Controversy about who built the earthen mounds of eastern North America has been around for a long time. One popular idea, long since discarded by reasonable people, was that the "Mound Builders" were a giant people not related to present-day Native Americans. In 1832, William Cullen Bryant published a poem called “The Prairies.” The poem describes “a race, that long has passed away” and says that “the red man came-the roaming hunter tribes, warlike and fierce, and the moundbuilders vanished from the earth.” Although the Mound Builder myth enjoyed a lot of support in the mid 1800's, the idea of a non-Native American origin of the mounds was not universally accepted. In 1855, Increase Lapham argued that the mounds of Wisconsin were built not by giant foreigners, but by late 17th century Native Americans. Increase Allen Lapham (1811-1875) is considered “Wisconsin’s first great scientist and the “Father of the U.S. Weather Service.” Not only did Lapham work on the mounds located in Wisconsin he also worked on the Miami Canal and he discovered the Panther Intaglio Effigy Mound located in Wisconsin. He published works such as A Geographical and Topographical Description of Wisconsin, Geological Map of Wisconsin, and Opening an Ancient Mound Near Madison, Wisconsin. He was, apparently, kind of a big deal. Especially in Wisconsin. Lapham’s Antiquities of Wisconsin (1855) was focused on artifacts and other evidence found in Wisconsin and Illinois, noting several times the evidence that the mounds were built by . . . guess who? Native Americans. Lapham also states that Indians were buried in the mounds. The bones that were found and examined were fragments of skulls and teeth. He noted (page 7) that "The teeth of the adult skeletons were much worn, but sound and firm. . . . the muscles of the jaws must have been unusually large and strong." It is not unknown that individuals who led a hunter-gatherer life style had worn teeth and robust jaw muscles. Native Americans had a tough diet which included eating foods like buffalo, deer, elk, wild rice, corn, etc. Tough diets were likely responsible for the heavily worn teeth and muscular jaws of the skeletons from the Wisconsin mounds. Lapham describes the cheek bones as more obtuse than is typical for Native Americans but he does not describe how obtuse the zygomatic arch is (page 10): “the zygomatic arch has not the same projection, the angle of the cheekbone is more obtuse, and the orbits are rather less angular than in the modern Indian. The heavy, projecting jaw, and flattened occiput, are quite characteristics of these ancient mound skulls.” Measurements of a skull are provided on page 81. What stood out the most to me is Lapham's description of the flattened occiput. I think that it is important to keep in mind the Native American culture when thinking about flattened occipital bones. Could this flattened occipital bones have been product of intentional cranial deformation during infancy? Occipital flattening can cause facial deformities especially frontal asymmetry which could correlate to different facial shapes than those typical of Native Americans. Examples of skulls with occipital flattening can be seen here. Lapham's sober appraisal of the Wisconsin mounds stands in contrast to other ideas about the "Mound Builders" that were popular at the time. Many though that Native Americans were simply not intelligent enough to construct such impressive works: the evidence found, such as stone, metal, and clay artifacts were too “evolved” for any American Indian to have created. here seemed to be other evidence that a different "race" built the mounds, as well: Caleb Atwater's stratigraphic work led him to believe that the skeletal remains of Indians were found close to the surface and that the artifacts, which had symbols inscribed on them, were found even deeper in the earth which would have lead to the explanation that something or someone older than the Indians was there first. Meanwhile, popular publications fed the belief in giants during the mid- to late-1800's. A great example of someone who fueled the fascination with giants is William Pidgeon. Pidgeon made up fake surveys of mounds and stated that the mounds were created by an “ancient race that predated Native Americans.” Thanks Pidgeon for the surveys of mounds. Not. Lapham argued convincingly that Native Americans did occupy the Wisconsin Mounds and most likely built the mounds as well. Here is a list by Lapham of all the known Native American peoples in Wisconsin. If anything should be taken from this posting it is that Native Americans were most certainly intelligent individuals who should be given credit where credit is due. Although I am not sure which tribes or how many tribes occupied Wisconsin throughout time, it is obvious their creation of these mounds should be preserved. Lastly, I would like to leave off with a video of the Indian mounds in Mound Cemetery in Racine, Wisconsin.
4 Comments
The quest to demonstrate the giants existed is full of pieces of mysteriously missing evidence. I love a good mystery: my passion for mysteries grew as I spent many hours with two of my older brothers on a quest to excavate an old stone cellar nestled deep in the ground in the woods beside our yard. One of the pieces of evidence that giantologists claim has "gone missing" is a rather robust skull from a 1939 excavation in Victoria, Texas. I am pleased to report that skull is neither missing nor that of a giant. I began my search for the missing skull based on this newspaper clipping, which is reproduced widely on the internet: Richard Dewhurst discussed this case in his book The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America and used this clipping from the San Antonia Express as his main source. There is no date on the image, titled "Beach Giant’s Skull Unearthed by WPA Workers near Victoria," and the article does not name the site where the skull was found. I could not find any other similarly documented material from that specific paper nor its time era. However, without significant and more reliable proof I cannot confirm nor deny the authenticity of this specific article. This page on Terje Dahl's website discusses the article and identifies the site as Morhiss Mound. A Google search for "Morhiss giant" returned several pseudoscience sites that also used the same clipping from the San Antonio newspaper along with declarations of it being a piece of evidence to prove the existence of giants. Dahl states that the "giant skull" is missing, saying that “a newspaper article from 1940 tells that a giant- sized skull was found in Texas I have now received confirmation from the University of Texas that a large skull was found in the Morhiss mound in 1939 but that the skull has been missing from the collection for a long time.” Dahl reproduced some correspondence with the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL) that concludes that, because the skull from Morhiss could not be located, the "cover-up" of information about giants "must have also been worldwide": “One more side note, I have contacted an editor and head of the museum in Seymour, Texas. They each had no clue about these articles. The only response I received from any educational organization was from the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory. They also did not know anything about these articles. It amazes me how complete the Smithsonian cover-up has been in the US. The cover-up must have also been worldwide.” These letters left me feeling unsatisfied and did not sit well with my inner detective skills. Both Dahl and Dewhurst implied that the skull was missing and no one seemed to have had it for a very long time. I took it upon myself to email the very same laboratory at TARL. I chose to write to an osteologist at the university. This is the response: From: Stacy Marie Drake Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Giant skull Hi, I have finally been able to track down accession records and the actual remains of the individual in question. Yes, this means that TARL does in fact have the physical remains of this supposed "giant". Let me now say that, as a trained Osteologist, while this individual is indeed large, "he" is in no way what I would consider outside of the normal range of human variation. I also want to stress here that the prehistoric individuals from coastal Texas are historically recognized as having been large, robust individuals, and this person is no exception, nor is he outside of the norm. It is my belief that there may have been a misunderstanding or a miscommunication in the past that led to the idea that the remains of this individual were lost. While the original documentation of the burial does indicate the odd proportions of the cranium in comparison to the postcranial material, I see no indication of this in the actual remains. This individual is a male, and is one of the most robust individuals I have seen. The skull has also been poorly reconstructed, which may have contributed to the hype about the overall size of the individual. So, to answer your question: The Morhiss "Giant" is not missing. And is not a giant. Please let me know if you have any further questions, and thank you for reaching out to me! Best of luck in your research! Best, Stacy Drake Osteologist and NAGPRA Coordinator Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory The University of Texas at Austin The missing "giant skull" from Morhiss Mound still exists: it's not missing, and it's not a giant.
According to an article from the Texas Beyond History website, investigation of Morhiss Mound began in the late 1800’s with Miss Victoria M. Rose. She was a historian and an editor for the Laredo Daily Times. She first publicized the mound in a book she wrote about the settlement of Victoria, Texas, in 1883. She described the mound as a curiosity. It was located on the east bank of a river. The mound was partly located in a local farmers’ backyard. Rose described it as “identical to that of the mound builders.” It was not until many years later in 1930’s that the mound was once again in the limelight, this time it caught the attention of the archaeologists A. T. Jackson. He began his preliminary excavation a couple of years later in 1932 with the help of Professor James E. Pierce. He found several human remains in this first dig which proved Victoria Roses’ theory that this was indeed an ancient burial mound. Within the next decade there were dozens of digs that produced skeletal remains and artifacts. It was later excavated again from 1938- 1940 by archaeologist William A. Duffen and a team of about 30 workers. He was recently interviewed by TARL at the age of 99. He enjoyed reminiscing about the dig. So while this story is clearly fascinating, it is no longer a mystery or a conspiracy. The bones are in the safe hands of the good people at TARL and the skull in question is not that of a giant. The skull was however, improperly reconstructed and was described as “not beyond the scope of normal human variation.” The mountain into a molehill phrase comes to mind. If you would like to read more about the real story of the Morhiss Mound from the Universities website take a look at the Texas Beyond History website. Cope’s rule, named for paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope, states that lineages tend to increase in body size over long periods of time. A pattern of body size increase over time appears to apply to most observed lineages. It has been identified, for example, in canids, marine animals, humans, and even dinosaurs. Cope's rule is widely accepted by the scientific community. It doesn't leave much room for giant humans in the past, however, which is a problem if you really want such things to have existed. Chris Lesley, proponent of a notion of “Greater Ancestry” theory, proposes that Cope's rule is exactly backwards. Lesley states that every life form had a greater ancestor in the past, meaning that as species evolve they get smaller rather than larger. According to his website "Every animal, plant and microbe from the blue whale to single cell organisms, every life form has a GREATER ANCESTOR in the past. This creed is without exception, there are no animals living today that do not follow this model of science. GREATER ANCESTRY is a scientific model of origins and boldly superior to all previous and existing models globally." Lesley cites an astonishing amount of evidence for his claims. I chose to examine just a few, none of which held up to scrutiny. A Greater Rabbit Ancestor? Lesley claims that the rabbit’s greater ancestor, Nuralagus, has been discovered. His post on the subject is littered with pictures of the ancient lagomorph skeleton compared to today’s European rabbit. In the images the older remains are significantly larger than the remains of the rabbit we know today. The pictures are real (one of them even has a scale!), but five minutes of research shows why this is a poor piece of evidence for his claim. The skeleton shown is actually not the greater ancestor of the modern rabbit. Nuralagus was discovered on the island of Menorca in Spain. Its size is explained by a concept called “island gigantism”. According to Ted Case, there are two common factors that lead to island gigantism: lack of predators and consistent availability of food. There are also multiple variables that have to be just right in order for a species to head toward gigantism, such as a lack of physical restrictions on why an animal can enlarge. For Nuralagus, food was so readily available that it was advantageous to give up the ability to dig for their food like smaller European rabbits do. Nuralagus grew to its immense size because of the lack of predators on Menorca. The modern rabbit’s size works to its advantage because it allows them to escape predators easily. Nuralagus, not having any predators to worry about, was perfectly conditioned to grow and grow and grow as it evolved. As a result of this island gigantism, we can safely say that Nuralagus is not the greater ancestor of the European rabbit; he is just an anomaly within the lineage of the lagomorphs. (Source for image of Nuralagus.) What's Bigger than the Blue Whale? The blue whale (still living today) is the largest animal that we know about. How could the biggest animal to ever live have a "greater ancestor"? Lesley claims that a species called Balaenoptera sibbaldina is the biggest whale that has ever lived, and is therefore a "greater ancestor" to the blue whale. He writes an article with various pictures of this whale and quotes this 2005 article from the Journal of Mammalian Evolution (pg. 115): "Van Beneden (1880, p. 15) established this species on an isolated petrosal and some vertebrae from different parts of the axial skeleton. Later, in his monograph Van Beneden (1882) listed and illustrated a partial occipital shield (of a juvenile individual), a right petrosal, an isolated posterior process of the petrotympanic, a partial rib, and isolated thoracic, lumbar, and caudal vertebrae. Because no holotypewas designated and the syntypes are almost certainly from different individuals, it is not possible to unambiguously diagnose this taxon. Van Beneden (1880, 1882) aligned (presumably based on size) this fossil species with the extant blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus, known to Van Beneden as Balaenoptera sibbaldus), emphasizing that relationship with a similar specific name. Van Beneden emphasized that he was naming the fossil taxon sibbaldina presumably referring to the similar large size of the fossil and living blue whale." Lesley does a lot of cherry picking in this claim. He takes quotes that only conform with the point he’s trying to make. As shown in the quote above, the authors state that the recognition of Balaenoptera sibbaldina as a valid species is suspect because of problems concerning the type of remains discovered and the lack of a type specimen. Additionally, a French scientific journal entitled Geodiversitas published an article stating that a lot of the remains found are based in speculation because some of the bones are broken and others don’t have enough Balaenopteroid characteristics. These are inconvenient for the "greater ancestor" theory, and Lesley ignores them. "Greater" Humans? Lesley doesn’t stop with animals. In the large section of his website dedicated to “greater humans,” Lesley asserts that humans are only getting smaller over time. He cites his evidence as everything from the usual accounts of eight foot skeletons (some of which have been debunked) to a quote from Abraham Lincoln. The most frustrating thing about Lesley's assertions is that he absolutely refuses to accept any evidence that doesn't accord with his own ideas. According to the Smithsonian, known fossils related to human evolution follow Cope’s rule: our lineage generally increases in size over time. Fossils possibly related to our early hominin ancestry (e.g., Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus ramidus) were small in body size. Ardipithecus ramidus had an estimated height of 3'11." The height of Australopithecus afarensis is estimated at 4'11" for males and 3'5" for females. A trend of increasing body size continues throughout our evolution, with species such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and finally, Homo sapiens (that’s us!). The pattern of increasing body size in our lineage is clear. The "greater ancestor" claim, much like other pseudoscientific claims, struggles to garner some concrete evidence that holds up to scientific scrutiny. Cope’s rule has been shown to apply to numerous lineages, which is why it has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Perhaps the most important part of Cope’s rule is the fact that it embraces exceptions. It acknowledges that not every single species within a lineage will follow the "rule;" rather it’s a general observation about trends in body size within lineages over evolutionary time. Lesley's clear statement that there is no animal alive today that doesn’t have a "greater ancestor" is easy to falsify if you understand evolutionary lineages: the giant bunny from the Spanish island isn't the ancestor of today's rabbits. The inability to accept and account for contrary evidence points to a belief system rather than a scientific approach. The discovery of large jaw and skull fragments at the Sangiran site, near Central Java, Indonesia, has resulted in speculation that the bones are those of giants. These fragments were originally called Meganthropus, but are now usually classified as Homo erectus. The large size of the Meganthropus fossils has prompted claims that they are the remains of giants. Here, for example, Meganthropus is said to have stood 2.75 meters tall and to have weighed roughly 340-450 kilograms (about 750-990 pounds). The biblical Goliath also stood about 2.75 meters tall. Of these claims, one of the most popular holds the idea that Meganthropus was a giant, standing at 9 feet tall and 750 to 1000 pounds. Despite the fact that fossils called Meganthropus have only been found in Indonesia, there are claims that Meganthropus also lived in Australia. The evidence for this is the presence of giant tools and modern day reports of sightings of the giant, specifically in Australia. It doesn't stop there. Some Bigfoot researchers apparently also contend that Bigfoot is a modern Meganthropus. Is there any basis in these estimates of great size? Could Meganthropus have been one the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4 or the sons of Anak described in Numbers 13:33? So would evidence gathered from the Bible and claims of giant stone tool and sightings around the world lead to the possibility that Meganthropus could've actually been a giant? No. The fascination with Meganthropus as a giant is based on fantasy. The tooth and skull remains simply don't allow us to accurately estimate it's body size: without the evidence of post cranial skeletons, direct proof of the body size simply doesn't exist. The size of the Meganthropus remains clearly impressed those that discovered and analyzed the fossils in the mid-20th century. Discovered in 1941 by von Koenigswald, the mandible of the Sangiran 6, Meganthropus, was initially believed by Franz Weidenreich to be traced back to giant apes. In a letter to Franz Weidenreich (quoted in this creationist discussion of Meganthropus), von Koenigswald wrote that his discovery was “so large that Pithecanthropus, Paranthropus, Peking Man and Heidelberg Man are elegant and dwarfish in comparison with it." Intrigued, Weidenreich studied the mandible and wrote in his book of his observations: the jaw exceeds the height and thickness of any known fossil or recent anthropoids (Weidenreich, 52). Regarding the cranium capacity, studies of Meganthropus, show that it exceeds Sangiran 12 with a possible cranial capacity of 1059 cubic centimeters, the fossil record showing that the cranium capacity was approaching that of the modern human (1350 cubic centimeters) (source). According to this site, von Koenigswald explained in and article inThe Spectator, that although the size comparison of the mandible in relation to the body would suggest that the body be 8 feet and 3 inches high, “this, naturally is pure fancy,” says Von Koenigswald, “any reliable calculation of [its] height must await the discovery of long bones” (The Spectator: Volume 197, Part 2). Stanley Marion Garn Ph.D., human biologist, and former Professor of Anthropology at the College for Literature, Science and Arts and Professor of Nutrition at the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, and Arthur B. Lewis D.D.S., whose research resulted in 71 publications covering dental morphology and changes in the cranial base and mandible, worked together to provide further information in the relationship between tooth size and body size. Studying the relationship, Garn and Lewis came to the conclusion that there exists no intimate relationship between the two variables. According to their calculations, the table shows that “the largest mandibular molar teeth belong to the South African forms, yet these Australopithecines were of short stature: … the largest as probably not far beyond the chimpanzee range. On the other hand, the smallest teeth belong to the Ohio whites, unquestionably the tallest group of the seven here considered” (Garn and Lewis, 1958:875). The authors furthered their research not only to analyze species, but races and individuals as well. What they came to conclude is that there exists no correlation in indicating that tooth size predicts body size in recent man, in Homo, or in any related forms, currently. And so without any further evidence, the only possible explanation of the big-toothed form was simply that it was just a big-toothed form, according to Garn and Lewis. Although comparisons can be made based on profile-patterns, those stipulated similarities don't indicate that the large mandible holds any relation to us.
Although Peter Line, author of “‘Giants’ in the Land: An Assessment of Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus”, still believes that even without the crucial, physical evidence, the possibility of Meganthropus being a giant and existing, like other giants, albeit disproven many times, can still be plausible. He claims to believe it is premature to use the piece evidence as a conclusion to giant humans existing, but says evolutionists invent giant hominids from “teeth only” so creationists believing in giant humans “can be forgiven.” Sure, maybe they “can be forgiven,” but that in no way provides direct support to the idea that Meganthropus was a human giant. 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
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. Kap Dwa (roughly translated as "two heads" in the Maylay language) is the preserved remains of 12-foot-tall, two-headed "giant" that apparently currently resides in Baltimore, Maryland. Regarded by some as a real creature (classified by some as Homo giganticus and featured here as evidence of the existence of giant humans), Kap Dwa's storied past strongly suggests an artificial origin. What is this thing? Where did it come from? If it's a taxidermy fake, who made it and why? Martin Clemens recounts the history of Kap Dwa. As one story goes, the giant was captured by Spanish sailors and taken away on a ship. He broke free and was then skewered in the heart by a pike, ending his life. Other versions of the story state that the body was found washed up on a beach with with a spear protruding from his chest. The remains of the giant were then brought to Blackpool when a schooner captain by the name of Captain George Bickle caught wind of the remains and retrieved them. I have yet to find any proof that Captain George Bickle actually existed. Whatever the "origin" story, Kap Dwa was apparently making the sideshow rounds in the U.K. in the late 1800's. Kap Dwa has both supporters and detractors: there are the taxidermy truthers and there are the people that believe this to a real body. On the "real" side, several sources report no obvious evidence of taxidermy. This PowerPoint made by a high school teacher claims that Johns Hopkins University students did an MRI on the body of Kap Dwa (I found no other information about that claim). According to an article in Fortean Times (Tucker - what can I link to for this?), Frank Adey remembers seeing it in Blackpool around 1960. "There were no signs of sutures or other ‘joins’, even though the body was largely unclothed. In the 1930's, two doctors and a radiologist reportedly inspected it in Weston and found no perceptual evidence of it being a fake”. Now we get into what I think is a very interesting part of the story of Kap Dwa: Rouge Taxidermy. According to RoughTaxidermy.com, rouge taxidermy would be best described as "a genre of pop-surrealist art characterized by mixed media sculptures containing conventional taxidermy materials that are used in an unconventional manner." Icons of rouge taxidermy include the Fiji Mermaid (perpetrated by sideshow connoisseur P. T. Barnum) and the Jackalope. The conflicting origin stories and the status of Kap Dwa as a sideshow attraction, of course, immediately damage its credibility. P. T. Barnum is referenced in every article about Kap Dwa that I found. Some suggest that Kap Dwa may have been one of his projectsWouldn’t Johns Hopkins university students or actual doctors taken a real interest in something this unusual? Wouldn't Kap Dwa be in a museum? The conflicting origin stories are full of suspense and action, designed to attract a crowd. Why not stop by and see a two-headed giant? Reproduced at the bottom of the Kap Dwa article on Sideshowworld.com is an advertisement for this very kind of taxidermy, complete with the pitch:
“Supply House, Special attraction. King Mac-A-Dula. The Two Headed Patagonian Giant. A whole show. A Big Classy Attraction. Made so legs come off at the waist so as to ship in a box 5x2x1 – ½ ft. An old body dress covers where legs come off. IT’S A WINNER, A MONEY GETTER” Any sideshow could have a “Kap Dwa” or a “King Mac-A-Dula” of their very own complete with “doctors” to come look at it for sutures or stitches or seams to create the illusion that its real. The loin cloth probably covers where the legs detach. Kap Dwa appears to be nothing more than a case of rogue taxidermy with a backstory pieced together to attract customers. These are things created by people for revenue and for attraction. People who want to believe it will pay to see it. |
AuthorThese blog posts were written by students in Forbidden Archaeology (Fall 2016) ArchivesCategories
All
|