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

The Middle Archaic of the Eastern Woodlands: Where's the Love?

3/4/2016

 
I am willing to bet that if you asked every archaeologist in the Eastern Woodlands vote for his or her favorite chunk of prehistory, less than five percent would say "Middle Archaic."  The Middle Archaic probably wouldn't make many Top Ten Most Interesting Sub-Period lists (most of us divide prehistory into eleven or twelve sub-periods).  It might win the vote for "Most Boring," presuming people remember that it exists. If the Middle Archaic went to the Eastern Woodlands archaeological prom, it would probably spend the evening standing quietly against the wall.  But it probably wouldn't get invited anyway.  And it will get picked last for dodge ball every time. That's a given.

I feel you, Middle Archaic, I feel you.

Based on the looks on my students' faces during class yesterday, the lack of enthusiasm for the Middle Archaic is not limited to professionals.  I'm lucky I had a few slides about the Lizard Man of Lee County to get the lecture going. It was all downhill from there. Perhaps the proximity of spring break contributed, and perhaps it just wasn't my best-prepared or best-delivered class.  But I think their lack of interest in the Middle Archaic is, like that of many archaeologists, real.
​
Where's the love for the Middle Archaic?

The privation suffered by the Middle Archaic is certainly not due to a lack of importance. It is the longest sub-period in Eastern Woodlands prehistory, consuming three thousand years between about 8000 and 5000 radiocarbon years before present (RCYBP) (~8900-5800 calibrated YBP; ~6900-3800 BC). While there is still much we don't understand about what happened during those three millennia, we do know that the societies that emerged at the end of the tunnel were quite different than the Early Archaic societies of the earliest Holocene. The Late Archaic world was filled with semi-sedentary societies inter-connected by webs of ritual and exchange that moved artifacts across vast distances of the east. Many Late Archaic societies were somewhat dependent on domesticated plants. There is evidence of territoriality, violence, and perhaps incipient craft specialization. The population of the Eastern Woodlands was undoubtedly significantly higher than it had been a few thousand years earlier. Between 8000 and 5000 RCYBP, just about everything changed.

The Archaic middle child, however, just doesn't rate much interest in many regions. My impression is that some of that neglect is due to the nature of the material culture -- much of the lithic technology of the Middle Archaic is just not objectively pretty.  And in some parts of the country, like the Midwest, we still have difficulty identifying Middle Archaic sites based on stone tools. Either we're not recognizing the point styles as Middle Archaic or there just aren't that many sites. The situation is different in the Carolinas, where Middle Archaic sites thickly blanket portions of the landscape. It's a confusing picture that probably contributed to the Middle Archaic being unrecognized as a meaningful cultural-historical unit until after the advent of radiocarbon dating.
Picture
The Middle Archaic: sitting unrecognized at the kids' table of prehistory until radiocarbon revealed thousands of years separating what had been discerned as "Early Archaic" and "Late Archaic" in the Eastern Woodlands.
The more I learn about the Middle Archaic of the Southeast, the more I'm convinced that we need to be paying a lot more attention to it.  And by "we" I mean the professional archaeological community as a whole. There are, of course, many good archaeologists who have spent significant time and energy thinking about the Middle Archaic and trying to understand what happened and why.

One of those is Ken Sassaman.  I'm currently working my way through his 2010 book The Eastern Archaic, Historicized and finding it fascinating.  Sassaman proposes that the archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands records an abandonment of significant portions of the Southeast at the end of the Early Archaic and a subsequent influx and occupation by peoples with origins outside the region (presumably to the west).  Those intrusive peoples, Sassaman argues, constitute the founding populations of the Shell Mound Archaic phenomenon focused between the Tennessee and Ohio Rivers. They can be recognized by the appearance of stemmed Morrow Mountain points representing a distinct technological break from the lanceolate-notched point tradition which descends from Clovis.
Picture
Image from “The Bifurcate Tradition in the South Atlantic Region” by David Anderson (1991), showing projectile point count data that suggest an abandonment of portions of Georgia and South Carolina during the late Early Archaic and in increase in population associated with the appearance of Morrow Mountain points at the onset of the Middle Archaic.
Several things make this "separate ancestry" idea a really interesting proposition.

​First, as Sassaman acknowledges (pg. 44), migration-based explanations for changes in material culture largely fell out of favor as the adaptation/ecological focus of processual archaeology took the baton from cultural-historical archaeology.  
"Hypotheses for "intrusive" elements or populations at this time [the Middle Archaic] have never been seriously entertained and, since the 1960s, have in fact been ridiculed as nonexplanation."
Not every change in material culture signals the arrival of a "new" people, of course, but in some cases it certainly does, and maybe this is one of those cases.  Sassaman is proposing an influx of populations from the outside as a hypothesis to explain not just the appearance of a new point style, but what we can now recognize as a patterned suite of changes --technological, demographic, and social -- that unfolds across the Eastern Woodlands. His migration explanation is based on far more data than were available in the 1930s and 1940s, and it is launched from a position of much greater theoretical sophistication than the Archaic migration explanations of the past. As he presents it, it fits several differently lines of data and explains some things that explanations wed to in situ ecological change have difficulty with.

Second, the brave new world of theory in which we now operate means that there are potentially many different ways to approach, evaluate, and flesh out the hypothesis of a major migration into the region during the Middle Archaic. Sassaman highlights, for example, some basic contrasts between the behaviors and belief systems of diasporic communities ("those that share a common history but not a common place") and coalescent communities ("those that share a common place but not a common history") and asks how we might understand the record of the Middle and Late Archaic using that lens.  As someone who has spent time wrestling with Archaic lithic technologies, I  like the idea that maybe there are other ways to approach the confusing space-time tangle of projectile point styles and connect changes in that tangle to other aspects of history, process, and interaction.  Diasporic communities, eventful history, and ethnogenesis in the Middle and Late Archaic? Now that sounds like fun.

Third, a new framework for examining alternative narratives for the Middle Archaic facilitates a fresh look, I think, at the "bread and butter" questions of intensification and complexification of hunter-gatherer societies in the Eastern Woodlands.  What happens to our explanations of settlement and subsistence change if we can't presume demographic (i.e., biological) continuity through time? Look at Bruce Smith's map (in this 2011 paper) of where the earliest domesticated plant remains have been recovered with the core area of the Shell Mound Archaic superimposed:
Picture
Map from Bruce Smith's (2011) paper "The Cultural Context of Plant Domestication in Eastern North America" with core area of Shell Mound Archaic superimposed (green oval). Cloudsplitter, Newt Kash, Riverton, and Hayes are the sites with the earliest (~3800-3600 calibrated YBP) recovered examples of domesticated Chenopodium.
Although plants such as Chenopodium are not classified as "domesticated" until the Late Archaic period (ca. 3700 calibrated YBP), the processes of domestication began thousands of years earlier, during the Middle Archaic. If Sassaman is correct about population movements into the region during the Middle Archaic, domestication of several key plants may have been associated with populations relatively new to the area rather than as a result of a "settling in" process with roots in the Late Pleistocene.

​Readers of this blog know that I love entertaining so-called "alternative" ideas that run counter to prevailing interpretations but also fit the available evidence. This is a good one.  As I'm reading Sassaman's book (I'm on chapter 4 of 6), I'm finding myself flipping through my internal store of knowledge, opinions, and assumptions about the Midwestern (especially Ohio Valley) Archaic that I know fairly well and the new things I'm learning about the Carolina Archaic. Any book that prompts that kind of reshuffling is, in my opinion, a good book.

There is a great amount of work to be done, and I hope that Sassaman's book stimulates some new thinking about this chunk of time. If you can read through his treatment of regionalized mortuary practices, craft and trade, and mound building and monumentality during the Middle Archaic and not be convinced that this sub-period is not only worthy of much more attention but, when viewed at a macro scales, fascinating . . . you probably haven't read this far into this blog post anyway. Sassaman's book doesn't just dress up the Middle Archaic in a rented tuxedo for the night to make it look good:  it constructs a legitimate re-boot that students of Eastern Woodlands early prehistory should have a look at.

Maybe I can make my next class on the Middle Archaic a little spicier without relying on the Lizard Man. There are a lot of nuts and bolts things that we need to know about how the rhythm and tempo of Middle Archaic life at small scales (hence my interest in finding some well-preserved sites to go along with all of the surface data here). But tying those things into larger sets of questions that move beyond simple ecology (or at least considering a larger range of social and demographic settings in which to situate those ecological questions) can't hurt. Whatever happened in the Middle Archaic happened, and there's no changing that now. It's not the Middle Archaic's fault if we're not smart enough to figure it out. Don't blame the victim. 

I know that some of you follow this blog are professional archaeologists and some are not. I find Sassaman's book to be very readable, but there is some technical content that probably won't appeal to all audiences.  You can find the first chapter here as a pdf if you'd like to have a look.

References
  • Anderson, David. 1991. The Bifurcate Tradition in the South Atlantic Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7:91-106.
  • Griffin, James B. 1952. Archaeology of Eastern United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • ​Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2010. The Eastern Archaic, Historicized. New York: Rowman & LIttlefield.
  • Smith, Bruce D. 2011. The Cultural Context of Plant Domestication in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 52, No. S4, The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas (October 2011), pp. S471-S484. 
Thomas
3/4/2016 10:19:06 am

I enjoy all of your articles. Thank you. This one once again touched on an aspect of artifacts that I personally liked. That aspect is interpreting the artifact as a window into past cultures rather than simply as an end to describe the artifact itself. (Which is a regular shortcoming among some collectors. Artifacts aren’t coins and collecting them by type, like I do coins, is meaningless to me).

Because of the manner in which I see typology used, I’ve never been too interesting in typing points, meaning I have no desire to ID my points just to have them ID’d. The valuable aspect of identifying a point or group of points is what that says about the site in which they were found and what how the site information can extend our understanding of the people themselves.

Your articles reinforce for me that we can learn a lot about prehistoric people from points (what types of points are found where, what were they made from, how were they used, etc) but that the common term used to describe points with similar attributes is arbitrary to that story.

Andy White
3/4/2016 07:16:24 pm

I agree! It's ultimately about people. If it's not, I start to lose interest pretty quickly. For me, studying lithics is a means to an end.

Ryan Howell link
3/4/2016 01:10:30 pm

I feel you Andy. The Middle Archaic is what the Late Woodland used to be "the good side-notched culture". In Wisconsin we do have some interesting things going on with the Old Copper phenomena and social complexity (Thomas Pleger 2000 Old Copper and Red Ocher Complexity, Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology
25:169-190.). And as the picture develops, and we start to see micro-regional patterning, the period is becoming more interesting..... (2009 The Archaic Tradition in Wisconsin, In: Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity Across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Andrew C. Fortier and Dale McElrath, pp. 697-723. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York)

Andy White
3/4/2016 06:34:01 pm

The copper stuff is pretty cool. I don't have a whole lot of expertise in that region, but I've read a little bit. I'd like to go back and have a fresh look after reading Sassaman's book.

Ken Lentz
3/4/2016 04:49:15 pm

Although not early archaic, but paleoindian, what is your take on the theory presented in "The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture" (2006) by Firestone and West (neither are archaeologists but I believe they are scientists) which blames disappearance of paleoindians, mammoths, etc. on a comet of 11000 years ago. The comet supposedly struck lower Lake Michigan, and was responsible for, among other things, the Carolina cays.

Its difficult for a non-archaeologist to tell if it is pseudo-science or not, because the arguments are very well presented, researched and documented. Part of the argument is based on native american legends (reminiscent of Velikovsky) which I suppose raises a red flag.

Andy White
3/4/2016 07:14:22 pm

Hi Ken.

Thanks for the comet. The comet idea is taken seriously by some serious people, but it also isn't accepted by many. I haven't read through all the papers myself, so I don't really have an informed opinion about whether something struck the earth 12,900 years ago. Here is an article in PNAS, which tells you that the evidence for the idea is not just a joke:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.abstract

As far as the effects of an ET impact, however, I do have an opinion. I just don't see how it could have been the apocalyptic situation that is often described. The Clovis peoples don't "go extinct," their technology changes do a different kind of fluted point (called Redstone in the Southeast, Gainey in the Great Lakes, etc.). There are demographic shifts associated with the Younger Dryas and the Pleistocene/Holocene transition for sure, but there is also technological continuity. The people are still there.

I'm not convinced the Carolina Bays were formed by impact debris. The prevailing opinion is that they were formed during the Pleistocene as a combined result of wind and water. Regardless of how they were formed, however, the wetlands in the bays were exploited by Clovis peoples, so the bays have to pre-date Clovis (i.e., the existed before any impact that could have affected Clovis). Here is a paper about prehistoric use of the bays:

http://www.srarp.org/pdf_documents/Papers/MarkBrooks/CarolinaBayTimeCapsule.pdf

Ken Lentz
3/4/2016 07:37:26 pm

Thanks, Andy.Very interesting.

Geoffrey Sea
3/5/2016 11:25:32 am

I think the lack of interest in the Middle Archaic stems from the general failure of archaeologists to think in terms of ethnolinguistic groups. Archaeologists like to pretend that their own classification categories -- which come from looking at sites not peopes -- have some real democraphic meaning. Who were the people before the "Adena" came? In archaeology, they have no name.

The supreme importance of the Middle Archaic is that it's the time when Algonquians arrive in the eastern woodlands from their estimated urheimat in the Northwest on the Columbia Plateau, bringing new technology and an entirely different cosmology and way of thinking that became what we call the Woodlands Tradition.

This great transformation is impossible to understand without specifying the Algonquian ethnolinguistic group, as much of the change is embodied in differences between Algonquian language and culture compared to the older peoples of the east.

Yet even in your summary, Andy, the name Algonquian does not appear.

Stuart Fiedel
3/5/2016 12:34:12 pm

1. There is no way the Algonquian language family has a Middle Archaic time depth. The Eastern and Central languages probably diverged between 1000 BC and AD 600. Furthermore, the only significant presence of Algonquian-speakers in the Southeast (prior to the Contact-era migrations of the Shawnee) was on the coast of North Carolina after AD 700. If there is any early Proto-Algic presence in the East, it might be represented by the Aqua-Plano late Paleo material in the Canadian Shield and Northeast.
2. Ken Sassaman suggests that the Middle Archaic intruders in the Southeast came from the Columbia Plateau. As I recall, he would derive them from Western Stemmed, which he accepts as the material culture of a population of distinct origin from Clovis. Such a deep split in Native American ancestry is now insupportable after analysis of the Anzick genome (Rasmussen et al. 2014).
3. There does seem to be a sharp break in the Southeast between the final expressions of the Bifurcate tradition (Kanawha and Stanly point types) and Morrow Mountain. This break does seem to imply immigration from somewhere. As I suggest in my recent AENA article, the break corresponds in time to, and may well have been caused by, the abrupt climate change event at 8200 cal BP. However, in the Northeast (e.g. Annasnappet Pond, MA), there seems to be a smoother transition from the regional Stanly variant (Neville) to Morrow Mountain-like Stark points. Maybe the presumed intruders in the South came from the Northeast; or maybe the Northeastern material has been misinterpreted....

Andy White
3/6/2016 08:00:53 am

Sassaman floats the idea of a far western origin for the "intrusion," but doesn't spend much time developing it (at least that I've seen so far in the book). I was also curious if candidates for technological progenitor of the Middle Archaic stemmed points couldn't be found closer to home.

Scott Williams
3/7/2016 11:07:04 am

Great post, as usual! Here in the Pacific Northwest the Middle Archaic (known by several names) is equally unloved, it seems. I think it's because it lacks the "sexiness" of the Paleo-Indian period or the large rich middens of the later period. Poorly characterized lithic types, limited cultural remains, and acidic soils (at least in western Washington) lead to most of the period between 9000-3000 BP sort of lumped together and pushed to the back burner, with a few exceptions. good luck with spreading the love!

Bill Wagner
4/5/2016 09:11:33 pm

Another unwelcome comment, but it can't be helped. According to Lightfoot Tall King Eagle (Whiteman name George Applegate), shaman of the Susquehannock people in the 1960s, his people came from across the Atlantic. He knew quite a surprising amount of what we regard as our religious history from his own tribal lore (for one example, he corrected my pronunciation of Essenes).

According to him, his people did, at one point, fight their way into eastern North America, overcoming a race of giants in doing so. (So much for the idea of giants here having come from 19th century white people with wild imaginations projecting their fantasies on the native people's history).

Andy White
4/6/2016 05:36:26 am

So an oral tradition communicated in the 1960's trumps multiple lines of empirically-based anthropological and archaeological evidence developed over the last 100+ years?

Bill Wagner
4/6/2016 10:20:40 am

Provided people aren't really paying attention, framing it as a zero sum game (a fight) is one effective way of disposing of the problem. Winner takes all, loser sits down and shuts up. But is that really how we should be processing information that calls the current paradigm (which, in retrospect, invariably turns out to have been inadequate) into question ?

It is beyond ironic that the bigger the issue people make out of "inclusion" as an overarching policy, the more selective admission to the Diversity Tent becomes. Case-in-Point : We deplore the 19th century's ethnocentric dismissal of Native peoples as mentally inferior. But a disinterested observer could easily conclude that persistence in out-of-hand denial that their own histories might have preserved anything of value is proof of having arrived at that same conclusion by a different route. We bewail ethnocentricity while practicing it.

I am not out to wave your pool; rather, I'm trying to address a persistent HUMAN problem : As with "Clovis First" and "Amerindians Solely from Beringia via the Ice-Free Corridor," history shows that people (scientists included) who are out to "prove" the truth of their contentions almost invariably succeed in convincing themselves that they have done so by amassing evidence and marshaling arguments from it. It also shows that when paradigm shift reaches critical mass, their many and weighty "proofs" turn out to have been balloon freight -- accurate enough in selected details but critically flawed by assigning them undue weight and by their calculated omissions.

With the past as precedent, and the technology of genetic analysis (and conclusions drawn from it) in its infancy, I am confident that the "Settled Certainty" that "The Chief" (as we called him) was wrong will not be tenable even five years from now. Too much is changing too fast for dogmatism.

With thanks, as always, for your uniquely interesting resource.

Andy White
4/6/2016 03:20:26 pm

I'll take that bet, and I'll even spot you a few months. By the end of 2021, I do not believe there will be any convincing positive evidence (genetic or archaeological) that the indigenous peoples of Eastern North America voyaged to the continent across the Atlantic and encountered a "race" of giants that was already living there. Am I misrepresenting your position?

Bill Wagner
4/6/2016 08:46:42 pm

Provided the main thrust of my comments isn't missed, I'll gladly accept your challenge. As you've defined it. And do public penance if I'm wrong.

In furtherance of which, perhaps you could use your influence to get them to (finally) do (and publish) a comprehensive genetic analysis of the Windover Bog brains, and a morphological of the skulls they are encased in (which are apparently too sensitive to publish photographs of -- a truly mind boggling omission in such a detailed account as was done of everything else but) ?

(I'm not holding my breath on them doing that in my life time).

Bill Wagner
4/12/2016 09:31:02 pm

re. the presumption of certainty about paleomigrations/-genetics from E.P. Grondine (FWIW):

"We know that in later times fishermen were blown off the coast of North West Africa and arrived in the Caribbean. We also know with some degree of certainty that later the B and D mt DNA groups moved from South America to North America. Hard data from South America is regularly ignored. We do not know the actual date of C mt DNA emigration into the Americas. We know little about mt DNA haplogroup extinctions in the Americas. We know little about the paloeclimate, and geologically we do not have a firm date for the reversal of the Teays River. As the data currently stands, making any broad statements is not warranted, in my opinion."

Kevin Smith
7/21/2016 07:03:30 pm

Andy, good stuff, as usual. However, it avoids consideration of the Middle Archaic in the Northeast and the Maritime Subarctic, for which this is a period characterized by the formation of seemingly strong regional material culture "provinces" intersected by the emergence of significant linkages in mortuary elaboration, indications of significant maritime adaptations, and in some areas spikes in the number of recovered diagnostics relative to earlier periods. Thus we have, at the very least, the Neville/Stark continuum in southern and central New England, with typological continuities in diagnostic lithics to groups farther south using Stanley and Morrow Mountain points. However, here we see these appearing in the first documented cemeteries with some individuals buried with relatively complex assemblages including banner stones, ground stone gouges, and/or ground stone ulus. North of that is the Gulf of Maine Archaic, which seems to have virtually no diagnostic projectile points and a heavy quartz core and flake tradition, but complex ground stone tool elaboration, some indications of an organic/bone tool tradition that may have included organic projectile points, and then again a relatively complex and rich mortuary tradition that is just starting to come into focus and that begins ca. 8,500 bp, elaborating through the Middle Archaic and into the early Late Archaic Moorehead Complex. Diagnostic projectile points are rare but include serrated corner notched points at Morrill Point Mound (7500-7500 bp) and scattered or rare Neville/Stark continuum points in non-mortuary settings. To the north, along the north shore of Québec, around the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and into southern Labrador, the Maritime Archaic begins, again, around 7,800 bp (uncalibrated) with large contracting stemmed points that seem like elaborations of the smaller Neville/Stark continuum to the south, heavy ground stone tools, and a relatively diverse lithic assemblage. The earliest burial mound in North America belongs to this complex, ca. 7,500 bp, at L'Anse Amour, which also produced the world's earliest known toggling harpoon, along with a walrus tusk, and fish bones that together suggest a potentially robust maritime hunting and fishing adaptation. Maritime Archaic houses, long-houses, and art are known from sites farther up the Labrador coast – although some of their dates segue into the temporal range of the Late Archaic (5000-4000 bp), others are "Middle Archaic" and most indications suggest that the temporal division is, here, not very useful as the Maritime Archaic seems a continuum from ca. 7,500/8,000 bp until ca. 4,000 bp.
In other words, a view of the Middle Archaic coming from the farther Northeast is an emerging one of communities of unknown size that mark the land through prominent cemeteries used over considerable periods of time and characterized in some regions by above surface constructions (mounds). Variability among grave contents suggests some level of social differentiation, while the small size of the cemeteries implies that only a small segment of the communities' members were ever to be buried there. While variability exists among the burials of the Maritime Archaic, the Gulf of Maine tradition, and the Neville/Stark burials of southern New England, the burial complex itself – taken as a polythetic whole – stands out significantly against the absence of comparable reported mortuary sites from this temporal horizon in the lower Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic regions to the southwest and south, respectively. Impressionistically, the most elaborate reported sites and the greatest number of objects diagnostic of this period in Northeast prehistory are found in relative proximity to the coastlines or major rivers extending in from the coast. Taken together with admittedly limited evidence for maritime hunting and fishing, and the recovery of related objects from sediments dredged off the submerged near-shore continental margin, it seems reasonable to suggest that occupation sites of this period may eventually be found in near shore contexts, as well as in alluvial contexts buried as rivers adjusted between 8000 and 4500 bp to sea level rise and eventual stabilization.
In other words, I agree with you – the Middle Archaic remains the bastard step-child of Eastern prehistory and the prehistory of the Northeast and far northeast, but the standard narrative focused on the Midwest and Southeast misses a potentially important story of cultural elaboration to the North, in an area generally viewed as too peripheral to be significant, but which may instead have been a zone of influence and early complexity in the mid-Holocene.


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