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

Gregory Little's Book "Path of Souls:" Some Preliminary Thoughts

1/9/2015

7 Comments

 
I recently purchased Gregory Little’s (2014) book Path of Souls.  I became aware of the book after seeing it quoted online, and I was interested in having a look at it because of its discussion of “giant” skeletons in eastern North America.  I wanted to offer some preliminary thoughts after only quickly skimming through it because I found several aspects of the book to be a refreshing departure from much of the recent writing I’ve seen on “giants.”  There are also parts of the book that I take strong issue with, and other parts that I have little interest in and don’t plan on commenting on.  But I thought I’d take a few minutes to discuss what seem to me to be some strengths of Little’s approach to the topic of “giants.”

To be clear, I’m in no way saying that I agree or disagree with any of the substantive conclusions of the book.  I haven’t yet looked at the sources from which Little draws his information, and I haven’t yet worked my way through his book in a detailed fashion.  I’ll wait to comment on his conclusions after I have the opportunity to examine the data he presents and do my own analysis.  What I want to discuss in this post is what makes his approach different from some of the other recent books I’ve read (e.g., Dewhurst, Zimmerman, Chouinard).

Little’s main takeaway point about the accounts of “giant” skeletons is that “There were a lot of these tall people, far more than would be expected by chance” (pp. 189-190).  He reaches this conclusion by doing a simple statistical test comparing the proportion of “tall” or “large” skeletons reported in the Bureau of Ethnology’s 1887 and 1894 reports to that which would be expected from a random sample of a population with a “normal” size distribution.   He states that

“quite a few unusually tall skeletal remains were found in mounds and detailed in formal reports.  The numbers of these far exceed what would be expected in a population where height fits a normal distribution” (p. 118).

Guess what?  That’s a potentially falsifiable statement that can be formally evaluated.  Hallelujah.  And that is why Little’s approach interests me.  He has attempted to move the needle forward by doing two things: (1) trying to discern “credible” from “non-credible” accounts; and (2) performing an analysis that focuses on isolating and describing a problem. 

By relying on information from the Bureau of Ethnology reports (rather than unattributed tales from country histories and newspapers), Little attempted to be conservative in selecting which accounts are “credible.”  In fact, this is a concern throughout the book.  Little spends some effort discussing examples of size exaggeration, measuring errors, and outright hoaxes that color the record of “giants.”  I found his discussion of those sources of noise to be (for the most part) quite different from the wide-eyed, uncritical refrain of “look at all these accounts of giants!” that seems to be a main thesis of much popular coverage of the topic on television, in books, and on the internet.

While I’m not at all convinced that Little’s conclusion about the greater-than-expected number of "tall" skeletons is correct or supportable based on the data he has presented, I do appreciate what I perceive as an interesting approach that is qualitatively different from anything else that I’ve seen out there so far. 
My sense is that there are several key assumptions built into Little’s analysis, any one of which could potentially be problematic. I look forward to having a closer look at what he presents.  I’ll return to this topic in the future.

7 Comments
Scott Hamilton
1/10/2015 01:19:03 am

The most obvious assumption I see is that the people buried in mounds represent a "normal" distribution of the population. I'm pretty sure that's not true.

Reply
Andy White
1/10/2015 01:47:52 am

Agreed, but that's actually what (I think) he is trying to get at. Unless I misread, he is making an argument that the "more than expected by chance" number of "tall or large" skeletons mounds is signaling a social phenomenon (that taller people are more likely to be "elites" and therefore receive more prestigious treatment at death).

Reply
Micah Ewers
1/10/2015 09:10:30 am

That's sort of what I feel he might be getting at as well. And we do have some evidence of taller than average folks being unearthed in the center of some kurgan mounds in Russia and central Asia from time to time. That taller than average people might be selected as rulers does seem to have some historic and universal precedence, from king Saul, to Goliath, or Abraham Lincoln... to Charlamagne, or even chief Black Dog of the Osage... there may be genetic foundation for their stature, or maybe, like conical skulls, cranial deformation etc, naturally tall or very tall stature was seen as a socially ideal aesthetic, religious, or commanding value fit for a godlike, or ruling type figure. Even today we still vote for presidents who are several inches above the mean stature, and ''talness'' does seem to a desired trait in modern times. Whether or not this factor plays a leading role in the reports of mound giants, or is a coinciding factor, who knows. More data is needed.

Andy White
1/10/2015 10:41:32 am

Word.

Reply
Dr. Greg Little
1/13/2015 07:58:41 pm

Thoughtful review. You are completely correct that there are key assumptions made in the statistical analysis (or analyses) that are problematic. The first is that "modern" height statistics were used. The Adena and Hopewell were of shorter stature, but as far as I know there has never been a standard deviation derived from their heights. Second, obviously the skeletons preserved in mound tombs would probably have been from a "different" status group than the general population who were often cremated or buried in mass. This would create a selection bias, which, of course, is precisely the point of doing the analysis. Thirdly, in many of the Smithsonian reports of "large" skeletons the exact measurements were not given. Finally, in the four simple statistical analyses cited in the book, all are on the West Virginia finds. The major design flaws of that (using only West Virginia) are cited in the book. It was not possible to determine exactly how many actual skeletal remains were excavated in West Virginia. It was not possible to determine exactly how many of these skeletal remains were "tall." Thus, the numbers used came from sites in that state where specific numbers were cited. (Selection bias once again: the key point.)

The main point is that it appears that the "elite" seemed to be given the status of tomb burials and that they were often much taller than the general population. I don't speculate that the elite were anything other than Native Americans, the ancestors of modern tribes. The elite do seem to have maintained their status as such through a hereditary lineage. That is in line with many tribal legends. The "tallest" of any skeleton excavated that seemed to be credible (to me) is 7.5 feet. I could not find a single report that I found to have any real credibility indicating a height above 7.5 feet. I have only "investigated" reports from America.

Reply
Andy White
1/13/2015 10:20:52 pm

Hello Dr. Little,

Thanks for your comment. I do appreciate the difficulties of trying to use the available "old" data to make some kind of justifiable interpretation. You have what you have (and by "you" I mean those of us who are interested in understanding/explaining these accounts) and you have to find a way to try make a justifiable interpretation. I understand your logic and I think it a good effort to say something new - I wish more people interested in these old accounts would follow your lead.

And I also appreciate your clear statements on the "race" issue and problems with the credibility of many of the accounts, which I think are very important components of this debate. My attention to the "double rows of teeth" issue stems from my desire to strongly question this assumption that "tall" people represent individuals from a different "race." I think that's an important thing to address, and I liked that part of your book also. And I also noticed that (as far as could tell on my first quick read-through) you stayed away from the issue of "double rows of teeth" (though I think it does appear in the afterword by Andrew Collins - I don't have the book with me right now).

This blog post by Katy Meyers discusses a recent article that addresses the issue of "selective burial" in a sample of megalithic sites in Spain:

https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/not-all-are-buried-here-selective-burial-in-prehistoric-spain/

Reply
Greg Little
1/13/2015 10:55:19 pm

After reading a lot of old accounts on the "teeth" issue, I simply couldn't see anything that made it really important or all that credible. It's "possible" that there is a genetic link in it, but a lot of things are "possible"—and improbable. But I didn't do a real comprehensive review of all the double row accounts. But even if some of them turned up as credible, knowing that there are such anomalies that occur even today, I thought "so what?" Other than being "sort of" interesting, it would mean nothing important. So I saw no need to address it at all. But yes, Andrew likes to speculate and he sees it something that might be important.

I admit that I like directly investigating things on the fringes. But I have always reported whatever I found. That means most people who love the fringe areas don't appreciate it and skeptics don't appreciate it either because I take such things seriously enough to invest time, effort, and money into it. I fully recognize that some of my "opinions" —usually expressed as such—can be disagreed with and I'm certain that some of the things I believe are wrong. Of course, that's the problem. People seldom realize when their beliefs are wrong.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


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

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

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

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

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

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

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

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly