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

I Spent $20 to Find Out that Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman Have Learned Nothing About "Double Rows of Teeth" Over the Past Year

11/24/2015

 
PictureI spent my $20, but look at all this fake money I've got now. That's a metaphor of some kind.
About a month ago, I found a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk while I was walking to work and listening to Hutton Pulitzer interview Jim Scherz.  While I didn't learn a whole lot from that interview, the twenty bucks was nice. I spent it on "Giants on Record," the new book by Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman. That was not a great investment.

I purchased the book because I was mostly interested in seeing what Vieira and Newman had to say about "double rows of teeth." That strange phrase (repeated by Vieira ad nauseam in his writings, online videos, and episodes of Search for the Lost Giants) is one of pillars of Vieira's belief in a "lost race" of giants.  I was curious to see if my own work on the phrase, which I know that Vieira has seen, has had any effect.

Based on Chapter 7 ("Double Rows of Teeth"), the answer to that appears to be an unqualified "no."

Following a brief preamble where they discuss the mention of "numerous rows of teeth" in the Talmud (see this post by Jason Colavito for more on that), Vieria and Newman move on to the now time-honored giantologist tradition of recycling old newspaper accounts as evidence.  While there were a few accounts that I hadn't seen before, many were familiar (including several that I have discussed directly).

In the majority of cases, the language in the accounts presented by Vieira and Newman is clearly referring to the presence of "double teeth" (molars) or "double teeth all around" (the appearance of a mouth filled with molars), not multiple layers of teeth.  I have written extensively about 19th century linguistic idioms associated with teeth, but they apparently chose to just ignore all that and throw a bunch more baloney at the wall in the hopes that something would stick.

Oh well . . . let's go through them in order:

  •  "all of them are double" (1856): this is clearly a reference to teeth looking like "double teeth" (molars);
  • "The teeth are all in their places, and all of them are double" (1870): another reference to the teeth looking like molars;
  • "Each had double teeth in front as well as in the back part of the jaw" (1893) molars again (note how the writer is pointing out what is unusual - double teeth in the back are expected, of course);
  • "The teeth were still sound, and double all around" (1878): there's that pesky idiom again that actually means "molars all around";
  • "the teeth were described as 'double all around'" (1881): just describing teeth that appeared to be molars because of their wear (I discussed this particular case in this post);
  • "all double teeth" (1892): again, referring to molar-like wear (I discussed this particular case in this post);
  • "one jaw had evident signs of a third set" (1875): I've already written about this one, and I think there's good reason to suppose that this account, from Florida, is actually describing the germination of a "third set" of teeth following the permanent teeth (which would be the "second set");
  • "A set of almost round double teeth" (1900): again, this is referring to "double teeth" (molars), not "double rows of teeth";
  • "double teeth in front as well as in the back of mouth and in both upper and lower jaws" (1872): very similar to the 1893 phrase above (and also covered in this post);
  • "two rows of teeth in the front upper jaw" (1912): while this one actually appears to be describing multiple layers of teeth, it is almost certainly a case of a reporter misunderstanding a phrase like "double teeth in front" (this is the Ellensburg case - I've written about it here);
  • "the full number of teeth, and double all around" (1880): this one even specifies the "full number of teeth," making it plain that "double is describing the kind of teeth, not the number;
  • "double teeth all around" (1895): molars again (this is the Deerfield account that is part of Vieira's arrival story - I've written about it here)
  • "entire rows of double teeth" (1854): again, teeth that look like molars because of wear;
  • "row of double teeth in each jaw" (1854): same old, same old . . . ;
  • "a full set of double teeth, all around" (1849): an individual that still has all his teeth, highly worn so that they appear to be molars;
  • "two distinct rows of teeth in the massive jaw" (1902): this could well be referring to an individual the the normal rows of teeth (one on each side) in the mandible;
  • "the teeth are double both front and back" (1912): similar to the 1872 and 1893 accounts above;
  • [some report from 1819 that doesn't even mention teeth];
  • "skulls with double rows of teeth" (1862): I would bet dollars to donuts that this is simply describing skulls with full sets of teeth, as the phrase "double rows of teeth" was commonly used in the late 19th century to describe living people, some creatures, and inanimate objects with opposed rows of teeth;
  • "An unusual feature was a complete double row of teeth on both upper and lower jaws" (1908): while this one really does sound like writer is trying to describe a dental oddity, the late date suggests we shouldn't rule out a miscommunication error with someone using the phrase "double teeth all around," which was waning in use by the early 1900s.
  • "The jaws of each were filled with double rows of teeth" (1870): the simplest explanation here is, like the 1862 account above, just a description of a mouth filled with teeth;
  • "two had 'double teeth' in front" (1890): this is clearly describing the kind of teeth (double teeth, or molars) rather than the number of teeth, even putting the idiomatic phrase within quotation marks;
  • "the teeth, which were all double, were perfect" (1907): again, I would bet this is referring to the kind of teeth (teeth that look like molars) rather than the number;
  • "one row of double teeth all around" (1822): again, description of kind of teeth, not number - it even says "one row";
  • "the upper jaw had double teeth all around" (1821): same old, same old . . . again;
  • "while the teeth were double in front as well as behind" (1906): this is very similar to the 1872 and 1893 accounts above.

Then the authors go through several accounts of Euroamerican colonists with similarly described teeth, and then rehash the conversation with dental anthropologist Shara Bailey that they showed us on Search for the Lost Giants.

Among the 25 accounts that Vieira and Newman reproduce to highlight the "mystery" of double rows of teeth, I see very little that can't be explained by what I've already written.  If you're really interested "double rows of teeth," go read through some of those posts.  If what Vieira and Newman have presented is the best evidence for something strange going on . . . I don't think there's a whole lot more to say on what the original writers were actually attempting to convey with their descriptions. I think we can mark this one "case closed."

Vieira and Newman cement the case for their own intentional analytical blindness with the second to last paragraph in the chapter:

"After looking carefully at all the possibilities, the phenomenon of double rows of teeth could either be: 1) Literally two sets of teeth (double) 2) molars and premolars in the front of the mouth resembling 'double' teeth - an unusal anomaly in itself; 3) supernumerary teeth that are just occasional 'extra' teeth in the mouth, that could be seen as double sets of teeth, but not 'full sets.' 4) teeth so worn down that only the two roots exist that resemble two separate teeth."

Well, no, not really.  They completely miss the explanations that I've been writing about and exploring since last November when I first saw them on TV (this was my first post on the matter).  This is especially ironic given the tone set by Ross Hamilton in his foreword, depicting Vieira and Newman as courageous visionaries who are daring to explore topics that mainstream "academically controlled archaeologists" ignore. Well, I suppose I'm one of those "academically controlled archaeologists" and I've put quite a bit of effort into exploring those same topics. I've used historical, linguistic, and quantitative research to construct what I think is the most reasonable explanation to date for the "double rows of teeth" phenomenon, and these authors chose to ignore all that work in order to preserve the mystery for their book. That's a joke, right?

So this was $20 down the tubes . . . easy come, easy go, I guess. Given what I got for my money, I decided to share the misery and I sent my copy of the book to Jason Colavito.  He's begun reviewing it chapter by chapter on his website. 

Greg Little
11/24/2015 02:31:19 pm

Recycling the book was a good idea. I was surprised also that what you had previously written about the "teeth" wasn't mentioned in their book. I did ask both Jim and Hugh about it when I met with them this spring and I know they were aware of you. I agree with what you have written about it. I will say that my assessment of Jim is that he is genuinely interested in the topic, relates what he finds and thinks, and he's certain that here is something to it. He's a personality, the type tv loves --not a scientist. He'll show up on a lot more documentaries. The double rows of teeth (there, I said it) was something that caught his initial interest. As you know, from the start of my interest in it, I never saw the double rows of teeth (there it is again!) as important at all. I never mentioned it and still see it as essentially irrelevant to the topic of giant skeletons. You could have saved the $20 by asking me for a copy--I'd have sent one. But one important thing I did see in it, that I was oblivious to, is the Mutter Museum giant skeleton (7'6"). I'm doing a bit of investigation into that. (Next time find a $100).

Andy White
11/24/2015 03:10:47 pm

Your comment made me Google the Mutter Museum, which I had never heard of. That looks like it's worth a trip for sure.

Greg Little
11/24/2015 03:25:18 pm

I have made a contact there asking about mtDNA of the giant skeleton and if carbon dating was done. I've been to Kentucky mounds recently and also plan on trying to identify when and where a 7-footer was recovered. The photos however show it perfectly intact, not likely for an Adena skeleton. My guess, and that's all it is, is that it is fairly modern. It looks too good to be true so...

Andy White
11/24/2015 03:31:28 pm

Yeah, based on what I can see on my phone it doesn't look very archaeological. Maybe a medical specimen? Here's some chatter about it:http://www.thetallestman.com/whoisthetallest/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1234

Don Spohn
11/24/2015 04:59:28 pm

Andy,
You didn't really think they would quote you on "double teeth," did you? There isn't any money in learning from you. People want to imagine giant skulls with two rows, top and bottom, of teeth; twice as many teeth as the 32 teeth little men like you and I have.
But, if you want to be 100 percent sure that you are understood, draw pictures, first pictures of misunderstood giant teeth, two rows, top & bottom, 64 teeth, then what witnesses really saw and really said, 32 big molar-like teeth.

Greg Little
11/24/2015 05:05:38 pm

I thought they might. In their last sentence summation of the double rows of teeth, they related: "Some accounts could be due to the parlance of the time, but we do find it odd that double rows of teeth are so frequently linked with giant skeletons in the historical record." (page 212)

Bob Jase
11/25/2015 06:10:25 am

Andy White
11/25/2015 06:39:22 am

You don't say!

Geoffrey Sea
11/25/2015 09:50:55 am

The entire "mound-giants" fad was, of course, fraudulent. As I've written, it was partially a strange result of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, who himself became the legendary "giant" from mound country (the Ohio Valley). The unexplained findings of mound looters were embellished or given folk interpretations, most often with explicit commercial motives.

In that regard, there may be a simple explanation for the "double rows of teeth" rigamarole. Some Native American shamans actually fitted animal jaws into their mouths as a kind of totemistic prosthetic. This gave them the appearance of a deer or bear or other animal.

Some Ohio Valley mounds may have contained the remains of individuals with such prosthetics, added either during life or after death. Misinterpretation, perhaps intentional, of these remains could easily have started the legend of "double rows of teeth."

Andy White
11/25/2015 11:22:13 am

Hi Geoffrey,

Thanks for the comment. I don't think Lincoln's assassination could have sparked the "giants" fad because you can actually see it starting decades earlier (by the 1840s for sure, and probably back to the 1820s). I think there's a lot of factors at play.

As for "double rows of teeth," I think a linguistic explanation makes a lot more sense than a prosthetic jaw explanation. First, while there may have been a few cases of unusual shaman burials, those would have surely been a tiny minority. Second, the particular idiomatic language of teeth ("double tooth" for molar, "double teeth all around" for a mouth with a lot of highly worn teeth that - as a result of wear - appear to be molars) explains a lot more of the variations that we can see in the accounts. And as I've written before, phrases like "double rows of teeth" were commonly used to describe living individuals (and animals and some inanimate objects) that surely were not wearing prosthetic jaws. Basically, I think the linguistic explanation has a lot more power because it accounts for a lot more in terms of how, when, and under what circumstances "double rows of teeth" are described.

Micah Ewers link
11/26/2015 03:31:28 am

Great points everyone. I think the linguistic explanation could explain many of these, but not all. I also feel that the stories of accessory appendages, sharped or filed teeth, horns, deformed skulls etc. could have been due to a combination of factors, as Geoffrey Sea has mentioned, some Shamans did have tooth inserts, and some wore deer antler even copper headdresses. Also, the Adena mounds have contained at least several instances in which 1 or more extra teeth, and or retention of baby teeth were found in the skull -- these sorts of dental deformations are not particularly unheard of even today, but apparently were found in some Adena sites which also contained some tall skeletons.

Webb, Snow and Dragoo in the 1950's mention what they believed was a special elite class of shamans or medicine men who were buried in the centers of the mounds. Men 6 feet tall were fairly common to this class, and they do record 2 individuals 7 feet and 7.2 feet tall, in-situ estimates. One is photographed, and no discernible massive dis-articulation is present to my eyes. I think there were some 7 foot men. But the non- "elites" the average to Adena were 5 ft 6 to 5 ft 8 inches tall for males, and 5'2" for females -- basically, normal sized folk. But these 6 to 7 foot proposed Shaman class the early Adena scholars recorded, may support the idea that the Smithsonian agents may well have measured correctly a few 7 foot or taller such Adena folk in the West Virginia and other mound works they describe in their ethnology reports. It at least suggests there is some height potential within their genetics - perhaps.

I think everyone here has valid points , and perhaps a little of everything was going on. I did more or less help Jim collect 1,500 of these accounts, giving he and Hugh access to my 2,000+ files, as well giving him and the TV folks access to my stash. Not only were stories of double teeth described, stories of teeth filed down sharp, stories of tusk like fangs, molars or grinders in the front of the mouth, supernumerary teeth, cranieal deformation, and odd knobs, horns, or lobes on the skulls have been reported in some of the more bizarre accounts. I believe multi factors were behind these reports, and multi factors behind how the statures were computed when disarticulated. I don't believe Abraham Lincoln invented giants in America, perhaps he helped inspire the interest, but that there were from time to time tall NBA or NFL sized Native American chiefs, and families with such warriors seems to be part of the historic record, or "tradition" as Ross Hamilton puts it.

The Adena did practice cranial deformation as well, as did many other tribes in N & S America, and all over the world really. Anatomic anomalies probably did occur in greater frequency in the past, in an age lacking medical care. In 2011 the New England Journal of Medicine even did a case study in Ireland linking a 1,500 year old mutant gene to historic 7 and 8 foot tall side show giants, and linked the gene to living relatives with acromegalic gigantism. These suggests in my mind there may well have been underlying genetic/ pathological/ and or environmental possibilities in the ancient past.

But for Double teeth, yeah I am open to all thoughts on the matter. i have not to this day seen a jaw with a complete shark's set of 2 rows of teeth, but have seen photos of one or a few extra teeth in the jaw. That does happen for sure! It may well be that a complete set can exist, I just haven't seen it.

Andy White
11/26/2015 04:41:06 am

Hi Micah.

Thanks for the comment. I'm not dismissing the possibility that there could have been a "higher than normal" incidence of some kind of dental anomaly that perhaps went along with a "higher than normal" incidence of very tall people. And perhaps tall people were over-represented in mound burials for the reasons that have already been tossed around for a while (increased status associated with great height; "elite" families that were genetically predisposed to be tall, etc.). I think one can create testable hypotheses out of those ideas, and (as I've said before) those ideas may constitute the "last hypothesis standing" as far as "giants" in eastern North America are concerned.

My problem with the Vieira and Newman book is not that "giants" shouldn't be the subject of research, but that you can't really call it "research" if you don't put any genuine effort into figuring something out. They take the same "throw baloney at the wall" approach as Dewhurst and others, heaping speculation on a bunch of old newspaper accounts without really trying to discern what those accounts mean. You can't expect your "research" to be taken at all seriously if you don't at least try to incorporate and account for negative results. There is no way all those accounts they provide as "evidence" of some kind of mysterious dental anomaly are all describing the same thing. Rather than try to really understand what they're looking at, they just reproduce the same accounts (some of which have already been explained) and declare it a mystery. That's crappy scholarship, crappy analysis, and crappy "research." That's my two cents.

Mike Strezewski
11/27/2015 08:53:37 am

It's like trying to argue with a creationist. It seems no amount of data or common sense, or whatever you want to call it, will sway them.

Graham
11/29/2015 04:29:42 am

It's much the same with Believers of any kind. Back in the early 1970's a skeptical group passed on a set of fake UFO photographs to a major pro-UFO publication of the period.

The pictures were designed to be discovered as fake to a casual inspection, but instead the UFO proponents ran with the images and built an impressive edifice of speculation on them.

When the disrepancies built into the pictures were pointed out, it was stated that these proved the photographs were genuine because a faker would have done a better job!

Ms Michelle
5/1/2017 09:43:15 pm

Really? Then do tell, where, oh where, is the missing link?

lol
3/4/2016 04:16:08 pm

Just because you don't think it's true, doesn't make it so.

Ms Michelle
5/1/2017 09:38:54 pm

Are you a philologist? If not, then how can you know with any certainty the meaning of a historical phrase or idiom? To arbitrarily discount hundreds of reports because of a personal interpretation of "double rows" is flawed science. Facts guide theories.

Andy White
5/2/2017 05:40:56 am

It's not a "personal interpretation," it's an analysis based on historical documents. I suggest you read other related posts more carefully (e.g., this one: http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/double-rows-of-teeth-in-historical-perspective ).

You can easily prove the idiomatic interpretation wrong by explaining why the phrase is used to describe all sorts of things that have nothing to do with "giant" skeletons. Or you could produce one of these sets of human remains that actually has double rows of teeth like a shark. Good luck.

Deb
11/3/2017 09:08:01 am

I was totally unaware that people could wear down their incisors to the point where they looked like molars. So I did an image web search, and the images that I found were of teeth that looked really pathological... very short and stubby looking. So that brought me back to one of the accounts that you sited in this post: "the teeth, which were all double, were perfect" (1907). I am at a loss as to how anyone could describe such stubby, little teeth as "perfect." The claim that the teeth were "perfect" would seem to suggest that the teeth were in good condition.

In the end, I accept that the accounts which described "double teeth" or "double teeth all around" were making use of a period colloquialism to indicate that the teeth were quite worn. However, the specific case of the "perfect" teeth, and the reference to "double rows" of teeth seem to be describing something else, perhaps supernumerary teeth. I went back and re-read your article where individuals of that time period described worn teeth using the term "double teeth". However, you didn't seem to cite any period references to "double rows" of teeth, so I'm not sure that you can extend your conclusions about "double teeth" to "double rows".

William Bradshaw link
12/6/2017 08:56:28 pm

Secrets of the Pink Kush

If you want to know why the giants have double rows of teeth, six fingers and can grow up to 14 feet tall then read Secrets of the Pink Kush by William H. Bradshaw (available on Amazon). This is the first and only book (3 volumes) to provide a comprehensive study and history of these tetraploid humans (doubled chromosomes) who were our ancient gods and are now our modern aliens. These are the Hidden Ones and their existence is FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE.

Sy McKnight link
6/24/2020 08:56:24 pm

I have been inter viewing the folks from the Ozarks these last years. I have come across some peoples that have six fingers and six toes and double rows of teeth. Some of them are big but most of them are small, 5' 6". I also was able to interview a son of a Bigfoot. It will be in my book "A scientific look at the facts of Bigfoot, Sasquatch."

Vicki jo Smith
9/24/2022 08:08:59 pm

Hi folks just wanted to let the Vieira Brothers know that a few years back I was living in Kings Mountain, NC. Me and my fiancé were out early one morning around 2015 walking our dogs. There had been a snow of about 1-2”. We lived in a very small one way in and out neighborhood. As we stepped out into the street in front of our home we headed towards an empty heavily wooded lot next to our home. It’s basically a ravine with a drainage pipe put in by the city. There is a small creek that runs through it as well. The first winter we lived there we explored the area and we were shocked to find a humongous cave opening that looked like it went under our property. Later we had built a retaining wall on the back of our property and one afternoon I saw from the raised back deck a large wolf standing on the wall. A couple years later we heard what sounded like puppies crying from the direction of the cave. We have coyote as well and others told us they saw black panthers in the area. But back to that morning. As we headed towards the lot I previously described we were shocked to see extremely large footprints in the road. Like larger than any large shoe size that they make. Not only that but the stride was at least 3 times the length of a normal stride. It was actually quite scary at the time. The other strange thing was that the footprints were not of a bare foot but of a shoe print. No one has the size or stride that we both saw. It had to have happened before the morning traffic as there were also no tire marks or any other footprints nearby. Whatever made those prints had to be at least ten foot tall or more. Like I said it was scary to say the least. Needless to say I am a believer. Not just in past dead bones but “living giants” are still with us. The last strangest thing is that they seemed to start and finish without “going anywhere”. Don’t know how to explain that especially when there were no other footprints or car tire marks. Any comments from anyone else who may have seen something similar appreciated. We never did get the nerve up to explore the cave.Maybe someone else does?


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

    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