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

Is Graham Hancock's New Book Really as Much of a Yawner as it Sounds Like It Is?

4/24/2019

16 Comments

 
If you're interested in pseudoarchaeology, you probably know that Graham Hancock's new book America Before is now out. I haven't read it yet. I will probably take at stab at it at some point over the summer, but I have to face the reality that I'm just not excited. ​
Picture
This is my "I'm getting too old for this crap" face.
My lack of enthusiasm stems mostly, I think, from a gut feeling that there is not a whole lot in the book that is particularly new, thought-provoking, or even interesting. The summary reviews I have read so far bear that out (you can read Jason Colavito's review here, and Carl Feagan's take here). I already knew Hancock was going to going to claim that a comet wiped out some kind of fantastical "advanced civilization" that existed during the Ice Age, and I already knew that he would try to connect his claim to the archaeology of North America in whatever ways possible. I predict anyone who has any legitimate expertise in this region of the world can see through Hancock's game in two seconds. I guess if you're blissfully ignorant maybe it all sounds very exciting . . . I wouldn't know: as someone who has been doing real archaeology in North America for 25 years now I can hear the sound of this book ringing hollow before I even crack the cover.
I listened to the first half hour of Hancock's recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience this morning on my walk to work. After opening with a book-selling pitch, Hancock discusses the Cerutti Mastodon (the 130,000-year-old remains of a mastodon near San Diego, CA, that Steven Holen and colleagues claim were modified by humans  using stone tools) as an example of both the great age of the human occupation of North America and the "dogmatic" (take a drink!) approach of archaeologists to their beloved Clovis-first model. Hancock's willingness to misunderstand and/or misrepresent reality is on full display with statements like this one (about 23:30 in):
"Suddenly we have to consider that humans have been in America for 130,000 years; we already know that a dogmatic approach to archaeology has rather refused to look at anything older than 13,000 years ago. And what it does it generates an engine of demand that we need to be looking at those missing 100,000+ years. We need to be looking at it hard. Of course the immediate reaction has not been to go looking for stuff in the other hundred thousand years.  Most archaeologists have responded by saying 'this is impossible -- it can't be so!'"
What a bunch of nonsense.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret the modifier "rather," but I can tell you that there has been no "refusal" to investigate the pre-Clovis occupations of North America for decades now. But don't take my word for it, have a look at published papers on the pre-Clovis lithics from Gault site and the Debra L Friedkin site (Texas) or the pre-Clovis occupations at Page-Ladson (Florida). Or look at the landmark 1997 declaration on the antiquity of Monte Verde in Chile. Or the many other sites that have been put forward as candidates for pre-Clovis sites in the Americas.

It is my impression that there is now neither a stigma attached to nor a "dogma" (take a drink!) preventing archaeologists from looking for and investigating possible pre-Clovis sites.

Just because pre-Clovis is a legitimate thing to investigate, however, does not mean that every site that is claimed to predate Clovis has been interpreted correctly. Figuring out which ones pass the smell test and which do not is important if  you want to get the story right. As I tell my students: adding more weak coffee to already weak coffee does not make strong coffee (I stole that from someone and I can't remember who -- I apologize).

So it matters what evidence you accept and use to build your narrative. I wonder, does Graham Hancock include the Calico Early Man Site (California) in his analysis of the human occupation of the Americas? The purported "artifacts" from the site have been said to date to 200,000-135,000 years ago. The materials from Calico were vetted by none other than Louis Leakey himself. If Jeffrey Goodman is correct, humans might have been at Calico as early as 500,000 years ago. 

If there were people here half a million years ago, the Cerutti Mastodon is young like Tupperware. If Hancock is not aware of Calico, he really missed something. If he is aware of it, however, he presumably had some reason for not focusing on it. Perhaps he wasn't convinced by the analysis (does he know more about Paleolithic stone tools than Louis Leakey?) or maybe he was suspicious that the people doing the work misinterpreted the archaeological/geological context of the materials.

I would guess that Hancock has heard of Calico and simply chose not to focus on it (like I said, I don't have the book yet and am just going by the reviews). So . . . he's open to the idea of pre-Clovis (obviously) but doesn't automatically accept all claimed pre-Clovis sites as legitimate, even if competent people were involved? 

Guess what? That's what all the rest of us do, also. When the Cerutti paper first dropped, my response was not "oh crap, does the dogma say I have to reject this?" (take a drink). No, it was this blog post. I'm just going to quote myself at length:
The 130,000 year-old date is way, way, way out there in terms of the accepted timeline for humans in the Americas. Does that mean the conclusions of the study are wrong? Of course not. And, honestly, I don't even necessarily subscribe to the often-invoked axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think ordinary, sound evidence works just fine most of the time when you're operating within a scientific framework. Small facts can kill mighty theories if you phrase your questions in the right way.

So how should we view claims like this one? For this claim to stand up, two main questions have to withstand scrutiny. First, is the material really that old? Second, is the material really evidence of human behavior?

If we accept the age of the remains, we're left with the second question about whether those remains show convincing evidence of human behavior. As you can see from the abstract, the claim for human activity has several components (modification of the bones, the presence and locations of stone cobbles interpreted as tools, etc.). The authors contention (p. 480) is that
​
​"Multiple bone and molar fragments, which show evidence of percussion, together with the presence of an impact notch, and attached and detached cone flakes support the hypothesis that human-induced hammerstone percussion was responsible for the observed breakage. Alternative hypotheses (carnivoran modification, trampling, weathering and fluvial processes) do not adequately explain the observed evidence (Supplementary Information 4). No Pleistocene carnivoran was capable of breaking fresh proboscidean femora at mid-shaft or producing the wide impact notch. The presence of attached and detached cone flakes is indicative of hammerstone percussion, not carnivoran gnawing (Supplementary Information 4). There is no other type of carnivoran bone modification at the CM site, and nor is there bone modification from trampling."

My impression is that most archaeologists are, like me, skeptical that all other possible explanations for the stone and bone assemblage can be confidently rejected. I'm no expert on paleontology and taphonomy, but as I thought through the suggested scenario, I wondered how all the meat came off the bones before before the purported humans smashed them open with rocks. The authors state that there's no carnivore damage, and unless I missed it I didn't see any discussion of cutmarks left by butchering the carcass with stone tools. So where did the meat go? If it wasn't removed by animals (no carnivore marks) and wasn't removed by humans (no cutmarks) did it just rot away? If so, would the bones have still been "green" for humans to break them open?  

The absence of cut marks would be perplexing, as we have direct evidence that hominins have been using sharp stone tools to butcher animals since at least 3.4 million years ago. The 23,000-year-old human occupation of Bluefish Cave in the Yukon is supported by . . . cutmarks. We know that Neandertals and other Middle Pleistocene humans had sophisticated tool kits that were used to cut both animal and plant materials.

Is it possible that pre-Clovis occupations in this continent extend far back into time?  Yes, I think it is. Does this paper convince me that humans messed around with a mastodon carcass in California at the end of the Middle Pleistocene?  No, it does not. ​
It's the evidence, stupid.​
Should archaeologists shift gears and start spending their time looking at those "missing" 100,000 years? I think many of us have our eyes wide open all the time. We understand the geological and sedimentological histories of the regions where we work. We know where there are deposits that are Holocene in age, Pleistocene in age, etc. We also communicate with those in other disciplines and members of the public who are out there scouring the earth all the time. Contrary to the "total destruction" hypothesis, there are many many places where sediments that are pre-Clovis in age remain intact. Some of those sediments have been shown to contain cultural materials that presumably relate to human occupations that pre-date Clovis. Many of those sites are places of active and ongoing investigation. If successful human societies were present in this hemisphere 100,000, 50,000, or 30,000 years ago, they would have left a pattern of sites from which we could learn about them. While I think it is unlikely that such a pattern exists, I don't think it is impossible. It is going to take evidence, however, to convince me that we have really failed to recognize such large pieces missing from the puzzle as 100,000-years-worth of human occupation or the fingerprints of an advanced, telekinesis-wielding, earth-girding super civilization.

Words words words. Blah blah blah.

​Just.

Produce.

Some.

Evidence. 
16 Comments
Peter de Geus
4/24/2019 01:52:26 pm

I think he's playing the dogma game so that a few years from now when he writes his next book...and you know he will...he will try to claim he broke the pre-Clovis thing. He will try to take credit in an 'all about me' sort of way. In the meantime, with the profits from this current book, will he actually invest in a comprehensive scientific study that objectively tests his current hypothesis? Will he point exactly to where he thinks a study should look for evidence of his levitating telekinesis dreamland? Nah, not a chance.

Reply
Andy White
4/24/2019 03:18:24 pm

I was thinking about that on my way home. I think I'll propose to him that he take some of his wealth and fund a serious effort to identify and investigate late Middle Pleistocene and early Late Pleistocene deposits in North America so we can start filling in those "missing" 100,000 years. Even the non-dogmatic archaeologists will have a valid point when they say that $$ are required to support such a history-rewriting effort. So put your money where your mouth is, Hancock, and let's create some sort of structure to fund all the GIS modeling, survey and excavation time, geomorphological analysis, dating efforts, etc., to help us all see what we're missing. Don't let lack of money keep everyone in the dark, right? Be a hero!

Reply
Peter
4/24/2019 06:30:40 pm

He could get other well healed top bananas in the pseudo community to buy in. Get cash from Prometheus, haha. The primary condition is that the team selected to do the study MUST be professionals. Pseudos can observe but not stick their nose in to the real work. Hancock has to name several sites and each site must be secured in advance, to prevent salting. The team can also name sites for him to agree with. The team then chooses what site or sites to investigate so that random chance is added to salting prevention. One of the falsifiable hypotheses will have to be simultaneously testing of the selected sites for salting or other manipulation. Hancock will have to write his own falsifiable hypothesis, if he can, which would be a challenge I'm sure because he would have to identify the testing procedures for ancient levitation, mind control, etc. Prometheus can make a series out of it but they would also have to front a retainer for PBS or National Geographic, or some other sane broadcaster, to make a counterpoint series. :-)

Weatherwax
4/24/2019 07:42:24 pm

Jason Colavito recently discussed a proposal that the Cerutti site was the result of past and current highway construction. Specifically that the area was graded in the past, causing the stone relocations, and that more recently a large quantity of soil had been deposited over the site, followed by heavy equipment operations, accounting for the bone fractures.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/new-journal-article-concludes-cerutti-mastodon-bones-broken-recently-by-construction-equipment-not-hunters-130000-years-ago

Reply
Peter
4/25/2019 05:47:14 am

In the Rogan interview Hancock dismissed this by a wave of the hand and declaration that the author didn't look at the bones, and his analysis was based on secondary info. I'm not sure how or why a construction expert would look at the bones...because he's a construction expert...and was commenting from that area of expertise, so yeah Hancock chose to miss the point. The construction interference explanation wins the Occum's razor test, no question.

Reply
Ken Feder
4/25/2019 04:10:22 am

Re. Calico. Mary Leakey was the lithics expert in the family. She dismissed claims that there were stone tools at the site and went so far as to admit in her 1984 autobiography that her husband’s embrace of Calico was "catastrophic to his professional career and was largely responsible for the parting of our ways."

Reply
Andy White
4/25/2019 04:48:29 am

Yeah, interesting story. If Hancock does not embrace Calico (there has been plenty of work done there, after all, and it has a history of being rejected by us dogmatic archaeologists) it means he DOES apply some standard to accept or reject evidence. I would be interested to know what that standard is and I would be interested in hearing why applying a standard constitutes adhering to "dogma" in some cases but not in others.

Reply
Chris - Ad hominem
4/26/2019 08:58:12 am

"I listened to the first half hour of Hancock's recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience this morning"

Well done, you managed an entire half hour then wrote a critique. What did you read of the book? A chapter? It is very difficult to take you seriously if you haven't bothered to listen to it all yet have written an ad-homenin article.

"I already knew Hancock was going to going to claim that a comet wiped out some kind of fantastical "advanced civilization" that existed during the Ice Age" .....
Yes he has been proposing this for nearly 20 years, made documentaries, toured the world doing talks, it's just the methods in which we were wiped out have changed... it also mentions this on the back of the book, so your power of deduction must be truly amazing.

Why so dismissive is it simply because it's Hancock reporting this, the work of others? (obviously I'm talking about the Comet/asteroid). It must be very, very annoying for some academics watching someone, a Journalist, making lots of money, traveling the world, attending sites they could only dream of, meeting with Archaeologists and spending their life discussing ideas.... anyway I digress.

I assume the archaeologists always get it right? Like the whole there was no civilization whatsoever before Sumer... no there definitely wasn't one was there.... oh wait Gobeke Tepe....hang on, don't be silly, no they can't have been a civilization they must have just been hunter gathers?

You say fantastical? I'm sorry what is so fantastical about a civilization(of humans) comparable to perhaps 18th Century Britain? Where the Phoenicians fantastical? How long ago did the brain big bang happen? How long have modern humans been around for? Civilization has only happened once and all subsequent ones came directly from that one in Mesopotamia?

And what are you suggesting happens..... too much Ice and Snow Humans become less intelligent? before the great thaw humans were completely feral animals? Makes the whole "Winter is coming" take a new spin. The ice melted then we suddenly started building Megaliths? Is it like when you have a really cold milkshake, the brain freeze thing? It always seems logic goes straight out the window when scientists get into it with Hancock.

How about since being the supposedly educated expert, you learn how to debate and you don't do the Ad Hominem attacks? Don't call him Stupid, use some of your grown up words I'm sure you are capable.

Perhaps read the book, listen to the podcast all the way through, do the one with Schumer and his very rude friend, they make themselves look like uneducated fools all the way through. If it wasn't for Graham's name on this page it would have a lot less traffic. In 50 years there's a chance Graham will be remembered... doubtfully so for Andrew White. Be a maverick as they are the only ones who are remembered. Towing the line at a second rate university isnt going to lead to much accolade..... Also I wouldn't expect an "expert" to find any "new" information in this book as you are expert and therefore privy to it all already?

I'm sure you disagree with all of what I'm saying, but you have no evidence to prove there haven't been any "high" civilizations in humanities remote past. Your definition of a "fantastical" civilization seems vague (Hancock has never inferred they were fantastical)

Coming from an Engineering background it astounds me what Archaeology gets away with, and it makes me cry with laughter when Archaeologists start shouting PseudoScientist at people, because lets face it Archaeology is a very weak field of study based on half truths and opinions rather than factual evidence.

Reply
Andy White
4/26/2019 09:32:15 am

I guess I struck a nerve.

Reply
Otto
8/29/2020 07:15:31 pm

Wow, that's a... one way to avoid answering. I thought Chris was making some interesting points, and genuinely wished to know the argument of the other side, but you don't seem to write in a way indicative of a professional, or a rationale critic;

"I'm just not excited", "It's the evidence, stupid.​", "Guess what?", "Words words words. Blah blah blah.", "I guess I struck a nerve."

Jim
4/28/2019 03:38:27 pm

Chris - Ad hominem says,,,,,,,,,
" Your definition of a "fantastical" civilization seems vague "
Here is the dictionary definition for you Chris, hopefully this clears things up for you.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fantastical

"conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque"

"fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions"

"imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational"

"extravagantly fanciful; marvelous."

"incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant: "

"highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish:"

Reply
Saluki
4/26/2019 12:58:30 pm

Giving Hancock more than ten minutes before tossing the BS flag is being generous.

"...you have no evidence to prove there haven't been any "high" civilizations in humanities remote past."

I was never able to provide evidence to prove that my four year old's invisible friend bob-bob wasn't the one sneaking in at night and wetting his bed.

Reply
Mark Flannery
4/27/2019 03:24:28 pm

Found your blog from Shermer's tweet - pretty solid take down of Hancock's exaggerating the evidence.

1) Your drink for dogma game is pretty funny, but you're not denying that it's a real thing are you? If so, Jacques Saint-Mars would probably like a word.

2) You didn't mention the SC site for pre-clovis - any reason for that?

3) Do you subscribe to nothing earlier than Clovis, and if not, when and why did you change your mind?

Thanks, hope I don't sound as combative as Chris *thumbs up*

Reply
MF
4/27/2019 03:26:09 pm

Cinq-Mars - je parle français en plus!

Reply
Mauricio
8/6/2019 11:19:01 pm

I enjoyed this article and am hoping to read an (your) in depth take down of Brien Foersters elongated skulls from Paracas, Peru theories and highlight the work anthropologists have done in explaining the diffenerent types of skulls allegedly found in the Paracas region. Have you got this somewhere on your site?

Reply
Bradford Orin Riney
11/28/2020 03:54:19 pm

Yes Graham, you have spun a huge bundle o'nonsense ....again. Unfortunately the bundle o' nonsense extends to the PM Ferrell article as well, that one, the one the archaeological community swallowed hook line and sinker thinking that it will finally put the Cerutti Mastodon Site to bed. His rediculous explanation is absolute nonsense with his mythical 5 ton dump trucks and excavators smashing every thing to bits. Nothing he reports is true. You can argue whether hominids were responsible for the unique taphonomy of the Cerutti site or not, that point is arguable, that's science based on the evidence. Rogan was right, PM Ferrell was 20 years late to the party and he was not present as the site as it was being excavated. I know, I was there. I excavated that vertically cemented in situ tusk that pierced over 70 centimeters below the E Bed into the underlying sandstones of Beds C and D. The vertical tusk was not flipped to the vertical and jammed into the ground by the excavator as he reported. That would have destroyed it. The only part of the site raked by the excavator bucket's teeth were the 4 or so units at the north east extreme of the 50 units excavated. That is where the side by side horizontal and vertical tusks were, partially damaging both. The Berm. Here's a fact. The sound berm is comprised of 3 vertical meters of original undisturbed Pleistocene sediment left in place by CalTrans, It is not made of 3 meters of disturbed material brought in and dumped over the CM site by mythical 5 ton dump trucks running over the site 250 times or so as he describes in the article. Over the next 5 months a systematic removal of 45 square meters of undisturbed formation was excavated by machine down to 24" above the bone and stone horizon. This remaining 24" was later carefully excavated by hand by SDNHM Paleontogists and by Archaeologists Dr. Jim Meade and Dr. Larry Agenbroad to access the site over a period of 5 months using standard archaeological excavation protocols. A new paper is out on the CMS . El Sevier, The journal of Archaelogical Science; Reports 34 (2020) 1020.56 titled "Raman and Optical Microscopy of Bone Residues on cobbles from the Cerutti Mastodon Site" Luc Bordes, Elspeth Hayes, Richard Fullager, Tom Demere. Enjoy.

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