What Archaeologists Still Can’t Explain About The Americas
Jun 09, 2025
By: Greg Schmalzel
Across the Americas, there are unexplained mysteries. Stones older than the stories explaining their origins—cut with impossible precision, aligned to stars, and carved by civilizations we still barely understand.
How were the massive stones of Pumapunku shaped so precisely without metal tools, for example? How did the Olmec manage to scatter their giant heads miles from any known quarry? Why did ancient artists in Peru draw geoglyphs the size of skyscrapers into the desert floor, seemingly only visible from the sky? The questions are endless.
And those are just the unmistakable monuments in plain sight. Genetic evidence now suggests a shocking link between ancient South Americans and the inhabitants of Australia and Oceania thousands of miles across the open ocean. Meanwhile, archaeologists are still debating the true timeline of human arrival in the Americas. Some evidence hints it happened tens of thousands of years earlier than we thought.
These aren’t just fringe theories, though there are those too. These are peer-reviewed puzzles—and they’re reshaping what we thought we knew about pre-Columbian history. Archaeologists have pieced together much of the past, but in certain places, the trail goes cold. In this video, we’re taking that trail to see where it leads, where archaeology has yet to account for some of America’s most profound and meaningful mysteries.
Let’s start in South America
For the full YouTube video, click HERE.
Megalithic Construction
When it comes to ancient American architecture, Machu Picchu often steals the spotlight—but the real mystery lies in how it was built. The site’s massive granite blocks, precisely interlocked without mortar or metal tools, showcase Inca engineering that modern experts still struggle to fully explain. Even more puzzling, some of these Inca structures rest on older, rougher stone foundations—suggesting different phases of construction, or perhaps even earlier cultures entirely.
Sites like Pumapunku and Tiwanaku in Bolivia push the enigma further. At Pumapunku, perfectly shaped stone blocks, identical in size and alignment, hint at prefabrication and advanced planning—without any known tools or workshop remains to support it. Tiwanaku’s builders went even further, using copper-alloy clamps and intricate drill holes to create a level of stone precision rivaling modern machines. Despite centuries of excavation, we still don’t know how they did it.
Then there’s the Olmec colossal heads—50-ton basalt sculptures transported without wheels. While fringe theories attribute them to ancient African contact, no credible archaeological evidence supports this. What remains clear is that Indigenous American civilizations achieved stunning architectural feats with methods we’ve yet to fully uncover. These stones may be silent, but their mysteries are loud and unresolved.
Geoglyphs - The Nazca Lines
Photo by: Diego Delso
Sprawled across the sunbaked plains of southern Peru, the Nazca Lines remain one of archaeology’s greatest puzzles. Created between 500 BCE and 500 CE by the Nazca culture, these massive geoglyphs—some stretching over 370 meters—depict animals, plants, and geometric shapes with astonishing precision. While their construction seems straightforward—simply removing dark pebbles to reveal lighter soil—the scale and accuracy suggest complex planning. Stakes found at line ends indicate that the Nazca likely used basic surveying tools, and experimental archaeology has shown they could have been made with simple, manual labor.
But while we now understand how they were made, we still don’t know why. Theories abound: astronomical calendars, water-related rituals, pilgrimage routes, or even giant textile patterns. None has been definitively proven. In 2024, researchers using AI and drones uncovered over 300 new geoglyphs, expanding our understanding and suggesting the lines may have held broader cultural significance than previously thought.
Ultimately, the Nazca Lines are a perfect example of a recurring theme in archaeology: we can often reconstruct what ancient people did, but understanding why they did it remains the hardest—and most fascinating—challenge.
Serpent Mound
Winding over 1,300 feet across an Ohio bluff, the Great Serpent Mound is one of North America’s most iconic—and mysterious—prehistoric earthworks. Shaped like a coiled serpent with an open mouth encircling an “egg,” its origins and purpose remain hotly debated. Early scholars linked it to the Adena culture (1000 BCE–100 CE), but radiocarbon testing in the 1990s pointed to a later construction around 1070 CE by the Fort Ancient culture. Some now propose it was built in stages—perhaps begun by the Adena and later modified.
What’s it for? Theories range from astronomical alignments with solstices to commemoration of celestial events like Halley’s Comet. Unlike other burial mounds, no human remains have been found inside, deepening the mystery. Limited excavation and the inherently destructive nature of archaeology leave us wondering—how much more could we learn if we dared to dig deeper? And at what cost?
The Serpent Mound endures as a powerful symbol of ancient North American spirituality, engineering, and unanswered questions—coiled in mystery, still watching the skies.
South American Genetics
In 2015, scientists uncovered a surprising genetic link between certain Amazonian groups and modern Australasian populations—like Indigenous Australians and Papuans—calling this mysterious ancestry “Population Y.” Notably, this signal doesn’t appear in North or Central American populations, suggesting a unique and ancient migration into South America.
A 2021 study expanded this mystery, revealing the Australasian signal in Pacific coastal groups as well, hinting at a broader ancient presence. Genetic patterns suggest that a single pulse of Australasian-related ancestry may have arrived via the South American coast long before other population splits. While some argue this could be genetic drift or contamination, consistent results across communities and improved sampling argue otherwise.
This raises big questions: Did a distinct group of Australasian-related people sail thousands of miles across the Pacific? We still lack direct archaeological evidence, but genetic data—paired with hints like the pre-Columbian sweet potato in Polynesia—points to ancient oceanic contact.
If proven, this would upend our understanding of how the Americas were settled. Far from a single migration, it would suggest a tapestry of voyages and peoples—each leaving their mark on the continent’s diverse Indigenous legacy. The story of “who got here first” may be far more complex than we ever imagined.
Disputed Timelines
The question of when humans first arrived in the Americas is one of archaeology’s most hotly debated topics. For decades, the “Clovis-first” model dominated, proposing that the first Americans arrived around 13,000 years ago via an ice-free corridor. But discoveries like Monte Verde in Chile (14,500 BP), Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (up to 16,000 BP), and Cooper’s Ferry in Idaho (∼16,000 BP) have challenged that idea—suggesting earlier, pre-Clovis migrations likely along the Pacific coast.
Even more controversial is the 2021 discovery of human footprints at White Sands, New Mexico, dated to 21,000–23,000 years ago. While some question the dating methods, follow-up studies using pollen and luminescence dating supported the original estimates. Meanwhile, the oldest outlier—Pedra Furada in Brazil—could date back over 20,000 years, though its interpretations remain disputed.
Today, most researchers support a “multiple-migrations” model: several waves of people entering the Americas at different times and by different routes. With new sites, better dating, and underwater archaeology just beginning to explore lost coastal landscapes, our understanding of early human migration is still evolving—and full of surprises.
From monumental stonework and sprawling geoglyphs to genetic surprises and ancient footprints, the archaeology of the Americas continues to reveal a past far more complex—and mysterious—than we once imagined. Each site and discovery, whether carved in rock or buried in sediment, challenges old assumptions and opens new questions about who the first Americans were, how they lived, and how far they may have traveled. While we’ve made enormous strides in explaining the “how,” the “why” often remains just out of reach. And that’s what makes this field so captivating: the sense that, beneath the surface, the Americas still hold secrets waiting to be uncovered.
Sources:
[1] Wright, K., et al. 1999. “Ancient Machu Picchu Drainage Engineering.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 125(6):360 - 369
[2] Wright, K. 2013. “Inca Inca Foundations, Site Preparation, and Drainage at Machu Picchu.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 18(2):131-142.
[3] Gabriel Haslip-Viera.1997. “Olmec Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima’s Afrocentricity and the Olmecs.” Current Anthropology 38(3):419-441.
[4] Protzen, J. and Nair, S. 1997. “Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56(2):146-167.
[5] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/700/
[6] Sakai, M., et al. 2024. “AI-accelerated Nazca survey nearly doubles the number of known figurative geoglyphs and sheds light on their purpose.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121(40):e2407652121.
[7] https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5248/
[8] https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/e0d046b4-3346-44c6-967b-9a44fb9470dd
[9] Skoglund, P., et al. 2015. “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas.” Nature 525, 104–108.
[10] Castro e Silva, M., et al. “Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives evidenced by Australasian ancestry.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118(14):e2025739118.
[11] Montenegro, A., et al. 2008. “Modeling the prehistoric arrival of the sweet potato in Polynesia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 35(2):355e367.
[12] Moreno-Mayar, J., et al. 2024. “Ancient Rapanui genomes reveal resilience and pre-European contact with the Americas.” Nature 633(8029):389-397.
[13] Guidon, N., and Delibrias, G. 1986. “Carbon-14 dates point to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago.” Nature 321, 769–771.
[14] Adovasio, J., et al. 1978. “Meadowcroft Rockshelter - Retrospect 1977: Part 1.” North American Archaeologist 1(1):3-44.
[15] Adovasio, J., et al. 1998. “TWO DECADES OF DEBATE ON MEADOWCROFT ROCKSHELTER.” North American Archaeologist 19(4):317-341
[16] Bennett, M., et al. 2021. “Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum.” Science 373:1528-1531.
[17] Pigati, J., et al. 2023. “Independent age estimates resolve the controversy of ancient human footprints at White Sands.” Science 382:73-75.
[18] Pino, M., and Dillehay. T. 2023. “Monte Verde II: an assessment of new radiocarbon dates and their sedimentological context.” Antiquity 97(393):524-540.
[20] Dillehay, T., et al. 2015. “New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile.” PLOS ONE 10(11): e0141923.
[21] Parenti, F., et al. 1990. “The oldest hearths of Pedra Furada, Brasil: Thermoluminescence Analysis of Heated Stones.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 7:36-38.
[22] Smith, G., et al. 2019. “The Western Stemmed Tradition: Problems and Prospects in Paleoindian Archaeology in the Intermountain West.” PaleoAmerica 6(1):23–42.
Founder
