A common thread among many ideas about "giants" is that they have a distinct set of physical characteristics in addition to great height. One popular notion is that “giants” have polydactyly (extra digits) and extra teeth (e.g., "double rows of teeth"). Such a unique phenotypic expression suggests that giants were not simply larger than average humans, but beings with a specific genetic profile. Could a genetic disorder explain the perceived association between great height, extra digits, and extra teeth? If we had physical evidence such as bones or teeth, we could potentially use DNA sequencing to directly examine "giant" genetics. The conspicuous scarcity of (read: complete lack of) biological remains of "giants," however, makes such a direct examination impossible. In the absence of actual bones, it is reasonable to ask if there is any known genetic condition that could produce the distinct combination of abnormally large stature, dental abnormalities, and polydactyly. Not only could genetic disorders potentially explain large skeletons with osteological conditions like extra phalanges and teeth, but they could also perhaps account for the high cross-cultural prevalence of giant mythology. There are many archaeological examples demonstrating that individuals who expressed novel phenotypes were treated differently by their cultures; some people with physical peculiarities were even revered or regarded as supernatural. A recent paper in American Antiquity, for example, explored the preferential burial of individuals with polydactyly at Chaco Canyon: polydactyly appears to have occurred at a higher rate in this culture than in most populations due to the special reverence given to individuals with polydactyly and thus the propagation of those genes. Keeping the Chaco Canyon example in mind, it would make sense to assume that individuals who may have expressed a "giant" phenotype of large stature, polydactyly, and extra teeth would have been treated differently, perhaps receiving special burials, and likely being written about with fascination and misunderstanding. I could not find any archaeological accounts of cultures in which giant body size and polydactyly commonly occurred together. And I was unable to identify a genetic condition that produces a combination of abnormal height, polydactyly, and extra teeth. I reviewed a total of 18 genetic conditions that result in abnormally large skeletal size, supernumerary teeth, and polydactyly. I then checked if these three key symptoms overlapped in any disorder. For example, I researched whether or not Marfan’s Syndrome, which results in large stature, may also cause affected individuals to display supernumerary dentition and polydactyly. I summarized my findings in the Venn diagram below and the list at the end of this post. As demonstrated by my Venn diagram, genetic diseases that result in exceptional stature are only accompanied by supernumerary teeth[1] and polydactyly in a few instances: Marfan’s syndrome, Sotos syndrome, and Greig Cephalopolysyndactyly syndrome. No known disorders cause all three symptoms to occur simultaneously [2]. Marfan’s syndrome and Sotos syndrome cause supernumerary teeth only in some cases, but are always associated with excess growth of the skeleton. Greig cephalopolysyndactyly syndrome, however, only results in abnormal bone size in some cases, usually increasing skull size to abnormal proportions, while almost always causing the presence of excess and malformed digits. Some disorders that result in the traits typically assigned to giants cause smaller stature, rather than larger. Cleidocranial dysostosis (which can cause supernumerary teeth) and Jeune syndrome and Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome (which are both associated with polydactyly) usually result in shortened bones and lesser stature. Also, many of the diseases displayed in the Venn diagram result in childhood death, so large numbers of the individuals afflicted with these conditions die before even reaching adult size. Based on modern knowledge of catalogued genetic conditions, it does not seem likely that the potential misunderstanding of skeletons with genetic disorders has been responsible for propagating the idea of giants with extra teeth and digits. If there is no genetic basis for the belief in certain giant characteristics, why are these ideas of giant morphology so popular? As discussed here, the idea that giants had extra teeth likely spawned from a misinterpretation of the phrase “double rows of teeth” due to colloquial changes. Polydactyly has probably been attributed to giants due to the Biblical passage about David and Goliath, stating that Goliath had “six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot." Ideas about giants with extra teeth and those with extra fingers and toes probably gained traction separately, through different sources, and have been conflated by giant-believers over the years. As pointed out here, there are no known accounts of giant skeletons with both extra teeth and polydactyly. [1] The Venn diagram includes disorders that result not only in supernumerary teeth but also general dental abnormalities. The reason for this inclusion is that individuals with certain disorders express abnormal symptoms in variable ways. Therefore, disorders that cause abnormal dentition may result in supernumerary teeth in patients in some cases of the disorder but not others. [2] The genetic disorders and corresponding symptoms presented in the Venn diagram were collected primarily using information from the Genetics Home Reference website. List of Researched Genetic Conditions
Gardner’s Syndrome
Cleidocranial dysostosis
Carpenter’s Syndrome
Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome
Barolet-Biedl Syndrome
Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome
Jeune Syndrome
Familial Polydactyly
Smith-Lemil-Opitz Syndrome
Trisomy 13
Marfan’s Syndrome
Sotos Syndrome
Klinefelter Syndrome
Weaver’s Syndrome
Marshall-Smith Syndrome
Homocystinuria
Greig Cephalopolysyndactyly Syndrome
Gigantism
6 Comments
In a two-part 2015 article titled "The Establishment Has Already Acknowledged The “Lost Race of Giants,"" Jason Jarrell and Sarah Farmer argue that Adena mounds preserve evidence of a "Unique Physical Type" of giant human that inhabited the prehistoric eastern woodlands: "One of the most controversial subjects regarding the ancient prehistoric cultures of North America concerns what we refer to as the Unique Physical Types (UPT). For the purposes of what follows, these UPT are often gigantic humanoid skeletons with high-vaulted crania, occasional extra or pathological dentitions (including several reports of double or triple rows of teeth), and are usually discovered in the burial mounds and associated graveyards of the Adena-Hopewell, Archaic Cultures, and Southeastern Ceremonial Complex." Jarrell and Farmer argue that these UPT existed as "an elite race within Late Archaic/Early Woodland societies who were often buried in the mounds," stating that "dental and bone anomalies have been used to establish a genetic connection between individuals at mound sites. Some components of Jarrell and Farmer's argument are plausible: Early Woodland people often did bury their elite in earthen mounds, for example, along with other material objects that might be important to them in the afterlife. The accounts of skeletons chosen by Jarrell and Farmer, however, do not support their contention that there is a "Unique Physical Type" with a genetic basis. They provide not a single example of a skeleton that has all three of these "unique" features (gigantic stature, high-vaulted cranium, and extra/pathological dentition) that define their "UPT," and at least two of their "genetic" features (high-vaulted crania and extra/pathological dentition) probably have little to do with genetics. Gigantic Stature There are several accounts from the 19th and 20th centuries that report skeletons of relatively tall stature in Adena mounds. Jarrell and Farmer provide several of these as evidence. The account from a "Professor Holbrooke" is typical: “Judging by the thigh bone he must have been seven feet tall. The skull was much larger than usual, very thick, the forehead unusually receding, the top flattened. The jaws were extremely strong, full of large, perfect teeth.” This account is an example of what was probably a common practice: estimating the height of an individual based on a single bone (the femur), perhaps using the common "height = 4x femur length" formula that would tend to overestimate height. Examples of the evidence for "gigantic skeletons" is shown in the following table: High-Vaulted Crania In The Adena People, William Webb and Charles Snow remarked that “Approximately 89% of the adult males, 92% of the adult females are brachycephalic.” A brachycephalic skull is a skull with a cephalic index greater than 90%. The cephalic index indicates, “a number expressing the ratio of the maximum breadth of a skull to its maximum length.” The amount and degree of brachycephaly in the prehistoric Ohio River Valley was almost certainly related to artificial cranial deformation, a cultural practice that has occurred in many different parts of the world. Artificial cranial deformation or cradle boarding has been described as an intentional distortion of a baby’s skull by administering force. Historically, one would start the process directly after birth up until the infant was about 6 months old. The skull would then be perceived as flattened, elongated, or rounded. One idea is that Adena people used artificial cranial deformation to indicate social status. Due to the nature of the process, only the elite were subjected to skull deformation because it was seen as aesthetically pleasing and with a greater capacity of intelligence. Extra/Pathological Dentition The third component of Jarrell and Farmers UPT is extra/pathological dentition. Other than the skeleton from Louisiana with extra incisors and some accounts of supernumerary teeth, they don’t provide any real evidence of these features. The description of "perfect teeth" by Holbrooke contradicts the idea that the UPT is characterized by abnormal dentition. Andy White has written extensively about the "double rows of teeth" phenomenon, which appears to be related to a set of linguistic idioms rather than a real biological peculiarity In summary, Jarrell and Farmer provide little evidence for the existence of a gigantic "Unique Physical Type" among the prehistoric peoples of the eastern woodlands. They describe some burials that were reported as taller than average, but do not make a convincing case that those burials are of a different "race" or "type." The tall burials, if they really were tall, may have been a social elite but were certainly not of a "Unique Physical Type."
In summary, Jarrell and Farmer provide little evidence for the existence of a gigantic "Unique Physical Type" among the prehistoric peoples of the eastern woodlands. They describe some burials that were reported as taller than average, but do not make a convincing case that those burials are of a different "race" or "type." The tall burials, if they really were tall, may have been a social elite but were certainly not of a "Unique Physical Type." The concept of a unique "type" of people building the earthen mound of eastern North America harkens back to 19th century ideas associated with the Mound Builder Myth (i.e., that the mounds were not built by Native Americans). However wrong, the idea lives on. |
AuthorThese blog posts were written by students in Forbidden Archaeology (Fall 2016) ArchivesCategories
All
|