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
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

The Modern Mythology of Giants: "Double Rows of Teeth"

11/28/2014

15 Comments

 
Picture
It is not difficult to find evidence for the current popularity of the notion that an ancient "race" of giants once populated prehistoric North America.  Internet sites making that claim are numerous, as are books on the topic.  And there is a new program on H2 (Search for the Lost Giants) that follows Jim and Bill Vieira on their "quest" to investigate whether giants really existed.  Giants are a "thing" now.

The belief in ancient North American giants is based in part on the numerous accounts of large skeletons being unearthed that can be found in newspapers and county histories from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These accounts are "real" (in that they exist - they were written), and there are a lot of them.  And, therefore, they deserve an explanation.  I've spent some time looking at them, and I think they tell a really interesting story that has many parts to it: cultural, historical, archaeological, political, linguistic, etc.  Interesting story, yes.  But do I think that they actually tell the story of a "race" of ancient giants in North America?  No.

But I don't think that all of those stories were fabricated, either (though some certainly were).  I think the explanation is more complicated than that.  In this post, I'm going to talk about one of the apparent peculiarities of those stories that I've now seen presented numerous times as evidence of a "race" of giants: "double rows of teeth."  The Vieira brothers have talked about "double rows of teeth" on each episode of Search for the Lost Giants, and it is commonly mentioned in various books and websites on the subject.  Generally, it is stated that descriptions of "double rows of teeth" appear frequently in the accounts of large skeletons because it was a dental condition peculiar to ancient giants:

"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" (Zimmerman, Fritz, 2010:33, The Nephilim Chronicles:  Fallen Angels in the Ohio Valley).

I remember being struck by the oddity of "double teeth" when I first came across accounts of large skeletons in some county histories from Indiana or Ohio.  It was puzzling.  I didn't know what it meant at the time, and I also had no idea how many other similar accounts existed.  That was in the early 1990s, when it was much more difficult to get information.  Now it is simpler to get access to old newspaper archives.  This has made it easier to compile numerous accounts of large skeletons (which many people have done) and also try to critically analyze and understand the content of those accounts (which very few people have done). 

Most of the information here is drawn from historical archives of American newspapers (including Chronicling America, freely available from the Library of Congress) and dictionaries.  I'll give you my findings and some brief examples and then talk about what they mean in terms of giant skeletons.  I'll save the quantitative data and more detailed analysis for a paper that I'm working on.

There were several different phrases/terms used to describe the dentitions of reportedly giant skeletons, including
“double teeth,” “double rows of teeth,” “double teeth all around.”  These are not equivalent (check your stories closely, giant believers - you'll see that it's true). These same terms/phrases are also applied in numerous cases to living individuals and non-giant skeletons. 

First, the term “double tooth” was used in nineteenth and early twentieth century America as a synonym for a molar or premolar tooth. It was not a mysterious term, appearing in dictionaries and works of science and literature in Europe and the Americas from at least the 1500s until the early 1900s.  A distinction between “single teeth” (incisors and canines) and “double teeth” (molars and premolars) seems to have been based on both function and morphology.  In functional terms, “double teeth” are for grinding.  The “double” of “double tooth” refers to the appearance of premolars and molars as being composed of multiple "single" teeth. "Double teeth" are larger than "single teeth" and have multiple roots.


These entries from an 1854 dictionary illustrate the synonymy between "molar," "grinder," and "double" teeth: 

GRINDER, n. He or that which grinds; an instrument for grinding; one of the double or molar teeth.
MOLAR, a. . . . Having power to grind; used for grinding; as, the molar teeth, i.e. the double teeth.
MOLAR, n. A tooth, generally having a flattened, triturating surface, and situated behind the incisors; a molar tooth.


An 1898 story describing how potential military recruits were evaluated described how a certain number of “double teeth” were required for enlistment:

   ". . . a 32-year-old man who looked and was the ideal recruit with one exception. He had but one sound double tooth, although his front teeth were in fairly good condition.  The regulations demand at least one sound double tooth on each side of the upper and lower jaws, four double teeth in all.  Dr. Fulton disliked to reject him and the man’s looks showed his own disappointment, but he was “turned down,” as they say at the armory" (The Scranton Tribune, June 14, 1898).

Second, the phrase “double teeth all around” was used colloquially to refer to the dentition of living (and dead) individuals with a high degree of anterior tooth wear.  Anterior “single teeth” (canines and incisors) looked like “double teeth” (molars) when the cusps were removed through wear.  In other words, a mouth full of heavily worn teeth was a mouth in which all teeth were used for grinding and, therefore, in which all teeth had the wear characteristic of "double" teeth.  This was a common phrase: nineteenth century newspapers contain numerous accounts of living individuals described as having "double teeth all around."

"James B. Paulding . . . says that the story . . . about the soldier at Camp Chase who ate glass is true, as hundreds know.  He says the glass-eater’s name is John White . . . A peculiar feature of this man was the fact that he had a complete set of molars, or double teeth, all around, above and below. White was an old Mexican war soldier." (The National Tribune, May 19, 1887).

This article debunks the notion that it is possible to have a mouth full of molars:

"The lecturer alluded to the idea, held by some, that certain people or animals had double teeth all the way round the jaw.  This is not correct, the appearance being due to the wearing down of the teeth till they present facets similar to those of small double teeth, but they are single teeth and there not on record a single instance where a jaw has been found filled with double teeth, each with two fangs or roots." (Burlington Weekly Free Press, March 30, 1877).

Third, the phrases "double rows of teeth" and "double row of teeth" were used to describe, simply, the presence of two rows of teeth (an upper and a lower).  These phases were commonly applied to both living individuals and non-giant skeletons. 

"Classification of Beauty -- The mode of describing beauty is now reduced to a system, and we do not see why rules should not be laid down as accurate as those of any other science. . . .  1. A pair of diamond eyes. 2. One thick and one thin ruby or coral lip. 3. A double row of pearl teeth. 4. A quantity of golden hair. . . . " (Edgefield Advertiser, August 20, 1840).

I can collect and present an immense amount of contextual/historical data that will demonstrate that, in the large majority of cases, the writers of nineteenth and twentieth century accounts of "giant" skeletons were not intending to imply that those skeletons had dental features unlike those of other humans, such as two sets of teeth arranged in concentric rows.  They were simply describing characteristics of the teeth that were interesting or somewhat noteworthy:  full sets of teeth (i.e., "double rows of teeth") would have been something to remark upon in the mid 1800s, as would a uniformly high degree of tooth wear (i.e., "double teeth all around"). 

The term "double tooth" and its associated phrases appear to have fallen out of common use early in the twentieth century (I'm still compiling dictionary data).  I think that it was probably combined changes in diet, dental health, and dental medicine that caused the folk classification of "single" and "double" teeth to become less useful (more on that in the paper).  For whatever reason, those "double" terms went away.  When we see the phrase "double teeth all around" now, just 100 years later, it is foreign to us and seems to imply something bizarre.  It did not when it was used.
The peculiarity of "double teeth" can largely be explained as a mirage created by a linguistic change. 

I challenge those who believe in the giant story to sift through your accounts of "double teeth" with the historic contexts of the terms/phrases I have discussed here in mind.  And search for those terms outside of your giant skeleton accounts. Get a feel for how the terms were used in the common language of nineteenth century America and then do an honest evaluation and see if you really want to base a theory about an ancient "race" of giants on them.  I don't think I would.

15 Comments
Andy
11/29/2014 03:11:59 am

From Jason Colavito's website: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/giants-double-teeth-a-case-of-linguistic-confusion

Reply
Bret Ruby link
12/1/2014 01:27:02 am

Andy, very well done. Visitors to our park often ask about giants with double rows of teeth. Now we can set them straight! Thanks.

Reply
Andy
12/1/2014 01:58:50 am

This doesn't explain all of the accounts, but it will take care of a lot of them. A more detailed analysis will be coming some day.

Reply
Dave
5/3/2015 09:20:54 am

Thank you so much for your research into this colloquialism. I had not even considered a colloquial dialogue shift as the explanation, but it makes so much sense.

Reply
Andy White
5/3/2015 10:33:17 pm

Thanks Dave. In case you didn't see it, here's the latest (of many posts) on "double rows of teeth:" http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/double-rows-of-teeth-in-historical-perspective

Reply
Lyzdekiel
6/22/2015 10:18:18 pm

https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-collins/were-the-american-giants-denisovan-human-hybrids-a-collins-the-coming-of-the-gia/1003976322950569

Reply
tom chiconas link
8/29/2015 10:30:53 pm

Andy, Thanks for the research on double row teeth. I have an interest in prehistoric mound builders ,earthen dwellers in Wisconsin. From time to time I have read in old books about a very large,violent group of earthen dwellers. That they roamed the edges of the glacial lobes hunting and living in earthen homes, or holes behind a mound of soil. . There are the strange newspaper articles from the 1800's . Beloit college was involved in unearthing a giant skeleton or two. Andy have you heard of these stories? I find them hard to believe yet as a mound builder person the grave unearthing is a real event that was observed? I am skeptical Thanks Tom.

Reply
Andy White
9/30/2015 04:34:04 pm

While all the attention is flattering, you'll either need to stay on topic or be interesting. Or at least funny.

Reply
Adrian Brooks Collins link
7/2/2016 04:18:43 pm

You're wrong Andy White. Shame on you for standing in the way of their reintegration into our history. You have no right to white wash documented history, that is reprehensible behavior, unforgivable. You should take down this screed. You're promoting specious research.

Adrian Brooks Collins.

Reply
Otis White
12/26/2016 10:25:03 am

To discount or generalize historic documentation in a way to support your own theories is discrediting to your own work. In many accounts these single phrases, such as; "double rows of teeth", "double teeth all around", "double teeth", etc... are described in detail. I have read descriptions in old accounts varying from "two sets of front cutting teeth on both the upper and lower jaw, one behind the other" to "molar-like grinding teeth all around". There are also accounts of skeletons found with abnormal numbers of fingers and toes. the most common abnormality seems to be six on each hand or foot. All of these things could be easily explained by inbreeding or cross-breeding. Inbreeding and cross-breeding are an extremely likely scenario considering the social conditions of prehistoric man. We know that more that one species of intelligent primates have existed. At times, more than one species has coexisted. We know that cross-breeding two closely related species of animal can create larger than normal hybrids with unusual features sometimes not visible in either parent species. the Liger is a contemporary example, as well as the mule. I prefer to reserve my judgement on this subject until more facts come to light.

Reply
mac
1/2/2017 05:19:44 pm

I had a friend who had two rows of concentric teeth. Female.

Reply
Lee
1/4/2017 07:42:51 am

My brother had two full sets of teeth with an few 3rd teeth behind the front teeth. Some teeth had 3 roots. All were pulled as an adult.

Reply
Ms Michelle
5/1/2017 09:17:25 pm

With all due respect, your "research" is basically just conjecture and subjective interpretation about reports, and anecdotal information. It is not for the scientist to rewrite history to fit his or her own theory. It is not for the scientist to speculate based on personal bias and personal interpretation. It is for the scientist to document, collect information, and report facts.

Reply
Tom T
9/7/2017 03:31:30 pm

I am new to the 'giant' thread and so I have no opinion on its validity. However, your dismissal seems pretty glib in that you not only discount but discredit a subject of inquiry based on nothing objective beyond some outmoded turn of phrase. The description, "double rows of teeth" seem pretty clear to me and would be odd phrasing indeed if someone were simply referring to a molar. I found your explanation unhelpful.

Reply
Andy White
9/8/2017 06:09:36 am

Before you glibly dismiss the explanation as "glib," you should familiarize yourself with some of the other things I've written on the topic. Indeed "double tooth" is not the same as "double rows of teeth" - they are different terms but both have linguistic explanations. Try clicking on the "Double Rows of Teeth" link in the "Categories" list on the sidebar.

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/category/double-rows-of-teeth

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.

    Picture
    Click here to support the 2019 Broad River Archaeological Field School!

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: aawhite@mailbox.sc.edu

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help? Please consider contributing to Woo War One (a small and somewhat silly GoFundMe campaign).  All proceeds will be used to fight the woo.
    Picture

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

    Archives

    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
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Anth 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    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
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    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
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    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
    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
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly
✕