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

Take a Wild Guess What You Could Purchase in 1907?

1/14/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
In 1907 you could buy a double row of teeth.  You could get two dentures (an upper row and a lower row) for the price of one if you visited Dr. C. C. Smith in San Bernardino, California.

Look at the ad on page 9 of the
San Bernardino County Sun, January 20, 1907.  You can find it on Newspapers.com, which I'm guessing is the newspaper archive website that many of you giantologists use.  If you don't have a subscription and you don't believe me, you can pay the same $7.95 I did.  Luckily I still have 6 more days left of my first month. Maybe I can put this "double rows of teeth" thing to bed with some time left over to solve one of the other "mysteries" upon which you are basing your television programs and books. 

Is it sinking in yet how silly this is?




0 Comments

An Ancient Giant Speaks: Nephilim Actress Helen Lowell's Voice Captured on Film

1/14/2015

1 Comment

 
PictureHelen Lowell: you know she was an ancient giant because her films are all in black and white.
In my continuing effort to evaluate the often-repeated claim of giantologists that there is a strong connection between large skeletons and “double rows of teeth,” I am finding more and more examples of individuals that I think the giantologists should be made aware of.  If they take seriously their contention that the phrases “double rows of teeth” and “double row of teeth” were always used to describe an anomalous dental condition that can serve as a marker of an ancient race of giants, they will be interested in the case of film and stage actress Helen Lowell (1866-1937), a turn-of the century individual described as having a double row of teeth. You want to hear the voice of an ancient giant?  Here’s your chance!

You can learn about Helen’s film and stage career from her IMDB entry.  The important thing for our purposes is a 1905 article titled “How An Actress Feels When Her Teeth Begin To Go” describing and promoting a dental practice in Chicago (The Inter Ocean, April 2, 1905).  In this story, Helen Lowell offered a testimonial about the dental care she received from Dr. G. Gordon Martin while she was performing in a production of “Mrs. Wiggs in the Cabbage Patch.”

“ . . . Excepting for the discomfort of sitting in a chair with a rubber in my mouth—a coffer dam, I think they call it, and I’m ready to believe the last half of its name is true—I had not one single twinge of pain.  Look here—“
    And Miss Lowell parted her plump lips and showed as brilliant a double row of teeth as ever shone in any face.
    “Dr. Martin brought them up to that,” said she, “and dentally speaking, I’m fixed for life.”


And there you have it.  A double row of teeth fixed for life. With that kind of endorsement, perhaps Dr. Martin should have promoted himself as a dentist for ancient giants rather than a dentist for actresses. 

PictureA screen capture from "The Merry Frinks," where Nephilim giant Helen Lowell, in the role of Amelia "Grandma" Frink, can be heard scolding an impudent young man. I can only imagine how intimidating it would have been for that actor to be in the presence of a such a towering, powerful figure baring her double row of teeth in anger.
Fortunately for us, Helen's film career presents an opportunity to actually hear what one of these double-toothed giants of old actually sounded like -- finally we can move beyond speculation on this important topic.  Some of her  films, like “Isn’t Life Wonderful” (1924) were silent, leaving the viewer to only wonder about the voice of the antediluvian titan.  Luckily, however, Helen Lowell also appeared in some talkies. If you go about 55 seconds into this clip from “The Merry Frinks” (1934), you can hear an ancient giant with a double row of teeth say “You give that back you disrespectful little brat!”

You’re welcome.

Giantologists have been repeating the claim of a connection between large skeletons and “double rows of teeth” at least since I was in high school in the mid-1980s.  They’ve had many decades now to figure out this “mystery.”  It turns out that even the most cursory search of newspaper archives (the same archives they use to collect all of their examples) shows these phrases to be ones that were commonly used to describe the teeth of living individuals who most certainly were not ancient giants.  That begs the question of how hard they've actually been trying.  Either the giantologists haven’t really been putting a whole lot effort into trying to figure it out or they’d rather actually NOT figure it out.  I guess those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  (The third possibility, that they've tried really hard but just couldn't do it, I find to be unlikely given how easy it has been to collect this information).   Either way, the information is out there in plain sight and has been for a long time. 

Severing the link between “giant skeletons” and “double rows of teeth” undercuts one of the foundational claims/assumptions of many of the giantologists: that there was a “race” of giants that can be identified based on physical characteristics of the skeleton.   I’m still waiting for a response from any of them that want to defend this idea and tell me how Abigail Fillmore, Teddy Roosevelt, and Helen Lowell fit into their conceptions of giants, Nephilim, and what it means to have a "double row of teeth."

1 Comment

NEWS FLASH:  Teddy Roosevelt was a Nephilim Giant with a Double Row of Teeth

1/13/2015

3 Comments

 
PictureTeddy Roosevelt: Spoke softly, carried a double row of teeth.
As I mentioned in this post, I’m collecting information on the use of the phrases “double row of teeth” and "double rows of teeth" in late 19th and early 20th centuries American newspapers.  These phrases are thought by giantologists to describe the peculiar dental characteristics associated with a lost race of giants. 

There are numerous examples of the use of this phrase to be found, compiled, and analyzed, so it’s going to take a little while.

But I wanted to take a moment before my analysis is complete to immediately relay an important finding:  Teddy Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, was described in the newspapers as having a “double row of teeth.” 

A story reacting to an editorial about Roosevelt tips us off about his incredible teeth (Amador Ledger, December 16, 1904):

“All through his marvelous message the chief gentleman of the land, as the “elected president,” magnifies his accidental predecessor.  It is the same stale and unprofitable stuff over and over again and again.  Always short on common sense and the manners becoming his office, and long on uncommon impudence, chiefly about the “cravens,” “cowards” and “weaklings,” who don’t care a continental nor a colonial curse for him, his “big stick,” his double row of teeth, or ferocious mouth.  He cannot care less for them than they do for him, nor have a worse opinion of them.”

How's that for a Nephilim smoking gun?

Picture
Roosevelt’s teeth became celebrities in their own right.  As described in this article printed in the Kansas City Star (May 16, 1910), one could purchase one’s own set of “Teddy teeth:”

“The manufacturer of faker’s goods gave a rush order to some factory and placed on sale one day in New York City thousands of sets of “Teddy teeth.”  They were of wood, of mighty size, like little tombstones in a double row, bared by the grin of tensely drawn red wooden lips.”

A metal version of “Teddy’s Teeth” that included a whistle was a popular campaign novelty item during his 1904 re-election campaign, and is still a collectible today.

If you remember from my previous post, President Millard Fillmore and his daughter were also described as having a “double row of teeth.” I look forward to seeing how giantologists and Nephilim enthusiasts incorporate these new data points into their interpretations of America’s ancient past.  I suppose it is possible that use of the phrase “double row of teeth,” may not always describe the presence of multiple, concentric rows of teeth associated with a quasi-supernatural lost race of giants.  It looks like it could be just way to describe the presence of a mouth full of teeth.  Hmmm.  What do you think, giantologists?  Are we on to something here?

Sarcasm aside . . . nah, I can't put sarcasm aside. Sorry.


3 Comments

Four Individuals with a "Double Row of Teeth" to add to your Giant Nephilim File

1/10/2015

8 Comments

 
Proponents of the existence of an ancient “race” of giants are fond of quoting 19th century sources that describe skeletons with “double rows of teeth,” “double teeth in front,” and “double teeth all around.”  Giant enthusiasts who take an uncritical view of those accounts tend to see these phrases as equivalent, interpreting all of them as evidence that the lost race of giants was characterized by remarkable dental characteristics revolving around the presence of “double rows of teeth.” 

Here are some examples:

In A Tradition of Giants (2007:18-19), Ross Hamilton writes that the “recessive trait” of “double rows of teeth” was “always associated with extra-large frames.”

In The Nephilim Chronicles (2010:33), Fritz Zimmerman also implies that “double rows of teeth” is some kind of inherited trait:

"Another physical characteristic that is evident within this population is the physical abnormality of possessing a double row of teeth.  While a large skeleton would appear to be rare, in combination with a double row of teeth would imply that a single people is being represented."

Richard Dewhurst's attempt at synthesis in The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America (2014:66) is limited to a single sentence:

“Throughout the Indian lore of giants are also stories of skulls being found with double rows of teeth, called double dentitions.”

And if I had a nickel for every time Jim Vieira said “double rows of teeth” I wouldn’t have to be on the job market.

One problem, of course, is that the various phrases that are simplistically glommed into the category of “double rows of teeth” didn’t all mean the same thing.  I have addressed the meaning and use of the phrase “double teeth all around” and how it relates to the meaning of the term “double tooth” as a synonym of molar or grinder.  In my first post on the subject, I provided a single example of the use of the phrase “double row of teeth” to describe a person with normal (even ideal) teeth.  The “double” in that example was clearly referring to the presence of upper and lower rows of teeth rather that the presence of multiple, concentric rows of teeth in each jaw.  There are indeed two rows:  one in the maxilla and one in the mandible.

I can’t say exactly what each of the giantologists has in mind when he says “double rows of teeth,” but I’m guessing it’s more than a nice smile.  Maybe one of them could draw us a picture of what exactly a “double dentition” or “double rows of teeth” is supposed to be. Then we'll have some clarity.

Dewhurst’s book was one of the first (and worst) of the recent books on giants that I’ve purchased.  I couldn’t even make it through the whole thing.  I wrote a review of it on Amazon.com (if you want a more thorough treatment, read Jason Colavito’s review).  One person who commented on my review defended the book and went after my first blog post on “double rows of teeth,” noting that I’d only given a single example of the use of that specific phrase.

Fair enough.  The time has come to address the issue of what these accounts meant when they used the actual phrase “double row of teeth” or “double rows of teeth.”  I’ve started collecting data on that and it’s taking a while.  Hundreds of examples of the phrase came up in my first search, and it is clear that this phrase (unlike “double teeth all around") has several different meanings.  In some cases (often in reference to animals, but sometimes in reference to humans) it actually does mean “double rows of teeth” in the way that I think giantologists imagine it.  In other cases it very clearly was NOT intended to mean multiple, concentric rows of teeth.  And in some cases it is not yet clear to me what the intended meaning was.  It is going to take some sifting and sorting to try to figure out the patterns of usage of the phrase(s) when the intent is unknown.  The use of the phrase is somewhat nuanced.

I wanted to go ahead and provide a few examples, however, of individuals who were described in the press as having a “double row of teeth.”  I think you will agree that the descriptions of these individuals are not meant to imply anything but a normal mouth full of teeth.  If we are to believe that having “double rows of teeth” is a marker that can be used to identify and track an ancient race of giants, we are going to have to substantially modify who we’re including in that "race."
PictureMary Abigail Fillmore: does having a double row of teeth qualify her to be an antediluvian giant?
Mary Abigail Fillmore, daughter of President Millard Fillmore, was described in a story entitled “A Night at the White House” which ran in The Pittsburgh Gazette (February 11, 1850):

“In one personal feature alone she mirrors forth her sire—in a double row of teeth, strong, white and beautifully regular.  They are a predominant feature in the President, and so they are with his lovely daughter.”

[See addendum below: The story was actually about Mary Elizabeth Bliss, daughter of the 12th President of the United States, Zachary Taylor.]

A politician or lobbyist named Cassady (who I was unable to further identify) was described in a story about the politics of railroads in Illinois (The Edwardsville Intelligencer, February 18, 1874):

    “Cassady of McLean, a representative of the most radical and rampant extremists who are clamoring for more railroad legislation . . .
     “A man of gigantic frame, with large features, the jaws and chin indicating an iron will; a cavernous mouth, disclosing a double row of teeth that look solid enough to enable him to make a dinner on ten-penny nails, and withal a habit of showing his teeth when laughing derisively and twisting his face into various contortions that are absolutely beyond description . . .”


Miss Annie Pauline Scott, reported winner of a $10,000 prize in a beauty contest sponsored by circus magnate Adam Forepaugh, was described in a March 31, 1881, story in the Wyandot Herald:

“Her lips are full and expressive, of a bright vermillion tinge, and when severed by a smile reveal a double row of teeth that are typical in their regularity and dazzling whiteness.”

[Note: although irrelevant to the subject of giants, I will mention that other sources I found online state that Louise Montague, rather than Annie Pauline Scott, was the winner of the prize.  It is not clear to me which of these women actually won what might have been the first beauty pageant in American history, but both are described as having very nice teeth.]

Frederick Robinson, a circus or sideshow performer, was described in a June 8, 1884 story in The Times-Picayune:

    “Mr. Frederick Robinson was paid $350 a week for puffing out his fat belly, rolling his eyes, and showing his double row of teeth the size of headstones.  Mr. Robinson at 10 per cent of that sum would be well paid for all the acting he is capable of doing.”

Finally a description of a church sermon leaves little doubt what is meant by a "double row of teeth" (The Weekly Sun, March 9, 1900):

"One of our great divines has said “God put the tongue under the most secure guard possible—in the center of the skull, guarded by a double row of teeth and then again by a pair of lips.”  Yet it has been known to outwear that same double row of teeth, outwit the lips, and do untold mischief to the possessor and all others.”

So, if the presence of a “double row of teeth” is any indicator, our current roster of Nephilim giants is woefully under-staffed: we should add the daughter of the thirteenth President of the United States, a beauty queen, and an overpaid fat guy, as well as numerous other living people described in nineteenth century newspapers.  And, actually, everyone in creation.

The descendants of these four people and other individuals described as having a "double row of teeth" should be on alert: a crew from Search for the Lost Giants may ask to disinter the remains of your deceased relatives in order to look at their skulls.   They ended last season, after all, making a plea to dig up the grave of Benjamin Bucklin, who was described as having “double teeth all around.”

Or maybe, just maybe, it is starting to sink in that this whole "double rows of teeth" thing is not as simple as it once seemed.  I sure hope so.


ADDENDUM (1/17/2015):  After reading a different printing of the story referenced above with the title "A Night at the White House," I realized the story was actually about President Taylor's daughter, Mary Elizabeth Bliss, rather than Fillmore's daughter.  I regret the error. Here is a picture of Mary Elizabeth Bliss. I could not find one of her smiling.

Picture
Mary Elizabeth Bliss: does having a double row of teeth qualify HER to be an antediluvian giant?
8 Comments

New Website Section on "Ancient Giants"

1/3/2015

0 Comments

 
As the next semester gets closer, I will have to slow down the writing I've been doing on "ancient giants."  I'll probably also start writing about some others things again, and start putting some energy into the Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project, which has been in hibernation for a while.  I've added a new section to this website to list the various posts I've done on "giants" since November.  I'll add new entries as they appear.
0 Comments

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

12/21/2014

3 Comments

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

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

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

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

“Double Teeth All Around:” What the Phrase Means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen, Dr. Thompson. 

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

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

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

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

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

No. Not even close. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Giantologists Got Wrong

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

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

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

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

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


3 Comments

How About "Three Rows of Teeth"?  A Closer Look at the Description of Skeletons from Amelia Island, Florida

12/20/2014

18 Comments

 
PictureAmelia Island, Florida: not the home of a giant skull with three rows of teeth.
I have been challenged twice by Chris Lesley to explain a skull with “three rows of teeth” found in Amelia Island, Florida.  Commenting on my blog, Lesley wrote (emphasis added):

"I think what is written above is a good skeptical attempt, and i think some people may need an "out" door, any will do. There is simply more room for a double row of teeth in a person whose skull is abnormally thick (Concord, New Hampshire) as in many accounts. These jaws are said to be able to slip over the head of a full grown man and perfect all the way around in many accounts. I think its dishonest to assume some alternative to the semantics of a few (teeth were double) and assume intent of the writer. While so many other articles Like the finds in Amelia Island that not only that two skulls are said to have two rows of teeth, One of the skulls from Florida is said to have 3 rows of teeth. No explanation necessary, i will chose option 5) The author's rebuttal is cherry-picking. This research has been done by a handful of us giant-researchers now there is too many to count. For my part: by next year i will double the accounts that are available now. (with double rows of teeth) GAWM"

The acronym “GAWM” stands for Greater Ancestors World Museum, which Lesley runs.  The GAWM website has the following statement about the Amelia Island skeletons:

"Amelia Island Skulls with two rows of teeth

Amelia Island is practically in my back yard, about 40 miles from my location,  so this story strikes a higher interest level for me. On Amelia island multiple burial mounds were found containing skeletons, and artifacts. Out of the hundreds of skeletons only perfect teeth were found.

A skull was found on the island that i hope to replicate with some information. An extremely large skull with perfect teeth, and perfectly preserved was found on the island a massive skull with two rows of teeth, and one with three rows.  The third set being the start of a nucleus of a tooth. The skull was dry, not filled with soil in the cavities, perfect and complete.

Within a short time span of a couple of hours the skull crumbled to dust upon exposure to air.
"

Spoiler alert:  there is no “massive skull” with “three rows of teeth” described among the Amelia Island skeletons.  Lesley has mixed up different parts of the account and misinterpreted/misrepresented a description of an unusual, unerupted supernumerary tooth as “three rows of teeth.”

Lesley is referring to a description in the 1874 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (available here).  The following is a transcript of the paragraph about the teeth of the Amelia Island skeletons by Augustus Mitchell in a section titled “Antiquities of Florida” (pages 391-392) [number 440 in my database]:

    “The teeth of many of the crania of this mound were, without exceptions, in a perfect state of preservation, the vitrified enamel of these organs being capable of resisting exposure for centuries.  These teeth presented distinctive appearances throughout, in the absence of the pointed canines; the incisors, canine, cuspides, and bicuspids all presented flat crowns, worn to smoothness by the attrition of sand and ashes eaten with the half-cooked food.  A bi-section of some of these teeth showed the dental nerve to be protected by an unusual thickness on the surface of the crown.  Not one carious tooth was found among the hundreds in the mound.  Many were entire in the lower jaw, the whole compactly and firmly set. In some the second set was observed; while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw, whose alveolar process was gone, and the whole lower jaw ossified to a sharp edge; none showing the partial loss of teeth by caries and decay.
    . . .
    Pursuing my investigations, and excavating further toward the southeast face of the mound, I came upon the largest-sized stone ax I have ever seen or that had ever been found in that section of the country.  Close to it was the largest and most perfect cranium of the mound, not crushed by the pressure of the earth, complete in its form, quite dry, and no sand in its cavity; together with its inferior maxillary bone, with all the teeth in the upper and lower jaws.  Near by the side of this skull were the femoris, the tibia, the humerus, ulna, and part of the radius, with a portion of the pelvis directly under the skull.  All of the other bones of this large skeleton were completely or partially decayed.  Contiguous to this was nearly a quart of red ocher, and quite the same quantity of what seemed to be pulverized charcoal, as materials of war-paint.  Anticipating a perfect specimen in this skull, I was doomed to disappointment; for, after taking it out of the earth and setting it up, so that I could view the fleshless face of this gigantic savage, in the space two hours it crumbled to pieces, except small portions.  According to the measurement of the bones of this skeleton, its height must have been quite 7 feet.”


Two major discrepancies are notable between the 1874 description and Lesley’s characterizations of it. First, the account says "third set of teeth," not "three rows of teeth. Those are not the same thing. Second, the "largest and most perfect cranium" is not the one with the "third set of teeth."

The Accounts Says “Third Set” of Teeth, not “Three Rows of Teeth”

First, nowhere in account does Mitchell describe a skull with three “rows” of teeth (or two rows of teeth, for that matter).  On page 392, he writes (emphasis added):

"In some the second set was observed; while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw, whose alveolar process was gone, and the whole lower jaw ossified to a sharp edge; none showing the partial loss of teeth by caries and decay."

The use of the word “set” is the key here.  The term “second set” refers to the permanent teeth (as opposed to the “first set” or deciduous or “baby” teeth).  His reference to a “third set” is very specific, and involves observation of a single “nucleus of a tooth” that can be seen beneath the neck of one of the permanent teeth.  This “nucleus of a tooth” can only be seen because the alveolar process (the bone surrounding the teeth) was damaged, allowing an observer to see the roots of one of the permanent teeth.  The “evident signs of a third set” of teeth was a tooth developing among the roots of a permanent tooth.  This was noteworthy because it is not common for “new” teeth to develop after eruption of all the permanent teeth.  As is shown by the quotes below, however, the phenomenon was not unknown.

The following passages from The Pathology of the Teeth (1872) by Carl Wedl (available here) illustrate use of the term “set” to describe the succession of deciduous and permanent teeth and show what is meant by a “third set” of teeth (emphasis added):

"The second upper molars not unfrequently make their appearance before the corresponding lower teeth. With these, the first set of teeth, the milk or deciduous set is completed, generally by the end of the second, or occasionally not until the end of the third year" (pg. 74).

    "SECOND DENTITION.—The eruption of the first molars ushers in the shedding of the teeth.  They appear in the seventh year . . ." (pg. 76)

    "THIRD DENTITION.—The possibility of the occurrence of a third dentition is doubted, and even openly denied by many.  Its opponents assert that cases of presumed third dentition are merely instances in which the teeth have not emerged, but have remained imbedded within the jaw until the occurrence of senile resorption of the alveolar processes.  Deceptions may easily occur in regard to them, particularly among the ignorant, as well be evident from reference to the section upon the retention of teeth.  On the other hand, however, we ought not to persist in the denial of the occurrence of a third dentition, on the ground that it is contrary to the current physiological doctrines.
    The writers of former times,* Aristotle, Eusachius, and Albinus, mention a repeated renewal of the teeth.  In recent times, Fauchard, Bourdet, J. Hunter (the latter observed a third set of teeth in both jaws), Van Swieten, Haller, collected several such cases from different writers.  Hufeland describes a case which came to his knowledge.  In the one hundred and sixteenth year of life, new teeth were said to have made their appearance; six months after the loss of these, new molars appeared in each jaw.  Serres observed two cases in the Hopital del Pitie; one of a man thirty-five years old, who two lower central incisors fell out, and were replaced after a few months; the other of a man seventy-six years old, who, during convalescence from a bilious fever, experienced pain and swelling in the gum of the under jaw, which disappeared on the eruption of a tooth with several eminences in the place of the second molar on the left side.  The margins of the alveoli had not yet disappeared in this old man.
    C. A. Harris has no doubt that a third dentition does occur in extremely rare cases, and instances a number of examples where individuals, who for a long time had been toothless, acquired several teeth, or even an entire set, in extreme old age. . . ."
(pg. 87)

Wedl continues with his discussion of purported cases of “third dentitions” and teeth erupting very late in life.  Though an oddity (and a controversial one), there was nothing supernatural about these cases.  These were normal people with somewhat anomalous dental characteristics.

Here is other example of the use of the term “set” from the 1894 book The Anatomy and Pathology of the Teeth by Carl F. W. Bodecker (available here) (emphasis added):

"The Temporary, Deciduous, or Milk Teeth.--In the mouth of an infant, about the sixth month after its birth, we observe the appearance of the first teeth, which belong to the so-called “temporary” or “deciduous” set" (p. 22).

"Originally, the temporary teeth, like those of the permanent set, are possessed of roots which gradually become shortened by absorption, as the growth of the permanent teeth proceeds" (p. 264).

And again, from the 1896 book Dental Pathology and Practice by Frank Abbot (available here):

"The term “children’s teeth,” as here used, refers more particularly to the temporary or deciduous set, which are twenty in number . . ." (p. 90).

"It must be remembered that the permanent set of teeth—those that are to take the places of the temporary ones (ten in each jaw)—depend almost entirely for their regularity upon proper care and timely removal of the temporary teeth" (p. 92-93).

It is pretty clear to me that, in his description of the Amelia Island skeletons, Mitchell was simply saying that many of the skeletons had their permanent teeth (“the second set” or the "second dentition") and therefore were adults.  This was worthy of noting because of the low incidence of tooth decay that he observed (which was higher in the living populations at the time).  He noted the lack of tooth decay and specified that that the population contained adults rather than children (who would have naturally had a lower incidence of caries). This goes along with his discussion of the wear of the teeth (which is a great example of a wear pattern that could have easily been called “double teeth all around” if this was a less formal description in, say, a newspaper).

Mitchell mentioned a particular incidence of an unerupted tooth that was developing beneath a permanent tooth because it was an oddity.  In no way was he saying that the skull had "three rows of teeth."  Lesley is misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what Mitchell said in his description.

The “Massive Skull” Did Not Have a “Third Set” of Teeth

Second, Lesley has combined different parts of Mitchell's 1874 description to make it appear as though the largest skull had "three rows of teeth."  On his website, Lesley states that:

"A skull was found on the island that i hope to replicate with some information. An extremely large skull with perfect teeth, and perfectly preserved was found on the island a massive skull with two rows of teeth, and one with three rows.  The third set being the start of a nucleus of a tooth. The skull was dry, not filled with soil in the cavities, perfect and complete."

This is a jumbled up statement that equates "set" with "rows" and leaves the impression that there was a single large skull with three rows of teeth. That's simply not true.

As is plainly evident from the 1874 description supplied above, the “extremely large skull” is not the one with “three rows of teeth.”  Mitchell (1874:392) states that the “largest” skull (to which Lesley is referring) had “all the teeth in the upper and lower jaws.”  The skull with a “third set” of teeth, however, was described as missing most or all of the teeth on the mandible (“and the whole lower jaw ossified to a sharp edge”). These are not the same skulls: one has teeth in the mandible (lower jaw) and one does not.  It doesn't take a nuanced reading of the account to figure that out.

What the Giantologists Got Wrong

There is no “massive skull” with “three rows of teeth” described among the Amelia Island skeletons.  Lesley has mixed up different parts of the account and misinterpreted/misrepresented a description of an unusual, unerupted supernumerary tooth as “three rows of teeth.”

Why does Lesley conflate the two descriptions and interpret a clear description of a single supernumerary tooth as "three rows of teeth"?  That’s a question for him to answer.  Maybe he’ll clear it up for us here.  I can only speculate based on what he's told me on Facebook.  I suspect he mixes up the two parts of the account  because he really wants there to be a “giant” skull with multiple rows of teeth near where he lives.  Again, I'll let him explain why the existence of such a skull would be important. There isn’t such a skull described in the 1874 accounts from Amelia Island, however.

I'm not sure how you create a "replica" of something that never existed.  I will look forward to seeing Lesley’s planned "replication."  Maybe he will post a picture of it so we can all compare its details to Mitchell’s description. 

I also look forward to Lesley's explanation, if he wishes to provide one. I interacted with him briefly on Facebook, but quickly decided it would be more useful to have those interactions in a place where they were open for others to see. I'm under no illusions about changing Lesley's mind about anything.  Having a discussion in public, however, opens the possibility that I might be able to change someone else's mind about the validity of some of these claims.

18 Comments

More Misinterpretations: "Giants with Double Rows of Teeth" from Ohio

12/16/2014

10 Comments

 
PictureMedina County, Ohio: lots of barns, no giant skeletons with double rows of teeth.
In his book A Tradition of Giants (available here), Ross Hamilton presents his conclusions about the presence of “double rows of teeth” in large skeletons from Ohio and elsewhere.  Spoiler alert: none of the accounts of Ohio skeletons presented by Hamilton actually describes an individual with multiple, concentric rows of teeth.

Hamilton (2007:18-19) writes:

“The trait of double rows of teeth may date this Ohio mound (below) to a very early period, perhaps early or pre-Adena.  This now rare dental condition can be found with some frequency in the early reports. It is in modern races a rare and recessive trait.

The remarkable feature of these remains was they had double teeth in front as well as in back of the mouth and in both upper and lower jaws. (Seneca Township, Noble County, Ohio)

Such teeth were always associated with extra-large frames, and these people may have had a connection to a segment of the military Adena or their Archaic predecessors the Ohio Allegheny people who, in accord with Indian tradition, also boasted members of very large stature.”


Hamilton goes on to give three more examples of “double rows of teeth” in this section, including the skeleton from Deerfield, Massachusetts, that I discussed several days ago. He also provides an account from Medina County, Ohio, in support of the Adena giant soldier with “double rows of teeth” idea (pp. 92-94) and several accounts that he says describe cannibalistic giants with “double rows of teeth” from New York.  Hamilton (2005:115) weaves these various accounts into a cultural-historical timeline, tracking the “possible movement of the double-rows-of-teeth giant Lenape warrior class from extreme northern Ohio to the east, becoming the Stonish giants.” 

Okay. 

Hamilton’s interpretation is built on, among other things, the idea that “double rows of teeth” is a distinctive genetic condition (see above) that can be used to discern relationships among populations.  That assumption is not at all justifiable when these accounts are considered in their historic context.  As I have discussed here and in reference to “giant” skeletons from Ellensburg, Washington, northern New Mexico, and Deerfield, Massachusetts, the phrase “double teeth all around” was commonly used in nineteenth century America to describe a set of teeth that, because of their worn state, appeared to consist entirely of “double teeth” aka molars. 

"Double teeth all around" does not mean "double rows of teeth."  If you don't believe me, go to the Library of Congress and search for the phrase in its archive of historic newspapers and see what stories come up. They won't all be about giant skeletons.
You’ll find cases where the phrase is used to describe living individuals (and not just those with “extra large frames,” as Hamilton [2005:19] assures us).  Go a little crazy and search for "double teeth," also.  It might surprise you.

Having “double teeth all around” is a result of tooth wear, not genetics.  It was worthy of mention in these 19th century accounts because it was not a wear pattern that was typical of most individuals living at the time.  That does not make it a mystery, however, or something supernatural.

Back the Ohio accounts.  Let’s look at three that Hamilton (2007) highlights:

Noble County, Ohio

Here is the text of the account from Noble County, Ohio (Historical Collections of Ohio in Two Volumes, Noble County, Ohio, pp. 350-351, available here) [428 in my database]:

Huge Skeletons.—In Seneca township was opened, in 1872, one of the numerous Indian mounds that abound in the neighborhood. This particular one was locally known as the "Bates" mound. Upon being dug into it was found to contain a few broken pieces of earthenware, a lot of flint-heads and one or two stone implements and the remains of three skeletons, whose size would indicate they measured in life at least eight feet in height. The remarkable feature of these remains was they had double teeth in front as well as in back of mouth and in both upper and lower jaws. Upon exposure to the atmosphere the skeletons soon crumbled back to mother earth.

This is a simple one.  Translated from the 19th century parlance, the writer of the account is remarking that the skeleton appeared to have molar/grinding teeth instead of cutting teeth (incisors and canines). This was a common interpretation in skeletal human remains (and in living humans) when the front teeth were highly worn.  There is no “double row of teeth” here.

Lawrence County, Ohio

Here is the text of the 1892 account published in the Ironton Register (May 5, 1892) [I have not yet gotten an original copy of this one, so I’m assuming it was reproduced accurately by Hamilton; I do not know how much of the story this passage constitutes]:

Where Proctorville now stands was one day part of a well paved city, but I think the greater part of it is now in the Ohio river.  Only a few mounds, there; one of which was near the C. Wilgus mansion and contained a skeleton of a very large person, all double teeth, and sound, in a jaw bone that would go over the jaw with the flesh on, of a large man; the common burying ground was well filled with skeletons at a depth of about 6 feet.  Part of the pavement was of boulder stone and part of well preserved brick.

This one is also fairly simple.  Again, once you understand that a “double tooth” is a molar tooth, it is clear that the writer is describing a skeleton with “double teeth all around:” a dentition filled with well-worn teeth that appear to be molars.

Medina County, Ohio

Here is the text of the account from Medina County, Ohio (History of Medina County, Ohio, 1881, p. 21; available here) [424 in my database]:

In digging the cellar of the house, nine human skeletons were found, and, like such specimens from other ancient mounds of the country, they showed that the Mound Builders were men of large stature. The skeletons were not found lying in such a manner as would indicate any arrangement of the bodies on the part of the entombers. In describing the tomb, Mr. Albert Harris said” It looked as if the bodies had been dumped into a ditch.” Some of them were buried deeper than others, the lower one being about seven feet below the surface. When the skeletons were found, Mr. Harris was twenty years of age, yet he states that he could put one of the skulls over his head, and let it rest upon his shoulders, while wearing a fur cap at the same time. The large size of all the bones was remarked, and the teeth were described as "double all the way round.” They were kept for a time, and then again buried by Judge Harris. At the center of the mound, and .some nine feet below the surface, was found a small monument of cobble-stones. The stones, or bowlders, composing this were regularly arranged in round Iayers, the monument being topped off with a single stone. There were about two bushels in measure of these small bowlders, and mixed with them was a quantity- of charcoal. The cobble-stones, charcoal and skeletons were the only things noticed at the turn of digging the cellar, in 1830.

This account even puts the phrase “double all the way around” in quotation marks, identifying it as a colloquialism. Like the two accounts above, this account was meant to convey that the teeth appeared to be all molars or grinding teeth, not “double rows of teeth.” 

What the Giantologists Got Wrong

These three accounts from Ohio are clearly describing a state of tooth wear (that was sometimes mis-interpreted in the 19th century as the presence of molar teeth in place of cutting teeth), not a genetic condition.  Hamilton’s (2007) claim that “double rows of teeth” are some kind of genetic trait that can be used to identify populations of extra-large beings or track their movements across the landscape is not supportable based on these cases.  Upon this non-existent "foundation," he has assembled a complicated story that involves cannibalistic giants, population movements, and an Adena military force.  Without the "double rows of teeth," what happens to this story?

There are plenty of other cases interpreted by Hamilton and others as “double rows of teeth.” We shall how many of these still appear mysterious under closer scrutiny.

As usual, please let me know if you see any errors in what I have presented here.

10 Comments

Words Matter: "Double Rows of Teeth," Jim Vieira, and the Deerfield Skeleton

12/14/2014

7 Comments

 
PictureDeerfield, MA: not home to a giant skeleton with double rows of teeth.
Jim Vieira, one of the stars of the History Channel program Search for the Lost Giants, describes reading the account of a large skeleton from Deerfield, Massachusetts, as a sort of “ah-ha” moment.  A post on his Facebook page (Stone Builders, Mound Builders and the Giants of Ancient America, December 5, 2012) describes it like this (emphasis added):

"Not long ago while reading through local town histories in my ongoing research of ancient stonework in New England, I came across a most curious passage in George Sheldon's 1895 The Town History of Deerfield,Ma. Volume 1, page 78. It read:

“At the foot of Bars Long Hill, just where the meadow fence crossed the road, and the bars were placed that gave the village its name, many skeletons were exposed while plowing down a bank, and weapons and implements were found in abundance. One of these skeletons was described to me by Henry Mather who saw it, as being of monstrous size — ‘the head as big as a peck basket, with double teeth all round.’ The skeleton was examined by Dr. Stephen W. Williams who said the owner must have been nearly eight feet high. In all the cases noted in this paragraph, the bodies were placed in a sitting posture, facing the east.”

I remembered reading many years earlier reports of giant skeletal discoveries from mound builder burial sites. In truth I just couldn't digest this information when I first came across it. If these reports were true, why hadn't I heard of this before? Wouldn't archaeologists and anthropologists be extremely interested in these amazing findings? Where are all the bones? So I put aside this whole strange subject for about 15 years. Then an eight-foot skeleton with double rows of teeth decided to get my attention.
"


Vieira tells a similar story about the origins of his interest in giants in this interview conducted by Hugh Newman (about 1:20 in) and in the first minutes of the first episode of Search for the Lost Giants (about 1:40 in on this copy).  In each case he says the Deerfield account is of a skeleton with "double rows of teeth."

I’m sure the story of the account of an “eight foot skeleton with double rows of teeth” is repeated by Vieira elsewhere:  it seems to have become part of his arrival story explaining his interest in giants. The problem is that it’s not true.  It contains a fundamental misinterpretation of what the account from Deerfield actually says.

The 1895 Deerfield account (transcribed below and available online here) does not say the skeleton had “double rows of teeth.”  Rather, it describes the skeleton has having “double teeth all around.”  Those are not the same thing.  As I discussed in this post and in posts about the skeletons from Ellensburg, Washington, and northern New Mexico, the phrase “double teeth all around” was commonly used in nineteenth century America to describe a set of teeth that, because of their worn state, appeared to consist entirely of “double teeth” aka molars.


Picture
Picture
Picture
The pictures to the left show a comparison of a prehistoric maxilla with heavily worn incisors and canines (source) and the palate of a living person without such heavy wear (source).  I have also included a diagram of the human dentition for reference (source).  Note how the heavily worn incisors and canines in the archaeological specimen (top) have a very different shape than the unworn incisors and canines of the living person (middle): as the teeth are progressively worn down, their sharply pointed cusps disappear and the biting surface becomes broader in shape.  They begin to look more like grinding teeth (or “double teeth,” a 19th century synonym for molars) than cutting teeth.  This is why an individual with heavily worn anterior teeth is described as having “double teeth all around.”

The phrase “double teeth all around” used to describe the Deerfield skeleton was not intended to indicate that the skeleton had concentric rows of teeth.

The Deerfield skeleton did not have “double rows of teeth,” and I wonder when and if Jim Vieira will stop making that claim.  It's not accurate, and saying it over and over again does not make it so.  In this case, the specific words matter.  

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

Up next: Ohio.
[Excerpt from A History of Deerfield, Massachusetts, The Times when the People by Whom it was Settled, Unsettled and Resettled, by George Sheldon, 1895, pp. 78-79] [439 in my database]

Graves have been found singly or in groups in all parts of the town. On the side hill west of Old Fort, it was common, fifty years ago, to turn up Indian skulls while plowing with out disturbing any other bones. At the foot of Bars Long Hill, just where the meadow fence crossed the road, and the bars were placed which gave the village its name, many skeletons were exposed in plowing down a bank, and weapons and implements were found in abundance. One of these skeletons was described to me by Henry Mather who saw it, as being of monstrous size—" the head as big as a peck basket, with double teeth all round." Mather, who was about six feet tall, made the comparison, and says the thigh bones were about three inches longer than his own. The skeleton was examined by Dr. Stephen W. Williams, who said the owner must have been nearly eight feet high. In all the cases noted in this paragraph, the bodies had been placed in a sit ting posture, facing the east. In those that follow they were laid on the right side, as above described.

7 Comments

Here's an Easy One: A Giant with "Double Teeth All Around" from Northern New Mexico

12/13/2014

2 Comments

 
Picture
An 1899 story printed in the November 4 issue of the Washington Bee (transcribed below, provided as an image here) provides an account of a skeleton that was “at least seven and a half feet tall” with “double teeth all around.”  The skeleton was reportedly part of a “vanished race” that inhabited the cliff dwellings along the Santa Fe River.

This account seems to have all the features that should attract the giantologists:

Giant stature? Check.

Double teeth? Check

Vanished race? Check.

Unlike the stories of giants from Ellensburg, Washington, however, this account does not seem to have become a standard piece of the evidence in the case for ancient giants.  Why not?  Because the details provided in the story make it clear that the skeleton in question was neither of gigantic stature nor in possession of concentric rows of teeth.

Stature

The article specifies that

“Among the bones excavated from a burial mound on the mesa were a woman’s femurs measuring nineteen inches, a length which indicates that this aboriginal giantess must have been at least seven and a half feet tall.”

So, the height estimate of 7’6” (90”) is based on a femur 19” long: stature = 4.7 x femur length?  That’s pretty generous even by the standards of those looking for giants.  The “rule of thumb” applied at Ellensburg was only 4 x femur length (which would come out to 6’3” in this case). If we plug the length of 19” into the same formulae I referenced in the Ellensburg post, we get stature estimates ranging from 5’4” to 6’1”.  That’s a bit different from 7’6.” 

The Teeth

The headline of the story proclaims “Skulls of a People That Had Double Teeth All Around.”  As I discussed in this post, the phrase “double teeth all around” was commonly used in nineteenth century America to describe a set of teeth that, because of their worn state, appeared to consist entirely of “double teeth” or molars.  The two discussions of the teeth in the article make it clear that this is exactly what is being described:

"He found stone implements and pottery of extreme rarity, and the bones of a race all of whose teeth were molars or grinders.”

“Look at those teeth,” said Dr. Cole, tenderly fondling the skull of the giantess.  “She has no incisors, no cutting teeth, in front, as have all the other races of which I have any knowledge.  She has grinders all around, and so have the other skulls.  That shows they were grain-eaters rather than meat-eaters.”

You really can’t get any clearer than that: the phrase "double teeth all around" was being used specifically and intentionally to describe a dentition that appeared, because of wear, to be composed entirely of grinding teeth.

What Do Giantologists Think of This Case?

This is a good question.  This is a pretty clear case of an article proclaiming a “race” with “double teeth” that contains at least one “giant.” So why isn’t this part of the standard case for ancient giants?  Perhaps because this article makes it very clear that this “giant” is not actually a giant and that these “double teeth” are not anything unusual.  But doesn’t dismissing this article from the case for ancient giants demonstrate that one understands the difference between “double teeth all around” and concentric rows of teeth?  

There are four possibilities:

  1. The giantologists have seen this account and don’t accept it.
  2. The giantologists have seen this account and accept it as evidence of giants.
  3. The giantologists have not seen this account, and now, having become aware of its existence, will accept it and start using it as evidence.
  4. The giantologists have not seen this account, but now, having looked at it critically, will not accept it.

This story turned up in a basic newspaper search, so I am very doubtful that the giantologistis have not seen it (i.e., 3 and 4 are not likely).  That leaves the first two possibilities.  I’m curious to hear what the giantologists make of this account.  By what rationale or criteria would it be accepted or rejected?  What would happen if you applied those same standards to other, less-detailed accounts?

_____

Following is the complete text of the story from the Washington Bee (November 4, 1899).  As with the Ellensburg skeletons, there may be other versions of the story out there.  This account is number 214 in my database.


THE VANISHED RACE
__

A BUILDING THAT HOUSED 6,000 CLIFF DWELLERS
__

A Ruined Aboriginal City on a Cliff a Thousand Feet High –Skulls of a People That Had Double Teeth All Around—Some Remarkable Relics.
            
   Laden with relics of the vanished race of the Cliff Dwellers, the Rev. Dr. George L. Cole has returned from a journey to the ruined cities of Southeastern Colorado and New Mexico.  Valuable results were secured by excavations in an ancient communal dwelling, as yet unnamed, which stands on the cliffs of the Santa Fe River, fourteen miles from Espanola, N. M.  This is the largest pueblo yet discovered in the United States, and Dr. Cole was practically the first to visit it with scientific objects in view.  He found stone implements and pottery of extreme rarity, and the bones of a race all of whose teeth were molars or grinders.  Among the bones excavated from a burial mound on the mesa were a woman’s femurs measuring nineteen inches, a length which indicates that this aboriginal giantess must have been at least seven and a half feet tall.

                The cliff on which the unexplored ruins stand rises a thousand feet above the surrounding country.  On one side of the isolated rocky mass is the valley of the Santa Fe River, on the other that of the Santa Clara.  Up to 600 feet is a shelf which furnished a nesting place for the Cliff Dwellers of nobody knows how many centuries ago.  In the soft pumice stone they burrowed dens for their families.  Eventually the original shelters in the cliffs grew to be a great warren.  Room after room was hewn out until the rows were four or five deep.  Under the shelter of the overhanging cliff, walls were built, extending the rows of rooms.  The Cliff Dwellers were sheltered from rain or storm and their homes were inaccessible for their enemies.

                Not satisfied with their rock caverns, the Cliff Dwellers climbed upward, and on the mesa, 400 feet above the shelf on which the caves opened, built a communal dwelling.

                This mesa is about three-quarters of a mile wide and a mile and half long, which cliffs all about and the best opportunities for defense.  On its edge was reared a watch tower of granite, whose height Dr. Cole believes to have been not less than sixty feet.  The blocks were painfully carried up the 1,000-foot cliff, for the nearest granite deposits are at a considerable distance.  For greater security a wall was built across the middle of the mesa.

                On this rock platform, 1,000 feet up in the air, there stand to-day the ruins of two communal dwellings, one evidently much older than the other.  The older dwelling is as yet untouched, and what little exploration of the more modern one Dr. Cole had time for amounts to a mere scratch on the surface.

                There were not less than sixteen hundred rooms in the larger building in its prime, says Dr. Cole, and probably two thousand.  The building measured 240x300 feet.  It was blocks of stone measuring six by six by fifteen inches, quarried from the cliffs below, and carried up by the workmen.  The rooms were roofed with timber, and the walls then carried higher.  In the centre was a great court, a common kitchen for all, from which radiated immense numbers of rooms.  The building spread with the growth of the community until it was three stories high and the rooms stretched away twelve deep from the central court, with smaller courts here and there.  Dr. Cole estimates that the population averaged about three to a room, which would make between 4,800 and 6,000 people dwelling in the immense pueblo, besides those who lived in the cliff caves.

                The rooms at the sides of the communal dwelling averaged about fourteen feet in size.  On the upper stories they were mostly smaller, some being only seven by fourteen, others seven by twenty-one.  Some rooms were found as large as fourteen by twenty-one feet.

                With the trophies of his summer’s explorations spread out about him, Dr. Cole has turned his parlor into an anthropological museum.  One table is covered with water jugs and incense pipes, the sofa hidden under stone axes, mortars, pestles, weaving shuttles and pottery. Another table is decked with a row of grinning skulls and huge crossbones; beneath it comfortably repose all the parts of a skeleton, from the toe bones to the shoulder blades, waiting to be wired together, and strewn about are bows and arrows, baskets, jugs of twisted twigs, made water-tight by pitch; modern Indian pottery, photographs by the score, and a stump of petrified wood.  The skulls are a particularly valued possession.

                “Look at those teeth,” said Dr. Cole, tenderly fondling the skull of the giantess.  “She has no incisors, no cutting teeth, in front, as have all the other races of which I have any knowledge.  She has grinders all around, and so have the other skulls.  That shows they were grain-eaters rather than meat-eaters.  The foreheads are high and the shape of the skull shows intelligence, but notice how curiously they are flattened at the back.—Lost Angeles Times.
2 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

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

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

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

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

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

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

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

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly