Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

Hey "Popular Archaeology:" Here Are Some Corrections To Your Solutrean Hypothesis Story

10/17/2015

16 Comments

 
PictureScreenshot of "The Iceman Cameth" as published October 2, 2015 in Popular Archaeology.
The Fall 2015 edition of Popular Archaeology contains a story about the Solutrean Hypothesis titled "The Iceman Cameth" by Patrick Hahn. I've seen the story (dated October 2) pop up in a number of groups that I follow online. It contains several obvious errors, including a particularly important one in the first paragraph.  I would have thought someone would have pointed them out and/or corrected them by now, but that doesn't appear to have happened.  So here you go.

This is the first paragraph of the story:

"In his laboratory at the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., Dr. Dennis Stanford hands me a slab of brown plaster.
 It’s a replica of a bone fragment – from a mastodon or a giant ground sloth – the original having been dredged from the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay. On the slab is an etching of a mastodon, placed there by some unknown artist long ago. By itself, the find is a truly remarkable one. But more than this, the artifact, dated to a staggering 22,000 years ago, is now part of a growing body of evidence that could overturn everything scientists once thought they knew about the peopling of the Americas."

The first sentence might be correct.  The rest of the first paragraph, however, is wrong.  

Unless I missed something, there is no 22,000 year-old mastodon carving from Chesapeake Bay. The author has conflated the carving of a mammoth on a piece of fossil bone from Vero Beach, Florida (dating to about 13,000 years ago), with the 22,000-year-old mastodon remains that were purportedly dredged up from the mid-Atlantic continental shelf along with the Cinmar biface.

This is not a trivial error: it conflates a discovery that is accepted (Vero Beach) with one that is much less so (Cinmar), casting the case for the Solutrean Hypothesis in a more favorable light than is deserved based on the evidence.  

As far as I know, no-one really doubts the veracity of the Vero Beach mammoth carving: it appears to be a genuine artifact that dates to at least 13,000 years ago (i.e., when mammoths became extinct).  It could have been produced by Clovis or pre-Clovis peoples.  It's pretty cool, but it hasn't been dated to 22,000 years ago and doesn't "overturn everything scientists thought they knew."  If you want to read some scholarly work on the Vero Beach carving, here is a 2011 paper by Barbara Purdy et al. from the Journal of Archaeological Science.  

To say the Cinmar biface doesn't enjoy the same level of acceptance as the Vero Beach carving is putting it mildly. The Cinmar biface, a bi-pointed stone blade that resembles a Solutrean laurel-leaf point, is said by its supporters to be about 22,8000 years old by virtue of its association with radiocarbon-dated mastodon remains. Both the point and the mastodon remains are said to have been dredged up from the continental shelf some years ago. The reported circumstances of discovery of the Cinmar biface have been strongly questioned (you can read a June 2015 paper by Metin Eren et al. in the Journal of Archaeological Science here; you can read Darrin Lowery's response to that paper here; and you can read what I wrote about the whole affair here).

The conflation of the Vero Beach carving (a well-accepted artifact) with the dates and location associated with the Cinmar biface (a much more controversial artifact) is an important mistake.  The Cinmar biface is one of the key pieces of evidence put forward by proponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis. The Vero Beach carving is not. Not a great start to the article.

Moving on.

This is paragraph fourteen:

"Archaeologists have found evidence of human habitation antedating Clovis by thousands of years, including sites on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay.  Tools associated with these sites have a distinctly Solutrean look."

This paragraph, again, mixes something that most archaeologists accept (the reality of a pre-Clovis occupation of eastern North America) with something that has been asserted but not yet demonstrated to the satisfaction of most of us (that there are actual Solutrean sites on the east coast).  More clarity would been helpful - what sites are we talking about here? Presumably, the article is referring to the Miles Point and Oyster Cove sites which were discussed by Lowery et al. in this 2010 paper in Quaternary Science Reviews (and this 2012 Washington Post article).  The artifacts described from Miles Point (reportedly found in sediments of pre-Clovis age) don't look particularly Solutrean to me, and indeed that paper does not suggest any Solutrean affinity (the word "Solutrean" does not appear in the paper). You can read a critique of the evidence for the Solutrean Hypothesis and the data from Miles Point and Oyster Cove in this 2014 Antiquity paper by Michael O'Brien et al.  If there's a paper somewhere that makes a case for the Solutrean affinity of the lithic assemblages from Miles Point or Oyster Cove (or other sites) on typological grounds, I haven't seen it.

PictureArtifact images from the Popular Archaeology article. The top image shows Solutrean artifacts. The bottom two are labeled as "Clovis points." They're not.
Moving on.

The article includes an image of some Solutrean artifacts followed by two images that are supposed to be Clovis points.  Neither of the artifacts represented as a Clovis point actually is.​

The first "Clovis point" is apparently 
an artifact found in Mexico near the Tepexpan skeleton. It's possible it's a preform for a fluted point, but it clearly isn't a finished Clovis point.

The second image, also not a Clovis point, is apparently a biface from Nicaragua.  The image can be found on Wikimedia Commons, where is described as "NOT A CLOVIS TECHNOLOGY."  

​It's pretty easy to find images of actual Clovis points, so I'm not sure why the Popular Archaeology story chose to use non-Clovis artifacts as examples of Clovis.  In terms of their shape, the artifacts shown at least superficially resemble Solutrean laurel-leaf blades far more to the untrained eye than actual Clovis points.  But they're not Clovis points.  And they're not Solutrean artifacts.  So why are they in the article?

Strike three.

Neither the Solutrean Hypothesis nor the evidence associated with it is really very complicated. I have no idea what the editorial process at Popular Archaeology is like, but the significant errors and omissions in this story don't inspire a lot of confidence. 

I was compelled to write this post because one of the readers of my blog (a non-archaeologist) asked me about this article in particular.  He wanted to know what I thought of Popular Archaeology.  I think there's some room for improvement.

Is it just me? Am I missing something? Let me know if I've gotten anything wrong: I'll gladly correct what I've written.

16 Comments
Pegi Jodry
10/17/2015 08:04:56 am

Hello Andy, I've followed your continuing criticisms of the Solutrean hypothesis and the Cinmar data. I invite you to invest a bit of time visiting the Paleoindian collections at NMNH, Smithsonian and discussing finds from the Mid-Atlantic with Dennis Stanford and I first-hand... as you are now in South Carolina and we are neighbors on the East Coast as well as colleagues. Always good to handle the original material

Reply
Andy White
10/17/2015 08:42:22 am

Hi Pegi,

Thanks for the comment and the invitation. I would love to come up there sometime and look at some material. That would be a lot of fun.

Would you not agree that the Popular Archaeology story contains several important conflations and inaccuracies? It's a bummer, I think, because it makes it more difficult to have a conversation with the public about the Solutrean Hypothesis.

Reply
Pegi Jodry
10/17/2015 09:03:50 am

Hi Andy, I definitely agree that the Popular Archaeology article contains inaccuracies… as most archaeologists experience at one point or another when their ideas are reinterpreted and misquoted in popular media. My experience is that the public is rather savvy in keeping an open mind about the Solutrean hypothesis… and it is a bummer when popular articles and TV programs dish out inaccurate information. I look forward to meeting you face-to-face and exchanging ideas in Washingotn. I am also working on a site-structural study of a Folsom campsite and admire your work on households.

Andy White
10/18/2015 06:25:35 am

Thanks Pegi. The EWHADP is sputtering back to life now, but I'm having some issues really getting momentum. It would be nice to be able to devote more time to it, but as we all know time and energy are finite. It would be great if others would take on the task of assembling habitation structure datasets for other areas of the world. Having compiled data from the western U.S. would be awesome.

Bob Jase
10/17/2015 10:35:45 am

Poor article but still an interesting hypothesis, only a hypothesis though.

Reply
Steve Timmermans
10/17/2015 02:53:36 pm

That's an interesting article and does a good job of elucidating a lot of exaggerations and misrepresentations happening out there, especially on this subject. However, again, it is apparent that folks including this author, you and others (including Metin) are falling for a red herring, and in the wrong place with respect to examining the validity of a northeastern entry into North America -- which by the way has NOTHING to do with caucasoid Euro early peopling of NA biases. I agree that the Cinmar point and associated hype is problematic and frankly, a red herring on the whole Solutrean hypothesis. I am actually quite surprised that neither folks like you nor others (including Stanford and Bradley) are taking more serious looks at what's really the most compelling comparative evidence -- that being the Northeast and Great Lakes lithics that are remarkably similar to those lithics that Stanford and Bradley portray in Figure 5.10. c, e, f, and h, page 146 in their volume, which features lithics that can and have been found at periglacial/lacustrine sites spanning all of the Lower Great Lakes and eastward to the southern St. Lawrence/Champlain region, etc., including the Reagen site in Vermont. You especially ought to be perked about these comparatives. I personally think that Stanford has, to some degree, though not entirely, been placing 'smoking barrel' emphasis in the wrong area. Bradley knows of the strong northeast/Great Lakes affinities that I mention here. But why nobody is giving it some serious attention outside of too-vague mentions in their volume and elsewhere, boggles my mind. Having said that, there is a lot of merit in what the Chesapeake Bay coastal wetland area has to reveal in the earliest peopling of the region. Wetlands are key to the peopling of the Western Hemisphere, a fact that folks like George Nicholas and Dena Dincauze have known for many years. Regarding an earlier comment you made in one of your previous blogs about this (the Solutrean hypothesis) being attributed to a Euro 'white supremecy' neo-Nazi faction (neither by you nor by the theory's proponents, but apparently by others...???), that is one of several pathetic excuses (by whoever put that out there) that I've heard to discount Stanford and Bradley's theory. Stanford and Bradley have no such intentions whatsoever, and it is pretty safe to say that quite a number of those who oppose their theory are more likely to have such racist intentions than would these two gentlemen. Thanks for sharing this and also for your interesting blog posts on these matters.

Reply
Andy White
10/18/2015 06:34:05 am

Hi Steve.

Thanks for the comment. I would love to see some comparative analysis for what you're talking about (Great Lakes assemblages and a northeast entry). Does that exist? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but I would guess by your mention of Reagan you're talking about Holcombe-related stuff that I think most researchers (including me) think are post-Clovis in age - is that right or am I way off?

My point in this post was not to debate the Solutrean Hypothesis, but to point out some unfortunate inaccuracies in the Popular Archaeology article. The obvious inaccuracies would be just as annoying in article about any controversial topic. I'm surprised they are in the article, and I'm surprised they haven't been fixed yet.

Reply
Steve Timmermans
7/1/2016 08:38:16 am

Hi Andy

Sorry for the (very) belated reply, but only now looking back at this old correspondence and noticing that I didn't reply to your questions above.

No, such a comparison doesn't exist mainly because there is a strong entrenched presumptive notion that Holcombe is post-Clovis in age. I would ask (challenge?) anyone to produce data proving that Holcombe is post-Clovis in age, including carbon dates. To my knowledge, none of this exists and its presumed age and affiliation is based entirely on quite subjective comparative lithic analyses, which I think can just as easily be interpreted in a reversed manner.

Get a hold of Elaine Holzapfel's Masters thesis and notice the locations of her several samples of 'unfluted fluted' points in northwestern Ohio and the ephemeral, high-elevation nature of the lithic sources -- these being likely from local till sources. This is also what I found with the Southwinds site at similar high elevation in southwestern Ontario, having yielded a point identical to her many samples of 'unfluted fluted'.

I think that the ephemeral and spotty nature of 'unfluted fluted' sites might represent some of the earliest occupations in our region. My own Southwinds site is located at a specific location that would probably perk your interest when you realize its position along the oldest glacial shoreline in the Lower Great Lakes region -- that being the shoreline where Lake Maumee meets the southwestern portion of 'Ontario Island' (the only terrestrial land available at that time), which was surrounded to the south by the first meltwater lake formed at the beginning of glacial retreat, which was Lake Maumee, and bound to the north by the retreating Laurentide glacial front. So this site occurs at the highest level of glacial Lake Maumee, as does many of the 'unfluted fluted' points recorded in Ohio by Elaine Holzapfel. And it would be interesting to plot the location of the Maumee shoreline in that area in relation to the locations of those 'unfluted fluted' point recoveries.

I think that people are quite erroneously lumping these 'unfluted fluted' points in with true-to-form Holcombe points. The unfluted fluted point that I have is quite different than the Holcombe point that I have. I personally see quite a difference in the point types, and other associated aspects. I think that the Holcombe site and related points post dates the 'unfluted fluted' point culture, but does not necessarily post date fluted point cultures.

There are good and compelling data derived from Michigan researchers that propose alternative lake level models to those proposed by the more popular lake level models put out by Ontario researchers and others. And these models would indicate that the Holcombe site and its associated shoreline could be considerably older than what has been assumed by Fitting and others, with there being a bedrock sill in the St. Clair River to the north having held back water to the north and maintaining lower water levels to the south (in the Detroit region) during the early post glacial period.

Further, if one notes the locational data where Crowfield points and sites occur, certainly in southwestern Ontario, this is where the picture really starts to unfold. Crowfield points and sites are found at high lake level elevations typically above those of Barnes and Gainey, but slightly below those of the 'unfluted fluted' sites and points (including the Southwinds site). Also in my opinion, the Caradoc site (also situated at a high elevation relative to fluted point sites) has been misinterpreted as to its relative temporal affiliation. I believe that the Caradoc site is one of the oldest discovered sites on the Lower Great Lakes and that it slightly precedes Crowfield. I also think that Crowfield precedes Barnes and Gainey, as opposed to the opposite of what we've been told for so long.

The Reagen site has both Crowfield and Holcombe type points, and I think that this site could be pre-Clovis in age, being one of the sites that could help to inform us about how the northeast became occupied from very early circumpolar, peri-glacial migrants who arrived here while living along ice flows, just as cultures still do to this day in the high arctic.

Back to the comment about the desire to see some comparative analyses of the Great Lakes assemblages and a northeast entry, I entire agree with you about this. And I would add that such an approach should include someone going back to the Solutrean lithics collection like Bradley and Stanford did, pulling those points I mentioned in Figure 5.10. c, e, f, and h, page 146 of their volume, and doing some detailed comparisons with samples from the Great Lakes and Champlain regions to shed more light on the matter.

I'm pretty sure that at least Bradley would be keen to see this done, and even something more comprehensive that involves taking a very in-depth investigation of the roots of Folsom and its many related contemporarie

Robert Lassen
10/17/2015 10:50:28 pm

I just have a couple of comments to your corrections. I guess I can't speak for the rest of the archaeological community, but I don't consider the Vero Beach carving to be acceptable evidence of Pleistocene art, primarily because of its lack of secure context. For me that places it in the same realm as the Cinmar biface - it's an interesting "maybe." I also find it problematic that the Vero mammoth carving's owner wanted to sell it for a million dollars - that looks like a pretty strong motive for forgery to me. I could be wrong of course, but I'm going to hold out for a carving that comes from a well documented context before declaring such art "accepted."

Second, I would guess that the "distinctly Solutrean looking" tools along the east coast may refer to Cactus Hill. Dennis Stanford has often compared the pre-Clovis points from that site to concave-based Solutrean points from Europe. Of course, I'm pretty sure that Cactus Hill is not located terribly close to the *shore* of the east coast, so I'm guessing the author of the article mistakenly conflated evidence from multiple sites.

Reply
Andy White
10/18/2015 06:48:44 am

Hi Robert.

Thanks for the comment.

Fair enough on the Vero Beach carving. I haven't taken a poll, but my sense is that the majority of archaeologists think its genuine. I could be wrong.

An earlier (2013) story about the Solutrean Hypothesis has a nice illustration of five unfluted, pre-Clovis lanceolates from eastern North America and a "typical" Solutrean point. I don't know enough about what is "typical" of Solutrean to know whether that comparison is fair or not, but I think we do have enough data now to get a sense of what pre-Clovis stone projectile points may have looked like. If unfluted lanceolate points were present in eastern North America for 10,000 years . . . that's a long time span with (apparently) not a whole lot of variation. That's a whole other can of worms.

Reply
Robert Lassen
10/18/2015 10:23:01 am

Thanks for linking to that earlier article, it illustrates exactly what I was talking about. One detail that I think is important though (from what I understand) is that the concave based Solutrean points are usually made from quartzite, and they are often unifacial (see the "Las Caldos" figure in that article). So while they might morphologically resemble some east coast pre-Clovis stuff, they don't appear to be the same technologically. Then again, we don't exactly have a large sample size of pre-Clovis points at this moment, so we'll see.

As for pre-Clovis points in general, I think we have enough information now to know that the technology was very regionalized. What we see on the east coast is very different from what we see at Monte Verde or Gault/Friedkin, for example. I think if pre-Clovis wasn't so variable, then we would have a better name for it by now instead of the "pre-Clovis" placeholder. (Sure, there's the "Buttermilk Creek Complex," but I think they jumped the gun on that one a bit. It could pan out eventually though.)

Brad Lepper
10/19/2015 04:11:13 pm

Hi Andy,

I agree with Robert. The Vero mammoth engraving not only has no secure context, it's just too good to be true. And have you seen the second engraving, this one of a stick figure Paleoindian waving a spear, that Kennedy announced after his engraving of a mammoth was sold at auction? It was featured in an episode of 'America Unearthed' rather than in a scientific paper so you may have missed it:
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/america-unearthed-update-florida-fossil-hunter-speaks-out-about-ancient-art-and-huge-profits

Maybe Kennedy is as lucky as Don Johanson -- or maybe not.

In my summary of the original discovery for the Mammoth Trumpet I discussed some of the reasons for not being too quick to presume it's authentic: http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mammoth/issues/volume-27/vol_27num1.pdf

Barbara Purdy and her team acknowledged in their paper that, in spite of the evidence of authenticity suggested by their analyses, “there exists the possibility that the incised bone is a forgery.”

Finally, just for fun, you should compare the Vero mammoth engraving with the famous painting of a mammoth by Charles Knight in the Chicago Field Museum. There is an image of the mural on this blog post: http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/12/22/the-extended-twilight-of-the-m/

Andy White
10/20/2015 08:12:31 am

Thanks Brad. Perhaps my statement that the Vero Beach carving is well-accepted is not accurate. Not that polls matter, but I wonder what the breakdown of opinion of "genuine" vs. "not genuine" would be among professionals.

I'm of the opinion that, even if genuine, the artifact doesn't add a whole lot to our understanding of really interesting questions about the past anyway. Even if it's real but there's no date or context attached to it, how is it relevant to the Solutrean Hypothesis (or other questions about Late Pleistocene prehistory)?

Andy White
10/18/2015 06:49:57 am

Here's the link to the 2013 story titled "Out of Europe:"

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/out-of-europe

Reply
Patrick D Hahn link
1/18/2016 10:51:09 am

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There are ways of getting a message to me that are more efficient than waiting for me to Google my name, but never mind that for now.

You are correct, I conflated the Vero Beach mastodon etching and the Cinmar mastodon tooth. I have corrected this error. I also have asked my editor to replace the pictures incorrectly identified as Clovis points, and he has done so.

Thanks for the close reading.

Reply
Lisa link
3/8/2016 10:44:09 pm

Hi Andy,
I found your blog post when searching on Google.
This is really interesting post.
Thank for sharing with us !

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

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

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly