Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Fake Hercules Swords
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog

"Forbidden Friday" on my Blog: Brilliant Idea or Recipe for Disaster?

9/2/2016

 
I've got another idea.  Some of you will like this idea and, I'm sure, some of you will not. It came to me while walking home though South Carolina's piece of Hurricane Hermine, so it may be terrible. Here it is:

On Fridays, I'll feature a guest blog post on a non-mainstream archaeological topic. The guest author will present some aspect of his/her research in an evidence-based framework (i.e., using evidence to support or refute a claim) and will be responsible for answering questions and defending the claim in the comments. I'll have some standards and ground rules, but will try to remain open to any claim that (1) has to do with the human past and (2) is tied to material evidence.

What do you think?
Picture
Prior to writing this blog post, I had no idea there was a (1980) musical called "Forbidden Zone." This image, which I do not claim to understand in any way, is apparently from that film.
While there is no shortage of things that I think are fun and interesting to discuss, I'm not able to write nearly as much as I'd like. During the academic year, I probably average 2-3 posts per week. That leaves plenty of dead air. Why not open up some space for some of my readers or others who might want to reach a different audience? 

In the spirit of the Forbidden Archaeology class I'm teaching this semester, the important thing is that you orient your claim within some kind of scientific, evidence-based framework.  The rest of us, then, will scrutinize your claim, your assumptions, and your evidence and work it over in the comments. It will be a virtual dojo, where evidence-based point-counterpoint plays out in the same space for all to see.  If building things up by trying to knock things down geeks you out, you'll like it. If it hurts your feelings to have someone ask you hard questions or refute you, you probably won't like it. 

While I've had guest posts on my blog before, they've all been related to #Swordgate (there are more swords coming, by the way). The idea for "Forbidden Friday" came to me as I was corresponding with Bob Voyles (aka Gunn), who often comments on this blog about stone holes and what calls the "Norse Code Stone." It's obvious that Voyles cares deeply about his work and has put a lot of time and effort into it -- why not just offer him an opportunity to explain it himself? As I and others have commented before, my first question when I read about the stone holes is "how do you know they were made by Norse explorers?"  It's a reasonable, logical first question, and a great place to start: (1) construct the null hypothesis such as "all the stone holes in Minnesota are modern and were created to break up rocks;" (2) try to falisfy it. Voila, you're well on your way to doing some science. Voyles has accepted my invitation, so we'll see a guest post by him some time in the future.

Is anyone else out there interested? Giant skeletons? Ancient navigation? Sunken cities? Alien technology? ​
Bob Jase
9/2/2016 11:50:54 am

Love to read weirdness that isn't part of the presidential campaign.

James Simpson
9/2/2016 12:18:38 pm

I would love to write about the correlations that I have found in the navigation of St Brennan The Navigator as a theory that he brought the religion of Christianity with him to the Yucatan, and influenced the Maya to create their Tree Of Life Stella and Murals, Tombstones and other relics, all with these signs they met with a traveller from a far and away land in the timeframe of the late 500's AD

Andy White
9/2/2016 12:21:56 pm

Could you pick a piece of that and focus in a bit? Some part that has to do directly with material evidence and can be phrased as a null hypothesis?

Gunn
9/2/2016 12:20:57 pm

Just to let folks know that due to the holiday and transitioning to Colorado, it will take me several days or more to get my treatise on medieval Norse stoneholes in order. Thank you, Andy, for the invite. In the meanwhile, one of my favorite quotes may be in order:

"How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions." - From Doctor Pinero

Andy White
9/2/2016 12:42:36 pm

Does the scope and question I've proposed sound reasonable to you? Don't try to build Rome in a day, but start with the most fundamental question that many of us have: how do you know that some of the holes are medieval in age and others are not?

KL
9/2/2016 01:04:09 pm

I am all for this. I guess I feel like it probably is going to need some moderation in the comments to keep people from getting trolled. I'd consider adopting something similar to Reddit's AMA rules for commentary to keep things civil.

I would really like to see the guest poster define what they would consider compelling evidence that they could be incorrect. It could help define the boundary conditions of the debate as well as provide a gauge of how emotionally invested in the topic the author is. Not being able to identify anything that can refute your position is a pretty big red-flag that you aren't engaging in science.

I really hope this comes to fruition. It would be something I would look forward to every week.

Andy White
9/2/2016 01:21:51 pm

You're right: I'd probably have to moderate to keep things on track, and it would be good to have the poster clearly answer some basic questions about evidence. Maybe there could be a standard "fill in the blank" format for that basic information: A hat's the claim? What's the null hypothesis? What evidence could prove the null hypothesis wrong? Then the poster could launch into a narrative argument.

GEE
9/2/2016 01:53:17 pm

Andy, would you be interested in amateur writings?

I am all for your idea, it will be fun. What an awesome learning opportunity, for me. I look forward to seeing some posts from the deep thinkers that usually are on your blogs commenting and on your page., I look forward to the first post!!

Maybe Ill tempt one, just to learn the research side of it, and proofing techniques. Thank you Andy.

pferk
9/2/2016 02:26:07 pm

Hi; go for it. Gresatway to provide a reasonal forum for discussion of 'outlandish' ideas. thanks

D
9/2/2016 03:12:48 pm

Really like the idea Andy.

Jim
9/2/2016 03:13:05 pm

Sounds great. I am not that knowledgeable on many of these subjects. so hearing of both sides in a point-counterpoint argument would be perfect.
While I know next to nothing about stone holes, Gunn seems sincere about his beliefs which would make him a good candidate for this. We all know the flip (pun intended) side of this with certain types who show only fabricated truths and merely want attention. So I would think finding the right guests would be key, and make for some really interesting debates.

Mark L
9/3/2016 04:24:56 am

It's a terrible idea. For those people who've interacted with Gunn here and elsewhere, he's had hundreds of opportunities to answer the questions you're hoping to pose to him, and he hasn't done so. I don't see how this time will be different. You're giving oxygen to people who would happily starve you of it.

Joe Scales
9/3/2016 09:36:10 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with Mark. Gunn has long shown an unwillingness to reason, as well as no reluctance to embrace ad hominem on these discussion boards when his assertions are disputed. I for one will no longer engage him personally in discussion and it would be a waste of time for your readers to attempt same.

DPBROKAW
9/3/2016 11:00:38 am

I'd really like to see this happen. I think it would be a great opportunity to learn how theories/hypothosis are "proved" in a realistic and somewhat "peer-reviewed" manner.

DPBROKAW
9/3/2016 11:06:47 am

Of course like KL said, your going to have to moderate the comments. Otherwise certain trolls will try to make a joke out of these efforts.

Jim
9/3/2016 03:56:14 pm

It would definitely need moderation. Also, I wonder about timelines: if say for example some point didn't ring true, I might spend some time researching and upon returning to the debate my rebuttal may be buried behind other posts never to see the light of day or out of context with what is currently being debated.

Andy White
9/4/2016 04:57:04 am

So we've got a spectrum of opinion, ranging from "great idea" to "good idea but will require some rules" to "horrible idea." I'm somewhere in the middle, and I'm honestly not sure how/if this would work as a regular thing.

Perhaps I'll do the first one myself as a trial "model" so I can think through the format. If an idea can't be presented scientifically (i.e., as something that can be tested and potentially falsified by examination of physical evidence) I don't have much interest in hosting a discussion of it. But I think that trying to put some of these "fringe" ideas into a consistent scientific framework could potentially be a very useful exercise, both for those that propose them and my readers. So I'll put some thought into how we might standardize the presentations somewhat and how point-counterpoint might work in the comments. As Jim remarked, there's a real danger of important points getting lost in the comments. It might be possible to find ways to mitigate that, however, and I think it's probably worth an experiment or two to see if we can figure out how to make something like this a productive exercise.

John (the other one)
9/5/2016 09:30:18 pm

I like the idea of participating in an educative experience like this. I do fear it will have to be highly structured to work, like you give the writer some sort of rubric or minimum guidelines.

I just reread Gunn's Essays and was thinking back to what he posts, responds with, etc. It all just reads like everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, historians and academics are especially wrong, and then he backs away from actual discussion so unless that changes there won't be much going on in the comment section.

I was trying to come up with an idea to write about so the first run of this wasn't a disaster but I could only come up with jokes. What if Jason C did one on...aliens? He is an expert.

Premise: "Aliens have walked upon the face of the Earth."

You could at least use it to test a format.

Gunn
9/6/2016 09:14:56 am

Mark L, I find it odd that you would come to this blog and lie to the readers, and I don't even have the benefit of knowing who you are or where you crawled in from. My guess is that you may merely be another of Joe's many aliases, which have sprung up here and on other blogs for a few years now...one blog in particular where trollsome liars and troublemakers seem to thrive.

As most people who know me know, I've answered every question ever posed to me about stoneholes...and then some, without wavering. Never has there been evasiveness, though I have thought of defending myself a few times against those who seem to harbor ill-will. Yes, readers, there is this other problem to contend with.

Besides being a blatant liar on this blog (hundreds of opportunities?), Mark, you're also a liar about me happily wanting to starve Andy of oxygen in any way. I had communicated with Andy months before his class was to begin, and I've communicated goodwill towards him and his class and his students since. You and your master are the ones who may make Andy gasp, I think, when he sees what's going on.

It seems odd on the surface that I would suddenly run into problems with people outright lying against me, before I even have a chance to get started. I can only think that certain people are fearful of stoneholes because they instinctively know that these medieval Norse evidences are what holds everything else medieval and Norse together up here.

Mark L, again, where did you come from and why is it that you're suddenly here...and why is it you don't mind being a public liar and nuisance? Does it have anything to do with your perceived anonymity? More important even, does it have anything to do with Joe making you up to introduce his further ideas? It would be interesting if Andy could possibly see if Mark L, John (the other one) and Mike Morgan are all derivatives of a single spokesperson, Joe Scales.


Here it is then, Joe, Joe Scales. Frankly I’m getting tired of your years-long obsession with trying your best to destroy Scott Wolter…and anyone who may have supported him along his errant way, such as me. I know who you are: the dozen or more aliases on both Jason Colavito’s blog and Scott Wolter’s blog, and on here. John, Mike, Joe, an extended problem called EP before that…all the way back to a nasty comment to Wolter on an Amazon Hooked X page years ago, back to Mister Lister, West Coast Man, Motorcycle Man...obsessive blog troublemaker.

And now with Wolter fast diminishing, you dare to attack me, the honorable Gunn, personally--as a fake liar lamely trying here to introduce and back up another liar. You have far too much time for negative mischievousness on your hands, Lister.

Since you decided to attack me without good cause, I would like readers here to know that you have been obsessively hounding Wolter under different names that even he wasn’t aware of for YEARS. Now, you suddenly want to support a comment on this blog by a liar, who basically says I’ve been evasive on hundreds of stonehole debates. Well, anyone who knows me knows I’ve been the exact opposite of evasive…usually going on a bit too long, even. So, you are a trollsome troublemaker on blogs, and you are hereby exposed, yes, as a destructive liar playing supposed anonymous games. Here on Andy's blog, you have just been revealed as a cowardly stone-thrower trying vainly for a head-shot before the learned speaker about stoneholes could even utter a word. Yet, in the end, authentic medieval Norse stoneholes will make a fool out of you, Lister…which will be a good thing.

Gunn
9/6/2016 09:37:14 am

Sorry about the long rant, Andy.

I was just thinking, with your interest in metals, maybe you would like to consider this object I found several years ago, not far from the Kensington Runestone...only a few paces.

I don't think Olof Ohman was into making iron from scratch, so what is this iron object? I think this might even be a good trial item for a null hypothesis, if you would like to consider putting this "fringe" object through scientific scrutiny. I paid to have two metallurgy tests performed on it. This object can be looked at according to your proposed criteria, and the final outcome could possibly be very interesting to the history of metal-making, whether the object was created in Scandinavia, Newfoundland, or "modern" or possibly even medieval Minnesota.

You can find the true details of how I came to find the object here, and there are plenty of photos, with commentary. Hopefully, knowledgeable people will come to your blog and try their best to understand what this object is:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id25.html

Gunn
9/6/2016 10:39:25 am

Andy, if you think it might be a good idea to focus in on just one good example of a proposed medieval stonehole rock, I think we can do that with the Sauk Lake Altar Rock, misnamed Viking Altar Rock. I say this because its known history predates pioneer farming, and its location away from human habitation and in an area rife with smaller building stones eliminates any thoughts of blasting. Also, I think the multiple hand-chiseled holes in this rock can be compared to the mineral or mica decomposition of the late 1800's stoneholes to see that they are extremely aged by comparison.

I revisited this rock only yesterday and took new, highly-lit closeup images of the holes. (A sign says the 5-acre parcel is for sale.) I believe I will be able to show a significant difference in the degree of aging between the proposed modern and medieval stoneholes.

Here is my current Altar Rock web page, but I intend to add photos I took yesterday. Again, the history of this particular rock is well documented in one of H. Holand's books (1946), pretty much proving that the holes aren't modern, and almost certainly couldn't have been intended for blasting.

So, I believe that photographically comparing these to those only a bit over a hundred years old and machine-made will make some difference in how the stoneholes in the Altar Rock are perceived...as well as those other dozens upon dozens in the region.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id4.html

RiverM
9/6/2016 02:52:22 pm

I like the idea and would read each week. Gunn's Norse stone hole theory has interested me since seeing his posts here and another blog I frequent but I haven't read much of his work outside these forums. While not of Nordic heritage, the Scandanavian metal bug bit me long ago along with all things viking. I won't deny "wanting to believe" ships came from the North sea long before settling L'Anse aux Meadows and natives and nordics bro'd out happily, but the KRS as intriguing it is, doesn't have me sold. So let's hear more about these stone holes and other archaeological anomalies from readers old and new.

Gunn
9/6/2016 05:03:14 pm

Thank you for your kind words of support, RiverM. I think I just successfully published a new page on my humble little website tonight, showing plainly an example of some of the differences between modern "machine made" stoneholes (from the late 1800's) and genuine medieval Norse stoneholes.

I have in my personal photo collection dozens of stoneholes representing these two eras. The very aged, triangular-shaped stoneholes are often found in company of other seemingly perplexing artifacts, such as the KRS itself. RiverM, the stoneholes cannot be adequately explained away by the academic world, which is one of the reasons these troublesome stoneholes are a threat to academia...well, except for Andy.

I hope you enjoy seeing these two prime examples of both a fancy "modern" stonehole (machine-made), from the ridge where the Norse Code-stone is located, and another stonehole from the Sauk Lake Altar Rock, which I believe is an authentic medieval stonehole, precisely in appearance like some of those from Iceland and other NW European locations:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id42.html

Joe Scales
9/8/2016 05:12:55 am

See Professor? Case in point. You make an argument against someone like Gunn and he can only respond with ad hominem and fantastic allegations. My posting history on these blogs can easily be traced back to where I first came upon Jason's blog when questioning the Ancient Alien "theorists". It was there that I discovered links to Wolter's fraudulent activities and found his blog referenced. Only after that did I ever waste my time on Wolter's blog trying to reason with him. Wolter himself has accused me of being anyone from Dick Nielsen to Walter Edwards... and yes, even Gunn's Mr. Lister. Now Gunn has likewise accused me of being numerous entities, right according to the fringe playbook. These fringe theorists are all alike. They cannot deal with facts. They cannot deal with evidence. They see what they want to see and bend all to their fantasy.

Gunn
9/8/2016 08:00:24 am

Science wins over a big mouth every time. Gunn represents science, not fringe history and a big mouth.

Here is a comparison between small-diameter stoneholes made by machine (first 2 photos) and small-diameter medieval stoneholes made by hand. The machine-made holes are perfectly round and relatively unaged...don't let the lichen fool you. The Norse Code-stone holes are irregular and obviously aged:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id43.html


Jim
9/8/2016 12:58:39 pm

Being a pre-debate teaser : I don't see any evidence whatsoever that these holes are medieval or Norse. I could as easily say they are alien in nature. Your stating they are does not make it so.

Gunn
9/8/2016 06:18:17 pm

Hi Jim, did you happen to read anywhere that these proposed medieval Norse stoneholes are exactly like known examples in Scandinavian countries, as well as Scotland? This is comparitive evidence, is it not?

I am stating what is factual--through researchable sources--and also visually obvious. If you self-blind yourself, you will perhaps not see that I have, above, produced scientific photographic evidence of just what I've been saying.

Would you like to remove all the known collaborative medieval stoneholes from NW Europe? It won't work...they cannot be explained away across the pond, nor here in America, either.

Jim, skeptic, please tell me what you think these medieval Norse stoneholes are. You cannot, because they are what I've said they are, with proof from Scandinavia and good camera work. You should look again at the science I've shown you, and Andy, and others here, and reassess your casual armchair findings.

Are you sharp enough to understand what the photos, above, mean? If you're not, don't blame me. I believe other readers will understand that I've just clearly shown the differences between hand-made modern stoneholes and medieval Norse stoneholes, right here on this blog. And since I'm not in any way evasive, I will be happy to make available more comparison stoneholes, should anyone wish.

Jim, your stating that there is no evidence does not make it so. Peace.

Jim
9/8/2016 09:00:01 pm

Hi Gunn, I must admit I was ignorant of the whole Norse stonehole theory until reading this blog, and still remain largely uneducated in it.
As far as being exactly the same in Scandinavia, if you've seen one chiseled stone hole you've seen them all. I would imagine they would look similar anywhere in the world. So comparative evidence, but somewhat cherry picked.

I recommend getting a better camera with a macro lens +macro flash. Failing that use a tripod and a high f-stop number to give you better depth of field and clarity. Yes I can see the dif between drilled and chiseled holes. But this is not evidence of Norse and age ? If you do not self-blind yourself, you will see no evidence at all.

Remove the stone holes ? Are they medieval ? What tests can show their age ? And what of stone holes in other parts of the world ?

"Jim, skeptic, please tell me what you think these medieval Norse stoneholes are. You cannot, because they are what I've said they are, with proof from Scandinavia and good camera work. You should look again at the science I've shown you, and Andy, and others here, and reassess your casual armchair findings."

Could be powder holes, to break them up, could be used to tether livestock, could tether a tent in a windy area. could be any number of things. What you call proof seems lacking. That there are holes in Scandinavia and Scotland I have no doubt, but there are probably similar holes in Asia, proves nothing.
Thats not good camera work, however a photograph of a hole is proof of nothing.

"Are you sharp enough to understand what the photos, above, mean? If you're not, don't blame me. I believe other readers will understand that I've just clearly shown the differences between hand-made modern stoneholes and medieval Norse stoneholes"

I am sharp enough to know a photograph of a hole does not make it Norse nor medieval. A chiseled hole, modern or medieval, Norse or American will look alike !!! Yes a drilled hole looks different. There ia a big difference between an oreo cookie and a homemade cookie, doesn't make the homemade cookie medieval !

Andy White
9/8/2016 02:00:58 pm

I've got some thoughts/questions also. I may try to post them tomorrow if I can find the time. There is no official "Forbidden Friday" post on tap for Friday.

Gunn
9/8/2016 06:45:27 pm

I sure don't mind carrying the stonehole debate forward by entertaining questions. I don't know whether I can answer everyone's questions to their satisfaction, but I don't mind questions and debates, especially about stoneholes.

Perhaps you would like to have a Stonehole Friday. Although I'll be packing a 20-foot U-haul truck tomorrow, I am willing to attempt to answer any and all serious questions concerning stoneholes tomorrow evening.

If you want, Andy, I can send you by email attachment unreduced photos of ten good examples of late 1800's stoneholes from railroad surveying crews, and ten good examples of known, proposed medieval Norse stoneholes, if you would like to post them at a future time. Over and over again, you can witness the differences in appearance and aging between stoneholes from these two identifiable ages. I think this is science, unless I'm mistaken.

I can also send you superb photos of all of the several small-diameter stonehole rocks that make up the coded arrangement of rocks on the ridge.

I sincerely hope that you and some of your blog readers may come to realize--through scientific evidence and previous knowledge about stoneholes in Europe--that the proposed medieval Norse Code-stone I found is real...a very real "miracle of discovery" by a very real stonehole nut. (How dare anyone even hint that I'm evasive about in-depth stonehole debates....)


Comments are closed.

    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

    Email me: [email protected]

    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

    May 2024
    January 2024
    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