "double rows of teeth" and "double teeth all around" weren't intended, in most cases, to actually indicate that multiple, layered rows of teeth were present. I think the use of those phrases is related to 19th century idioms used in American English.

Conversely, the "six fingers" reference apparently comes primarily from the biblical description of Goliath (1 Chronicles 20:6):

"And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant."

Did Goliath, the most famous six-fingered giant, have "double rows of teeth"? Well, let's ask T. M. Sparks in his book Giants: The Amazing Truth (chapter 1):

"Now these children were not part of God's creation, they were mutated forms of life. They were giants of our past; they would have six fingers and six toes on each limb. They also had double rows of teeth. Goliath came from this lineage having 6 fingers and 6 toes also. His teeth were not mentioned in Scripture, only the toes and fingers of his brothers were. But I am sure he had this distinction as well."

So there you have it: the Bible doesn't actually say it using actual words, but it's surely true . . . because everyone knows giants have six fingers, six toes, and double rows of teeth, right?

No, not really. That's a swing and a miss if you care about evidence.

I remember I heard once that there was a giant who had a goose that laid golden eggs. So maybe we should just throw that in there with Goliath also.

Let's make this a falsifiable hypothesis. I'll state there is no primary account of a giant (i.e., neither a description of a skeleton nor a historical text) that actually specifies the presence of both polydactyly and "double rows of teeth." Can any of you falsify that hypothesis and point me to a primary source that describes a giant with both polydactyly and "double rows of teeth"? If you can, then we can talk about how common the association is. But let's first just start with one.

Until then, I think this association between "double rows of teeth" and "six fingers" is another thing to throw into the category of a modern myth.

40 Comments

The Remains of Little Crow

4/28/2015

9 Comments

Little Crow.

Little Crow (1810-1863) was leader of the Mdewakanton Dakota, a Sioux people with a historic homeland in what is now Minnesota. He is perhaps most famous for his roles in the 1851 agreements (the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and the Treaty of Mendota) that ceded much of southern Minnesota to settlement by Euroamericans and the Dakota War of 1862. This was a short and brutal conflict that ended with hundreds dead and many Dakota in exile. For their roles in the conflict, 38 Dakota men were hanged on December 26, 1862. The execution was the largest mass execution in U.S. History (source).

Little Crow, not among those captured and executed, was killed in a shootout with white settlers (who were apparently out to pick raspberries) in July of 1863 near Hutchinson, Minnesota. The story of Little Crow's remains is interesting to me for two reasons. First, it contributes to our understanding about what the phrase "double row of teeth" might have meant in the nineteenth century. Second, and more importantly, it is a vivid example of how Native Americans were regarded in this country in the 1800s and how their physical remains were treated.

The body, clearly that of a Native American, was not immediately identified as that of Little Crow. That didn't stop the locals from abusing it, however. I haven't yet tracked down original accounts of the events that followed the shooting of Little Crow, but I found a 1962 article titled "The Shooting of Little Crow: Heroism or Murder?" by Walter N. Trenerry that appeared in Minnesota History:

"The search party callously removed the dead Indian's scalp and went back to town. Later that day the body was
loaded on a wagon, brought into Hutchinson, and there tossed into the refuse pit of a slaughterhouse, like an animal carcass.
About a week later some local ghoul pried the corpse's head off with a stick and left this gruesome object "lying on the prairie for some days, the brains oozing out in the broiling sun."
No one knew at this time who the victim was. He appeared middle-aged; he had curiously deformed forearms; and he had the physiological oddity of a double row of teeth. Although several Hutchinson residents thought that the man looked familiar to them, no one seemed able to identify him positively."

The Wikipedia entry also states that "His body was dragged down the town's Main Street while firecrackers were placed in his ears and nose." If you have any doubt of the validity of the claim that Native Americans were treated with extreme brutality in this country in the past, I encourage you to go and read some newspapers from the 1800s. The language and what it describes are appalling.

Until I get the original sources cited by Trenerry, I won't be able to see exactly what the 1863 accounts say about a "double row of teeth." As I have written previously (e.g., here, here, and here), context and exact wording are important. I found one later newspaper article that suggests to me, however, that the identification of a "double row of teeth" was based on a misinterpretation of the normal arrangement of tooth root sockets (alveoli) in the maxilla. A story in The New York Times (April 14, 1879) reads as follows:

GHASTLY RELICS.

The St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer-Press prints the following communication:

LANESBORO, Fillmore County, March 28.--The Pioneer-Press of March 20 states that Dr. Twitchell, of Chatfield, has presented the State Historical Society with a part of Little Crow's skeleton. The skull of that famous chief is now the most prized relic in my collection of Indian curiosities. It was presented to me by an esteemed friend, the Hon. James Farmer, of Spring Valley. Mr. Farmer had it secreted in his house for several years, hidden in a nook covered with lath and plaster. I am now corresponding with Mr. Lamson who shot Little Crow, and hope soon to possess the gun with which he was killed. The sister of Little Crow's slayer (Mrs. Frank Ide) lives within four miles of Lanesboro. The skull is fractured in places where the stake was thrust through when the citizens of Hutchinson carried it though the town in triumph. The alveolar process (which held the teeth) are double, showing that the chief must have had a double row of teeth in the upper jaw. I have the skulls of "Spotted Horse" and "Two Fathers." Also many relics from the scene of the Sioux-Pawnee massacre on the Republican River in 1872, which I gathered before the Indians were all dead. D. F. Powell, M. D.

This account suggests to me that Dr. Powell made the same basic anatomical mistake as Bigfoot researcher Daniel Dover: he interpreted the parallel rows of root sockets associated with maxillary molars as evidence that two rows of teeth had been present in life. Notice how he specifies that a "double row of teeth" was present in the upper jaw, not the lower jaw (the mandibular molars typically only have two roots). I could be wrong, but I think it's likely that Dr. Powell just didn't know what he was looking at. He would certainly not be the first physician in the 1800s (or today, for that matter) to demonstrate a less-than-perfect knowledge of human skeletal anatomy.

Apparently Little Crow's remains eventually ended up in the care of The Minnesota Historical Society. This website shows a photo of what is apparently Little Crow's scalp in the Smithsonian. The remains were returned to Little Crow's grandson in 1971 and subsequently buried.

Another thing worth knowing: the bodies of the Sioux executed after the war in 1862 were used for medical study. William Worrall Mayo, father of the brothers who founded the Mayo Clinic, received the remains of Mahpiya Okinajin (aka He Who Stands in Clouds aka Cut Nose) and reportedly kept them in a rendering kettle in his home and used them to teach his sons anatomy. The remains were returned to the Sioux in the 1990s. A piece of skin from Cut Nose, found curated at the Grand Rapids Museum, was also returned for reburial.

9 Comments

ATTENTION GIANT ENTHUSIASTS: Bigfoot Researchers Are Stealing Your "Evidence"

4/27/2015

11 Comments

I got very little reaction to my recent post that used quantitative data to explore the meanings of the idiomatic phrase "double rows of teeth" as applied to all kinds of things completely unrelated to giants. That hurts my feelings: it took me many hours to assemble those data (and at least $15.90 worth of Newspaper.com subscription fees), and I would have thought that at least one giant enthusiast would have tried to tell me I was wrong. Maybe that means they think I'm right? Or maybe it is just because they're not listening.

Anyway, the one thing I have discovered from the very limited response to that post is that at least some Bigfoot researchers also have a fetish for "double rows of teeth." I learned this when one person, in response to a posting of the latest "double rows of teeth" post on Facebook, posted a picture of the base of a skull from the Humboldt Sink Flats, Nevada, that purportedly showed evidence of double rows of teeth. The Humboldt Sink Flats are near Lovelock Cave, a site beloved by giant enthusiasts for several "unusual" human skulls that they say are evidence of giants (I'll write about Lovelock at some point when I have more time).

I reproduce below a photo of the Humboldt skull from this page about Bigfoot by Daniel Dover. The yellow arrows that Dover has added to the photo are supposed to show the sockets of a double row of teeth, while the blue arrow is supposed to show an actual "double tooth" still in place. As best I can tell, the original photo was taken from this 1967 publication by Erik Reed titled "An Unusual Human Skull from Near Lovelock, Nevada" (I don't yet have access to the original).

Photo of the base of the Humboldt skull allegedly showing evidence of a double row of teeth.

Here is what Dover says about the skull:

"If you thought the features couldn’t get any odder then you were wrong. The unusual features just keep rolling in. Pictured below is the underside of the Lovelock Skull displaying another unusual feature — it has double rows of teeth. Now, if that isn’t divergent from Homo sapiens then nothing is. This odd feature is demonstrated by holes in the roof of the mouth where double rows of missing teeth were once embedded. and a few double teeth still remain.

It should have been obvious even before looking inside a sasquatch’s mouth that this is not a human skull, yet experts in this field declare it is Homo sapien by default due to scientists being “unaware” of anything else to attach it to. The anthropologists who wrote the paper on this skull likened it to “. . . Eastern Asiatic subdivision of the general Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens.” So, they likened it to a “subdivision” of Homo sapiens who once lived during the Upper Paleolithic, that era lasting from 50,000 to 10,000 years ago, even though this skull is not anywhere near that ancient."

The dental features that Dover is pointing out as indicative of "divergent from Homo sapiens" are, in fact, absolutely normal features of a normal human dentition. Human maxillary molars (the large grinding teeth in the back of the upper jaw) typically have three roots: two on the cheek (buccal) side of the tooth and one on the tongue (lingual) side of the tooth. Mandibular molars generally only have two roots. Each root is associated with a socket, so each maxillary molar has three sockets (called alveoli). A diagram of a normal human palate missing all the teeth (source) shows the same morphology as the Humboldt skull:

Dover also tries to make a connection between Bigfoot and the skeletons from Delavan, Wisconsin. Good luck with that. You'll have to fight off L. A. Marzulli and the Nephilim brigade for ownership of the misinformation about that site.

I'm not really into Bigfoot, but it's clear that Dover isn't the only Bigfoot researcher who has latched onto the idea that the skeletons with "double rows of teeth" reported from the late 19th and earth 20th centuries may be the physical remains of Bigfoot (here's another example). The inability of Bigfoot researchers to produce physical remains of their own has led them, like giant enthusiasts, to claim for their cause any skeleton or skull that seems to be unusual. In addition to now claiming some of the same physical evidence and same misinterpretations of historical sources, giant enthusiasts and Bigfoot researchers also rely on the same lack of anatomical knowledge to perpetuate the idea that something is being hidden from them.

Each maxillary molar has three roots. Do you think they each only have one root? So each hole in the bone is from a single tooth? Did you think about looking into that a little bit before announcing that you know more than all the experts who have ever studied human anatomy? Go ask your dentist. Google it. Read a book. Stop being silly.

I do wonder, however, if this mistake was also made in the past and may have also contributed to the identification of skulls with only tooth sockets (i.e., where all the teeth have fallen out) as having had teeth arranged in multiple rows. It is another data point (along with things like the "giant's teeth" from Sardinia and the 1845 mastodon man) that highlights the generally low level of knowledge about human skeletal anatomy in our population. Unfamiliarity with features of the human skeleton and the comparative anatomy of humans and animals (even among health professionals such as dentists and physicians) has led to numerous misidentifications and misinterpretations and continues to do so. Maybe all giant enthusiasts and Bigfoot researchers should take an anatomy course before they can become certified. Maybe that's how I'll make my fortune: I'll develop an online training program that teaches basic familiarity with mammalian functional and skeletal anatomy. It's really not that tough to tell a cow's tooth from a human tooth, or to count the roots on a molar - I'm pretty sure I can help just about anyone achieve basic proficiency in that sort of thing. Let me know if you're interested. I'll start a sign-up sheet. Seriously.

Update (5/3/2015): Daniel Dover let me know on Facebook that he edited his original post. Here is what he said:

"Hello Andy White. I corrected that portion of my article, which I meant to do a good while back after [Micah Ewers] pointed out what looks like double teeth is likely just roots of molars. I had forgotten about it but I rewrote that portion. However, I find it interesting that there are several reports of double rows of teeth in large skeletal finds. Not to say I care for the condescending approach toward me and bigfoot in general, but I appreciate the correction anyway."

As far as the "several reports of double rows of teeth," I refer the interested reader to the now extensive work I've done discussing the various permutations and meanings of the peculiar phrases "double rows of teeth" and "double teeth all around," which are uncritically interpreted by giant enthusiasts (and apparently also Bigfoot enthusiasts) as indicating something abnormal, inhuman, of even supernatural. That's not what those phrases were intending to indicate in the large majority of cases - read some of my work on it and see for yourself.

In response to my "condescending approach," I would say that when you make such a basic error in anatomy as interpreting normal tooth root sockets as evidence that a skull is nonhuman while also saying that you know more than all the "experts" in human anatomy . . . you're asking for the that kind of treatment. And to be made aware that you made such a basic error but just to let it sit out there for years (? I don't know the date of the original post - I think it might have been 2012 or 2013?) . . .That doesn't suggest to me a great deal of concern about getting the details right.

The link to Dover's new post is the same as the old one, so the original text I quoted in my blog post is no longer visible. Dover's section about the teeth now reads:

"Included in the odd features of this skull are what appears to some to be double rows of teeth, an idea championed by M.K. Davis and others. Pictured below is the underside of the Lovelock Skull displaying the supposed double rows of teeth; however, the holes seen in the photo below are normal dentition found in humans caused by the multiple roots on molars."

I'll get back to the Lovelock and Humboldt Sink skulls at some point in the future. There are so many misinterpretations and misrepresentations about these remains that it's hard to decide what to look at next.

11 Comments

"Double Rows of Teeth" in Historical Perspective

4/21/2015

4 Comments

In previous posts, I have provided several isolated examples (e.g., President Teddy Roosevelt, boxer Jack Johnson, comedian Cecil Lean, Teapot Dome Scandal figure Roxie Stinson, actress Helen Lowell, and several more in this post) that demonstrate that the phrase "double rows of teeth" (or "a double row of teeth") was an idiom often used in the 19th and early 20th centuries to describe a full, normal set of teeth. When used to describe living individuals, it often described a healthy smile: "better" than normal rather than something abnormal.

As becomes quickly apparent when looking at period newspapers, however, the phrase "double rows of teeth" did not always mean just a healthy smile. In some cases it actually does appear to have been used to indicate the presence of multiple, concentric rows of teeth in the same portion of the jaw. This presents an interesting historical-linguistic problem: if the phrase was used in multiple ways, how can we determine what the intent was when it was used to describe the teeth of skeletons? As an archaeologist, my inclination is to collect data and look for patterns. If the use of these idiomatic phrases was not simply random (i.e., there were cultural "rules" underlying their use) we may be able to recognize patterns in the way the phrases were used that will help us understand their intended meanings. If we can discover patterns in circumstances where the intent can be ascertained directly (i.e., where the phrase was used to describe something known), we may be able to understand the intent of the phrases in cases that are less clear (i.e., where the phrase was used to describe something unknown, such as a skeleton).

I collected 160 examples of the use of the phrases "a double row of teeth" and "double rows of teeth" from newspaper stories dating from 1822 to 1992. (Note: to cut down a little on wordiness, I'm just going to say "double rows of teeth" for the rest of this post - I'm including both variants of the phrase in my analysis, however.) I used both Newspapers.com (again, taking one for the team by ponying up my $7.95/month subscription fee) and the newspapers available via the Library of Congress. I'm sure the sample size could be greatly increased with access to more newspapers, but this is enough to get started and see some patterns.

Key used to classify what was being described by the phrase "double rows of teeth."

I created a database of the examples I found. For each example, I created an entry that recorded the year, the decade, and the exact phrase itself. I then coded what the phrase was describing using a simple dichotomous key (illustrated). Was the phrase describing a lost dog? That would be "animate-nonhuman-alive." Was the phrase describing a rake? That would just be "inanimate." I also recorded a brief textual description: shark, lizard, sea serpent, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.

Next, I classified each example according to whether it was describing rows of teeth that were "opposed" or "layered." Opposed rows of teeth are like those found in a normal human mouth: there are two rows of teeth (one in each jaw) that meet when you bite down. Layered rows of teeth, in contrast, are present when there are multiple rows of teeth in each jaw, one behind another (like in a shark). In cases where I could not determine whether the phrase was intended to describe opposed rows or layered rows, I coded it as "indeterminate."

An analysis of these data revealed several interesting things:

First, the phrase "double rows of teeth" peaked in popularity at about the same time as reports of giant skeletons;

Second, the phase "double rows of teeth" was used to describe both humans and animals of various kinds, as well as inanimate objects such as rakes and combs;
Third, the configuration of teeth described by the phrase shifts over time: while more commonly used to describe opposed rows of teeth in the mid- late-1800s, it is now almost exclusively used to described layered rows of teeth.

Put these together and they explain both (1) why the phrase "double rows of teeth" appears to be strongly associated with "giant skeletons" (although its not) and (2) why it is so commonly misinterpreted today among those who don't bother to try to understand the context of what they're looking at. I'll go through the points one by one.

Plot of number of examples of phase "double rows of teeth" in database by decade.

Popularity

First, let's look at the use of the phrase through time. The figure to the right shows the occurrence of my 160 examples by decade. The occurrence of the phrase "double rows of teeth" peaks in the late 1800s, very similar to the time when accounts of "giant" skeletons are at their peak in US newspapers (see this post for a graph from my in-progress database of giant reports).

If you're a giantologist, you might have just said "ah ha!" thinking that the similar tiime frame of the peaks supports your idea that the finding/reporting of giant skeletons with double rows of teeth is responsible for both distributions. Before you start celebrating, I should tell you that only a handful (perhaps three out of 160) of the examples in my database have anything to do with the possible remains of "giant" skeletons. That's next.

Who/What Had "Double Rows of Teeth"?

The large majority (131 out of 160) of the examples that I located used the phrase "double rows of teeth" to refer to living people and animals - not giant skeletons. I also found a handful of examples that used the phrase to describe inanimate objects.

The Hellbender, a large salamander native to the eastern United States, has two concentric rows of teeth.

The animal examples are interesting because they clearly show that the phrase was used to describe creatures with opposed teeth (such as mammals) and animals with layered teeth (such as sharks and some fish). On the opposed teeth team we have bats, bears, dogs, lizards, alligators, horses, mountain lions, tapirs, porpoises, opossums, moray eels, and a camarasaurus. On the layered teeth team we have sharks, several kinds of trout/salmon, various other fish, and some dogs with abnormal dentitions. I have no quantitative analysis (yet), but I think there is an interesting pattern of using the phrase "double rows of teeth" in connection with an impression of fearsomeness or aggression. It seems to often be used to describe animals with teeth that are opposed but visibly protrude past one another (e.g., bulldogs, alligators, etc.).

The human examples also describe a variety of conditions, from the healthy (opposed rows) smile of Teddy Roosevelt to the "abnormal" (layered rows) dentitions of sideshow attractions and persons with birth defects. Because of this range, It is not always clear what the meaning the accounts are intending to convey. Again, I have no quantitative data but I think there is something interesting in the deeper meaning of how this phrase is applied to humans. In some instances it seems to be implying some status of being animal-like or otherworldly. This is something to investigate further in the future.

The inanimate objects that are described with the phrase also can have opposed or layered rows of teeth. The picture to the left (an advertisement from The Times, March 22, 1895) shows a rake with "a double row of teeth" arranged in layers. The Piqua Daily Call (September 16, 1902) had a short piece about a comb buried with St. Cuthbert:

“It was formerly the custom to bury combs with the dead, which clearly shows that these articles of the toilet had sacred significance in the eyes of the people of the old world. The comb buried with St. Cuthbert and now preserved at Durham, England, is of ivory and measures 6 ¼ inches in length and 4 ½ inches in width. It is ascribed to the eleventh century and has a double row of teeth, divided by a broad, plain band, perforated in the middle with a round hole for the finger.”

As shown in the drawing reproduced here (source), St. Cuthbert's comb had opposed rows of teeth (facing in opposite directions). Other inanimate objects with "double rows of teeth" include dump rakes, fish scalers, electric de-tangling combs, and dentures.

Change in Meaning Through Time

It is clear that the phrase "double rows of teeth" was meant in some cases to describe opposed rows of teeth and in others to describe layered rows of teeth. The balance of these intents has not stayed constant through time. When I take my dataset and calculate the percentage of these two different uses by decade, the results clearly show a shift through time away from descriptions of opposed rows and toward descriptions of layered rows:

The implications of this are easy to see. The phrase sounds strange to our ears now because it is not one that we commonly use. And when we do use the phrase "double rows of teeth" in current idiomatic English, we understand it to mean teeth that are arranged in layered rows. When "giant skeletons" were being reported in the mid- to late-1800s, however, the phrase was more commonly understood to mean teeth arranged in opposed rows. That doesn't mean that the phrase was never used to describe layered rows of teeth: it clearly was. In reference to humans, however, it was more commonly used to describe opposed rows of teeth which were perhaps abnormal only in their soundness.

I think it's pretty clear that the phrase "double rows of teeth" was an idiom that existed and was used quite independently of "giant skeletons:" the apparent association between the two is created not by an actual relationship, but by a temporal coincidence. It is a mirage produced by the overlap of the period of popularity in reporting "giant skeletons" and the period of popularity of an idiomatic phrase that was used to describe a wide range of things.

I'm not sure how long it will take giant enthusiasts to understand this component of the story or to learn the lesson about putting their accounts of giants in context. Just last week I heard an interview with an author of one of the recent books alleging that the Nephilim built the earthen mounds of North America STILL talking about "double rows of teeth" as a marker of prehistoric populations.

It's idiotic and disingenuous at this point to continue to say such things.

4 Comments

Evolution, "Devolution," and the Incredible Shrinking of Humanity: Why Creationists Love Giants

1/23/2015

10 Comments

I'm not sure what the origin of this drawing is, but I got it from biblelandstudios.com. And by making that single attribution I have exceeded the scholarship standards of most pieces of "evidence" for giants that circulate on the internet.

When I started writing blog posts examining the evidence for a so-called “race” of giants, several people asked me about the apparent connection between the giants renaissance and creationism. My answer was simple: creationists feel that evidence of giants would be proof that the Bible was true and evolution was not. As we are often reminded, some translations of Genesis 6:4 say that “there were giants in the earth in those days.” The existence of giants, therefore, would be consistent with a Bible that is literally true. And if the Bible is true, then evolution is false.

I still think that explanation holds water: creationists (at least some of them) see the existence of giants as a key component in their case for a literal Bible. If you can find one skeleton of an ancient human that is significantly larger than any person we know of today, you’ve proven your case: the Bible would account for that but evolutionary theory could not. That’s the main idea, anyway.

As I’ve explored the question more, however, I think I have come to a better understanding of why some creationists really love giants. While it seems clear to me in retrospect, it wasn’t obvious when I first started seriously thinking about this issue a few months ago. I’m guessing that it is probably also not obvious to many others out there who also were not raised with a creationist belief system. So I thought it would be worthwhile to write it out, as I think this provides some context for understanding some dimensions of the current fascination with giants.

The love affair that some creationists have with giants stems not only from the desire to demonstrate that a few isolated (possibly mistranslated) passages in the Old Testament are literally true, but from what is actually a more-or-less coherent theory of prehistory. Using a very broad brush, I will call this the “Biblical theory of prehistory” (BTOP). The BTOP is based on a creationist understanding of the meaning and implications of Genesis. It explains changes through time in the natural world (following a supernatural creation) as the result of a “devolutionary” process of degeneration. Here is my paraphrase of the tenets of the BTOP as I understand it (advocates of this view of the world should feel free to comment and tell me if I’m misstating something):

God’s original creation was perfect
As time has passed since creation, that original perfection has naturally degenerated
The world we see today, and the creatures in it, are less than perfect as a result of a long process of “devolution”

Giant enthusiasts applying the BTOP link together the existence of large extinct animals (that we can understand via the fossil record), the long human lifespans reported in the Old Testament, and the Biblical mentions of “giants” as in Genesis 6:4. In this case, bigger is better: humans and that existed closer to the time of creation were larger in size and closer to perfection than the humans of today. The running down of the clock since creation has resulted in humans and animals that are smaller, simpler, and farther from perfection.

Joe Taylor, author of the book Giants Against Evolution and sculptor of a 47” femur, spells it out in this interview (about 21:40 minutes in):

“They [scientists and museums] want to keep up this story that we evolved from some fish that turned into a monkey and then turned into Man. The giants just mess that whole story up. And whether they agree that these giants were fathered by angels – they can’t have that because angels are spirits, God is a spirit, demons are spirits . . . they can’t believe any of that stuff. Well then they have to attribute it to people growing larger back then. Well, wouldn’t that go against the theory of evolution? That people used to get bigger and better and more hands, more toes, more teeth and fingers? So evolutionists cannot account for giantism, so they just ignore it or destroy the information.”

There are several things of interest in that statement.

First, Taylor clearly says that things going from bigger to smaller would “go against the theory of evolution.” I had an “ah-ha” moment (or maybe it was an “oh duh” moment) when I heard him say that, because I remembered reading a similar statement expressed in Richard Dewhurst’s awful book (The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America, pg. 8):

“We are shown charts of man becoming bipedal and each “new” man being bigger and smarter than the last. This is in direct contradiction to the charts we use for every other animal we study. We have only to look at a bird and be told that it was once a dinosaur to know how false this paradigm of man’s growth is. Look at the evolution of most animals, and the record says they got smaller over time, not bigger. However, with all the modern edifices of education built on the theory of evolution and the growing stature of humanity, we can’t very well have the Smithsonian running around telling people that we have degenerated from an ancient race of giants who once ruled America, now can we?”

Once you start to look, it is easy to find examples of creationists stating that: (1) the big-to-small sequence of change is common (even universal) among animals in the fossil record; (2) that pattern is a result of degeneration or “devolution;” and (3) that pattern is the opposite of what the theory of evolution predicts.

Second, Taylor ties the presence of “more toes, more teeth and fingers” (I’m going to assume that he misspoke when he said “more hands”) of humans in the past to those humans being closer to perfection. This was another “ah-ha” moment for me because it is a clear expression of why giant enthusiasts are so uncritically fascinated with “double rows of teeth:” more teeth equals better human. It is only logical that these larger, longer-lived, more perfect humans had more teeth than us, right, because that would be more “complex.” The incredible shrinking of humanity also included losing features of our anatomy that were present when we were perfect.

(I have written numerous posts now about the “double rows of teeth” issue as it pertains to the accounts of skeletons unearthed in 19th century and early 20th century America: see my “Ancient Giants” page. There are more on the way).

In essence, the BTOP purports to challenge the theory of evolution by asking “if evolution predicts that things get bigger and more complicated over time, why do we have so many examples of things getting smaller and less complicated?” The BTOP is presented as a “devolutionary” theory, naturally opposed to an “evolutionary” theory.

Anyone familiar with modern evolutionary thinking will immediately recognize what is going on here: the BTOP is presented as counterpoint to a kind of evolutionary thinking that doesn’t really exist among scientists today. Creationists who love giants are attacking a windmill. Let me explain.

Use of the term “devolution” implies that evolution has a direction. That alone signals a fundamental misunderstanding of the tenets of evolutionary theory and the mechanisms and results of evolutionary change. The vast majority of scientists today who employ evolutionary theory as a framework for understanding the natural world probably define “evolution” as something along the lines of “a change in gene frequencies over time” or even simply “change over time.” Notice what is missing from those definitions: any notion of “progress” or “direction.” Evolution is not goal-seeking and does not strive to produce something “better.” Over large scales of time and space, evolution has produced a diverse array of plant and animal species and a natural world that is complex (in that it has many different but inter-related parts), but evolutionary theory does not specify that every plant and animal goes from “simple to complex” or “primitive to advanced” or "small to big." It doesn’t work that way and no evolutionist will tell you that it does. Do some things have bigger ancestors? Sure. Do some things have smaller ancestors? Sure. So what?

The “theory of evolution” that advocates of the BTOP are positioning themselves in opposition to is actually a 19th century conception of evolution as a “progressive” process. This view has largely gone extinct, and we should all be happy for its demise. Why? Because it had no scientific merit and was employed politically to inflict great misery on many peoples of the world.

Nineteenth century Euroamerican ideas about the “progressive” biological and social evolution of humans mixed Darwin’s ideas about “survival of the fittest” with the classification of humans based on their observable physical characteristics (skin color, hair texture, facial structure, etc.) and the technological “advancement” of their societies (savagery, barbarism, civilization). (For a taste, have a look at The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of Man by Sir John Lubbock). Peoples and societies were ranked based on the notion that those that were more “advanced” were inherently superior. Guess which peoples came out on top of these rankings? The misapplication of Darwin’s ideas about biological natural selection to the physical and cultural variation that was apparent among living human groups provided a convenient justification for the subjugation of non-European peoples across the globe: fans of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery were fans of progressive evolution, Scientific Racism, and polygenism. So were the eugenicists. And the Nazis. Notions of “progressive” evolution were applied in political contexts, often with incredible negative and tragic outcomes.

It should go without saying, but the topic of this post makes it obvious that it doesn’t: these 19th century notions that human biological/social variation is the result of some kind of “progressive” evolution are not part of modern, mainstream evolutionary thought. There - I even put it in bold so that it's easy to see. Anyone who takes a moment to try to understand what modern evolutionary theory actually is will quickly understand what it's not.

Creationists, at least those who love giants, have apparently chosen to ignore what evolutionary theory actually is and instead wage a war against some Frankenstein 19th century notion of “progressive” evolution. Consider the following passage from creationwiki.org:

“Charles Darwin theorized that evolution was a process of getting to perfection, where Christian creationists understand that the original sin of the first man Adam has brought degeneration, disease, and essentially [devolution] into the world.”

Getting to perfection? Okey dokey then.

That’s like me trying to mount an argument against the usefulness of modern medical practice by refuting the Hippocratic theory of the four bodily humors.

People who understand what “evolution” actually means in the modern sense will spot an irony here: the BTOP is itself essentially an evolutionary theory. It is evolutionary because it recognizes that plants and animals have changed through time, and specifies mechanisms that explain patterns of change. In other words, the BTOP provides a general explanation of the way the world has changed that acknowledges that the plants and animals that are present today are not the same ones that were present earlier in prehistory.

To be clear, just because I call the BTOP a “theory” does not mean it is a scientific theory or that its advocates are scientists. The opposite is true. The BTOP is a belief system masquerading as science: in science we use theories about the world to generate expectations which can be falsified based on observations. That is not what advocates of the BTOP do. They are simply looking for evidence to support an answer that they think they already have. They say they are doing science, but in the absence of any attempt at testing or falsifying, they are most certainly not. You can say you are doing science all you want, and you can display your “evidence” in a building and call it a museum, but without some kind of attempt to determine if your answers about the world are correct or incorrect, you’re not doing science.

Joe Taylor’s 47” femur sculpture based on an anonymous letter? Not evidence.

Chris Lesley’s imagination-based “replica” skull with three rows of teeth? Not evidence.

The strategy seems to be to just keep throwing pieces of baloney at the wall until one of them sticks.

Good luck with selling that as a scientific approach to understanding the past.

The eagerness to accept, prop-up, and even manufacture any piece of “evidence” that seems to support the existence of ancient giants is consistent not with a desire to understand the world scientifically but with a desire to demonstrate a “known” (what the Bible says) by assembling evidence that supports it. There is a real lack of critical thinking here and a real reluctance to ask “what part of this idea could be wrong?” If I ask you the question “what evidence would you accept that your idea is wrong?” and you answer “there isn't any,” you’re not doing science. Read that sentence twice.

This is a broad brush essay. There is much more to talk about on this topic with regard to how the BTOP deals with human/primate fossil remains (especially those that are considered to be “large”) and the diversity of opinions about what these imaginary ancient giants actually were. Once you get past the commonality of “giants in those days” you will find little coherence or agreement among the spectrum of individuals that are spinning tales about the Nephilim, antediluvian giants, evolution/devolution, etc. Were these pre-Flood giant humans “perfection” or were they the product of corruption? Did they continue to exist after the Flood? If so, how and why? Were they natural or supernatural? How do you reconcile the chronology provided by archaeology with that of the Bible? These are all great things for giantologists to discuss amongst friends who take it as a given that giants existed because it is written in the Bible.

There is one other thread that unites these folks: the desire to sell books and DVDs.

The lack of agreement among giant enthusiasts about the particulars of the story doesn’t by itself mean that a BTOP is wrong, of course. But it does resonate with an approach that combines a great emphasis on collecting and interpreting “evidence” with a nearly complete lack of interest in testing any components of the BTOP by using that evidence. It explains why creationists love giants, but by itself does nothing to strengthen the argument that there actually were giants. For that you would need evidence and some will to evaluate that evidence in light of the expectations generated by the theory. So far I haven’t seen a speck of evidence that convinces me that there is any need for a theory other than that of evolution to account for the history of life on earth and the fossil record as it relates to human origins.

10 Comments

Your Daily Double Row of Teeth: G. Creighton Webb (1854-1948)

1/18/2015

1 Comment

G. Creighton Webb: what secrets to humanity's antediluvian past were concealed behind that fabulous mustache?

G. Creighton Webb led a long and interesting life: son of a general, Yale graduate, music librarian, colonel in the Spanish-American War, and diplomat to Russia (see brief biography here; the New York Historical Society curates a collection of his papers).

Through it all, he took good care of his teeth:

“Manhattan’s reigning Grand Old Man is Col G. Creighton Webb, a gallant and handsome remnant of that fine old Knickerbocker stock that once supplied the city with its real 400. Col. Webb is 80 and wears his crisp white mustache, evening clothes and silk hat with the jauntiness of a young blood. A chevalier, whose ribbon was handed to him by Marshal Foch in person, he has the courtesy and repertory of genteel phrases of a long-lost social era. His firm double row of teeth are without a single filling and he has the springy gait of an athlete.”

That story was printed in The Waco News-Tribune, (December 26, 1933).

How do we account for Colonel Webb's "double row of teeth"? As in any such mystery, one can construct several alternative explanations. Since the giantologists have apparently chosen not to participate in my efforts to understand what "double row of teeth" might actually have meant, I will construct some explanations for them based on my understanding of their ideas about prehistory. If they would speak for themselves I wouldn't have to do this. But they have chosen to remain stubbornly silent on this important issue.

Alternative 1: The phrase "double row of teeth" is an idiom that was commonly used to describe a full mouth of teeth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. Its use in the passage about Colonel Webb fits that pattern, as do previous examples I have provided (President Teddy Roosevelt, boxer Jack Johnson, comedian Cecil Lean, Teapot Dome Scandal figure Roxie Stinson, actress Helen Lowell, and several more in this post). There was nothing unusual about Webb's teeth other than they appeared remarkably plentiful and healthy for a man of his age.

Alternative 2A: Colonel Webb had extra teeth in his mouth that link him to a lost race of giants. The phrase "double row of teeth," used to describe the dentitions of many skeletons unearthed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States, should be taken literally as an indication that multiple, concentric rows of teeth were present. Because this phrase was used to describe "large" skeletal remains, we can presume that it identifies a genetic condition that signals membership in a giant "race." Colonel Webb was therefore a member of that giant race.

Alternative 2B: Colonel Webb had extra teeth in his mouth because he was super old. His extra rows of teeth weren't there just there because of a genetic connection to a "lost race," but because people in the past lived longer than people in the present. Back in the day (i.e., of Adam, Noah, etc.), humans grew taller and developed extra sets of teeth as their incredibly long lives wore on. Thus Colonel Webb's teeth are evidence of a "greater ancestry" of humans.

Now, the alert reader who has been paying attention will know which alternative I think is the most likely. As I stated earlier (in this post), there are clear historical examples of the phrases "double row of teeth" and "double rows of teeth" being used to describe the presence of multiple rows of teeth (or "extra" teeth) in the same jaw (e.g., two rows of maxillary teeth). I will be discussing those in future posts. The point that I would like to bring home (and that I would like the giantologists to acknowledge), is that the phrase "double row of teeth" was commonly used to describe perfectly normal dentitions in living individuals. Why, then, would we automatically assume that it was describing something bizarre or even supernatural when used to describe the dentitions of skeletal remains? In short, we shouldn't: it's a silly assumption and I believe that I have shown it to be unwarranted.

If someone would like to make the case that the phrase "double row of teeth" in the historic examples I have provided was intended to mean anything other than a normal, full set of teeth, I would love to hear it. Was Colonel Webb a member of a lost race of giants? Was he one of our antediluvian ancestors? If you can't or won't make the case for Alternatives 2A or 2B, I would be interested to know how you plan to interpret phrases like "double row of teeth" in your future discussions of giants.

Thank you for your time.

1 Comment

Your Daily Double Row of Teeth: Roxie Stinson

1/17/2015

1 Comment

Roxie Stinson (left) has her palm read by a fortune teller.

In my ongoing effort to understand the meanings of the phrases "double rows of teeth" and "double row of teeth" as they were used to describe the features of so-called "giant" skeletons, I have found another example that the giantologists can put in their files and re-post numerous times on the internet: Roxie Stinson.

Roxie Stinson was at one time married to Jesse Smith, a member of President Warren G. Harding's "Ohio Gang." Smith committed suicide as pressure mounted on the Harding administration in what became known as the Teapot Dome Scandal. Stinson's testimony in front of the U. S. Senate was scandalous and of great interest to the public. An article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle (April 6, 1924) described Stinson's appearance and demeanor:

“There is nothing in Roxie Stinson’s face to give a clew to her remarkable performances. The features are sharply defined, and there is a certain rigor noticeable when she is impassive, but her nostrils are extremely sensitive and rather winning smiles come readily. The mouth is attractive, firm, and closely set when she is serious, but the slightest smile reveals a beautiful double row of teeth, fit for a dental paste advertisement.”

There you have it.

I couldn't find much additional information about Stinson. Maybe she also had six fingers and six toes. After all, nowhere in the story about her Senate testimony does it say she DIDN'T have six fingers and six toes. So it's certainly possible. Confronted with a lack of direct evidence about a lack of polydactyly, however, we COULD make the simpler presumption that her anatomy was normal. Just a thought.

1 Comment

Your Daily Double Row of Teeth: Jack Johnson (1878-1946)

1/16/2015

4 Comments

Heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson (aka "The Galveston Giant") displaying his double row of teeth.

If you believe, as many prominent giantologists do, that having a “double row of teeth” is strongly associated with membership in a lost race of giants in ancient North America, you will be interested to hear about the case of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. Johnson’s story is a remarkable one that speaks volumes about the nature of race, society, and culture in turn-of-the-century America. I recommend the Ken Burns film “Unforgivable Blackness” (watch a short teaser).

For the purposes of understanding the nature of the evidence for a lost race of giants, however, it is the description of his teeth that is important. The following newspaper story was written after Johnson was charged with a violation of the Mann Act (Oakland Tribune, June 29, 1913):

“Jack Johnson, champion pugilist heavyweight of the world, and his white wife, who was Lucille Cameron, went aboard the steamer Corinthian tonight preparatory to sailing for France early tomorrow. The big fighter wore his famous broad smile, showing his double row of teeth for the first time in many weeks as he walked up the gangplank of the steamer.”

See - a double row of teeth. It's written right there.

The Mann Act (1910) was a Federal law that was originally intended to address the problem of human trafficking for purposes of prostitution. The vague wording of the act made it possible to treat various “unapproved” consensual sexual acts between adults as a crime, allowing the law to be used as a tool to prosecute and harass. The targeting of Jack Johnson in 1912 followed his stunning win over James Jefferies in the “Fight of the Century” (1910) and his marriage to a white woman (the second of three). Johnson kept on smiling.

One of Johnson’s nicknames was “The Galveston Giant” (he stood just over 6’ tall). So there you have it: another giant with a double row of teeth. You’re welcome.

4 Comments

<<Previous

I Spent $20 to Find Out that Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman Have Learned Nothing About "Double Rows of Teeth" Over the Past Year

Happy Thanksgiving, Critical Thinkers: "The Argumentative Archaeologist"

Six Fingers AND "Double Rows of Teeth"? Show me.

The Remains of Little Crow

ATTENTION GIANT ENTHUSIASTS: Bigfoot Researchers Are Stealing Your "Evidence"

"Double Rows of Teeth" in Historical Perspective

Evolution, "Devolution," and the Incredible Shrinking of Humanity: Why Creationists Love Giants

Your Daily Double Row of Teeth: G. Creighton Webb (1854-1948)

Your Daily Double Row of Teeth: Roxie Stinson

Your Daily Double Row of Teeth: Jack Johnson (1878-1946)

Archives

Categories