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

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

12/16/2014

8 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.

8 Comments
Ross Hamilton
12/18/2014 02:41:52 am

Points are well taken, Andy, but "not supportable" seems a little shortsighted when it comes to making any effort to deduce where these very tall people have been. As an anthropologist, you are (or should be) quite aware of all the misplaced, or simply forsaken data that accumulated for over 200 years. The large skeletons found by the Peabody, the Carnegie, University of Kentucky, and the National Museum are not in "the data" because they have been left out by choice. Skeletal remains were once mined with an attitude that they were some sort of renewable resource. But history has proven that the upturning of Indian gravesites in wholesale efforts to acquire trinkets and sellable artifacts ruined virtually everything for the unborn generations of anthropologists who would take it upon themselves to be far more respectful. How then could any knowledgeable anthropologist pronounce these things should be regarded as unsupportable? What you should say is: So much has been lost that in truth, we just don't know--but are making the effort to find out what really happened.

Reply
Andy White
12/18/2014 04:08:52 am

Hello, Ross. Thank you for your comment.

My statement was very specific: "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." I believe I have shown that the accounts from Ohio that you present and I discuss in this post were not describing "double rows of teeth," but rather a dental wear pattern that was very common among prehistoric Native Americans. Do you agree with that conclusion? If you agree then I presume you would agree that it's not a genetic trait. If you disagree, I am curious as to what your reasoning is.

Reply
Ross Hamilton
12/20/2014 02:56:18 am

Hey Andy--you are possibly the only anthropologist thus far who has actually put some fair and honest consideration into the subject--a bit refreshing actually. I consider your attention to the subject notable, and you have my humble thanks.

In any case, here's what I say regarding tracking in the Introduction and Abstract, p.12:

In keeping with a rule of treating all [the accounts of tall people] as worthy in some larger picture, it was enlightening to uncover, by serendipity, a segment of lost prehistory. It came through linking the apparent migrations of the Tall Ones, the giants, with informed anthropology, carbon-14 dating, and rare Native timelines contained in their stories and histories.

I actually avoid implying (and I'm quoting you) "...double rows of teeth are some kind of genetic trait that can be used to identify populations of extra-large beings..."

Were double rows of teeth in and of themselves something of empirical value toward tracing these tall folk, I would have jumped on it, but sadly that's not the case.

Oddly enough however (and I think you may find this of interest) in all the reams of old museum, county, and village diaries, we didn't come across any accounts of double rows in normal size skeletal remains. This may or may not be of any pertinence, because we know that at least today, the trait occurs in normal size people.

So, specific to your inquiry, I personally do not feel that the double rows by themselves are sufficient evidence for tracking these folk. You may have inadvertently conflated my statement in the Intro with the general information--including the double rows--which admittedly is easy to do especially if this is a new subject you're finding interest in. Remember always that the prescribed academic data is not all the available data--it is more a selective body that has been inculcated into the curriculum quite often by the professor in possession of the seat.

I had a conversation with an associate professor of archaeology at Ohio University early this past summer, and he informed me that exceptionally tall people as a sort of royal class among the Woodland cultures was "not in the data." As a result of this he felt confident that any reference to such was at best academically treacherous.

Melinda Geldner
6/12/2018 05:01:53 am

I work in Michigan with a lady who has a double row of teeth.

Reply
Andy White
12/20/2014 08:03:58 pm

Hi Ross,

Thanks for your comment. I have two related responses/questions.

First, I have no doubt that the specific phrase "double teeth all around" that is found in so many of these accounts is a colloquial phrase that is describing a pattern of heavy tooth wear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actual "double rows of teeth" (in the sense of multiple, concentric rows of teeth) and it was not intended to by those who used it. The phrase was actually communicating the (mistaken) impression that a person had all "double teeth" (or molars) rather than a mixture of "double teeth" and "single teeth." I have provided many examples of this particular phrase being used to describe the teeth of living individuals. It is not a phrase that was used specifically in reference to large skeletons. I will discuss this more in the future.

Second, it does appear to me in your book that you are implying a genetic basis for "double rows of teeth" (which, as I stated above, isn't what's being described by the phrase "double teeth all around"). Here is a quote from page 18-19 of your 2007 book:

“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."

Calling it a "rare and recessive trait" that is associated with "races" certainly implies to the reader that it has a genetic basis. The definition of a "recessive trait" is "an inherited character determined by a recessive gene." So if you're not intending to assert a genetic basis for "double teeth all around" (which I think is a very clear description of a state of tooth wear, not an inherited characteristic), I suggest thinking about different ways to phrase that.

I look forward to going through the cases in your book in greater detail. Thank you for commenting!

Reply
Bill Brock link
1/17/2017 07:04:20 pm

I read somewhere that the double row teeth tribes harassed the Indian tribes. The story also pointed out the last few were murdered by the Indians. They were herded into a cave a suffocated with a huge brush fire. Supposedly they were eating the Indians!
The large skulls are all over the world. Peru has many roadside museums with these large skulls.

Reply
Mike S
6/2/2015 03:04:04 am

Thanks for the article. This is somewhat unrelated; are there any known samples of these purportedly larger than normal bones available anywhere? There seem to be enough variation in stories, and accounts for at least some of them to be legitimate.

Reply
R. Stout
9/6/2015 11:36:24 am

Oh, come on! Look at some photos of mastodon jawbones. Their teeth look like rows of human breasts (thus the name based on breast + tooth). These seeming double rows of teeth are frequently reported on the jawbones of supposed giant human skeletons whose thigh bones, etc. are enormous. Sorry, those farmers digging them up just didn't know what they were. Neither did the reporters. Now we know.

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