The Cinmar Blade

[CMD]

chase wrote:

Charlie, I have stayed out of this topic for very good reason. Tyson, I agree with your sediments, There is no smoking gun to connect the two cultures. Bill, I am sorry, but it is still just speculation. I have also listen to Dr. Stanford speak, and it is compelling but not concrete. The only real question I have is the transition from the discovered Pre-Clovis culture which is far from the technological advance of Clovis. Where did this transformation evolve?
Chase

  Yeah, Chase, I was thinking of an earlier flareup when I posted the photo. But I'm glad you decided to join us after all

[CMD]

Bill wrote:

No CMD you misunderstood; I meant that the amount of evidence causes most critics to realize because there is that so much weight it must be the truth.

  No, I didn't really misunderstand you, Bill. I just thought your choice of words was remindful of the tone in debates involving, well, religion and politics, just as you pointed out was the case where Solutrean to Clovis was concerned. You seem calmer now, and as Paul observed, I also appreciate your effort to answer his questions rather then assume a defensive posture. A much better discussion.
I'm on the fence. The truth is I don't know ENOUGH about either Clovis or Solutrean to have any kind of leg up on the theory. In general, I have always been very attracted to theories that promise to overturn apple carts, that challange established paradigms, etc. That's where the action is IMO, and there are many fields of study where such goes on, and I'm interested in many of them. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn(forget his first name) is a great book to read in understanding the battle of new ideas vs. old ideas throughout the history of science.

[painshill]

Bill wrote:

Thank you pkfrey and I appreciate that. I want you to know should that I realize that you, CMD, Pain, and others here are smart and extremely knowledgeable in this area. It has been a pleasure to talk about this stuff with you all. 
“How long would it have taken to make a journey from, say, southern Spain, to North America?" Of course there would be so many variables, like ice jams, severe weather, and a whole host of natural barriers that would impede travel, but just rationally thinking, how much time?”You just asked an extremely important question. Remember the people who made the first trip were unlikely to have known where it would lead or how it would end. This is why is extremely likely they were fishermen as well as hunters.
This is why the most likely suspects left coastal Cantabria Spain and were fishermen and also hunters. The people would have avoided open water as much as possible or entirely. They would have fished and at the same time remained close the pack ice for support (to get the boat out of the water)  and seals. My uninformed wild guess is that I believe the trip, aided by prevailing currents actually wouldn’t have taken more four of five months if that long.

  It’s difficult question to answer but I would agree that a few months is not an unreasonable estimate. We’re not completely sure what distance we’re talking about. Sea levels were around 500 feet lower than today and coastlines were considerably extended in many areas, making for a shorter journey. There was also considerable variation in the ice shelf from decade to decade and even season to season. At the maximum extent of North Atlantic winter sea ice, the landmass-to-landmass distance was probably a little under 2,000 miles. Computer modelling suggests there was a prevailing favourable counter-current running at about 4 knots so, in theory, an unobstructed empty boat with no sail and no-one paddling could make the journey in less than a month.
A boat with people in it would take considerably longer, given their personal needs and their ability to cope with the harsh conditions. There would doubtless have been creeks, inlets and passages through the ice floes that would have needed navigation or traversing on a trial-and-error basis. That was the main problem in ‘modern’ times during the search for the ‘North-West Passage’. History is littered with examples of well-equipped expeditions in large ships coming to grief. I would personally believe the likelihood of a Solutrean success on the first attempt at their journey to be an unlikely event. If they did it, I would think it much more likely to be the culmination of a series of failed journeys.

[Bill]

An excellent post Pain, I am in complete agreement with you.
The scenario Dr. Stanford envisions is that “Four million seals, Stanford said, would look like a pretty good meal to hungry European hunters, who might have ventured into the ice flows much the same way that the Inuit in Alaska and Greenland do today.”
“I would think it much more likely to be the culmination of a series of failed journeys.” Perhaps but maybe they were luckier than we think because there may have some additional back and forth trips. The first was accidental but later ones were intentional.

[11KBP]

Bill wrote:


The Outré Passé bifacial thinning method has never intentionally been used prehistorically by any pre or post Clovis time period knappers.

  What about the flaking on this one?

[Bill]

11KPH, Outré passé was a very technologically driven bifacial thinning method that was deliberate and was only used by the Solutreans and Clovis knappers.
Even though your blade resembles it, I don’t see real outré passé thinning on your point. I believe when a narrow blade like yours was percussion flaked, the material removals can look that it was accomplished according to the outré passé method.
The Solutrean and Clovis knappers developed the outré passé method to thin broad blades in the perform stages and it made this possible. This method is really obvious on performs from a Clovis workshop site.
The images below are courtsey of Lithics Casting Lab.

http://i1048.photobucket.com/albums/...unsethndsm.jpg not found
http://i1048.photobucket.com/albums/...lesmallest.jpg not found

[pkfrey]

Bill, Your continued response to the effect that outre passe was ABSOLUTE and CONCLUSIVE to the Solutrean and Clovis blades is simply illogical. You are not allowing yourself to be open minded about this. And your missing a very important fact. Outre passe is a term, that, modern archeologists, invented.   Your suggesting the Paleo Indians knew what outre passe was, and therefore it was limited to the Paleo cultures. The only thing the Paleo cultures knew, was, if they hit the edge of a blade hard enough, and at the right angle, the energy thus generated, would drive a large flake off the entire face of a blade, thereby thinning the blade with much greater control. There were many other later cultures who realized this type of flintknapping would better prepare a preform type blade for final knapping. It would be completely illogical to suggest that no one else made preforms this way. Seriously, Bill, the transitional lehigh and Perkiomen broad spear complex made their jasper preforms this way, as well as the Fox creek culture preforms. Look at the Crib Mound cache. A very large percentage of those blades will exhibit the large, flake removal, that ran across the blade face. This was simply a flint knapping technique. Interesting fact: Prior to 1959, because of this technique, Fox Creek lanceolate points were considered Paleo. The preforms exhibited outre passe and collateral / parallel flaking. The in 1959, W. Ritchie discovered a stratified site in N.Y. that was a pure Fox creek cultural site. ( I may be incorrect with the precise date of 1959 ) Problem was, the blades were found in direct context with early pottery! The pottery found with the  blades, was dated to the Early Woodland. All the books changed, and the once thought to be Paleo preforms, were now Early Woodland.

[pkfrey]

If you want to see " Classic " outre passe, go to ebay, and look at item # 300663491355. The flaking on this blade is not a coincidence, or abnomally, it's the way these blades were flaked.

[Bill]

[/img][IMG]http://forums.arrowheads.com/core/[IMG]
[/img]
pkfrey, if you are talking about this artifact, http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI...vip=true&rt=nc then, with respect, you don’t understand what you are talking about and that explains the contentious nature anytime this subject is discussed.
I don’t believe you understand the outre passé biface reduction technique that was used by the Solutrean and Clovis knappers. This was technological skill that is very precise and painstaking and used to thin broad bladed performs. Almost all modern knappers will tell you that it is very exacting and is extremely difficult and precise to learn. This is probably the very reason was lost to the ages and disappeared when the Classic Clovis people did. At no other time period after that in prehistory did it ever appear again. 
The artifact you are talking about is simply a round preform that was percussion flaked. You have been confused by something that accidently looks like what it is not.   
On occasions, performs that were not blade performs and were randomly percussion shaped out of a high quality chert can resemble outré passé thinning but it was not.
You need to study the pictures of the Clovis performs I posted from Lithics Casting Lab in order to understand what the outré passé technique looks like and is because there is nothing random about it.

[pkfrey]

OHHHH! I see what you mean! In other words, if mr. Smith grows apples on his farm, and I grow apples, but only YOU think his apples are better, then because my apples look similar to his, mine aren't apples at all! I'm done with this subject, Bill is blinded to common sense, logic, facts, and the truth.

[Bill]

No pkfrey, you don’t see at all because to use your comparison, I showed you two very different fruits and you have chosen to call both the same.
I reserve the same right to be right or wrong as you. The Clovis from Solutrean hypothesis has not been proven beyond the argument phase so just settle down and relax. 
I stated earlier that whenever someone (and not only me) attempts to defend the Solutrean hypothesis they are meant with thrown rocks. There is no question that this subject has taken the same kind of tone that an argument about politics or religion does.

[Bill]

pkfrey, the reason archaeologists use the term outré passé is because it was used to identify the method that was that first used by Archaeologists to refer the way Solutrean kanppers thinned long, broad performs. 
You stated “Your suggesting the Paleo Indians knew what outré passé was, and therefore it was limited to the Paleo cultures."
No, because Paleoindians in general were not the skilled flintknappers capable of the highly specialized outré passé method nor did the rank and file care either.   
“The only thing the Paleo cultures knew  was, if they hit the edge of a blade hard enough, and at the right angle, the energy thus generated, would drive a large flake off the entire face of a blade, thereby thinning the blade with much greater control. There were many other later cultures who realized this type of flintknapping would better prepare a preform type blade for final knapping. It would be completely illogical to suggest that no one else made preforms this way.”
Yes I agree with your assessment of PaleoIndians in general but this is not descriptive or true of the Solutrean and Clovis knappers.   
  I am afraid the rest of your post generally confirms that you do not understand the Outre Passe method at all. You have confused general percussion thinning with Outré Passe.

[CMD]

Bill wrote:

No pkfrey, you don’t see at all because to use your comparison, I showed you two very different fruits and you have chosen to call both the same.
I reserve the same right to be right or wrong as you. The Clovis from Solutrean hypothesis has not been proven beyond the argument phase so just settle down and relax. 
I stated earlier that whenever someone (and not only me) attempts to defend the Solutrean hypothesis they are meant with thrown rocks. There is no question that this subject has taken the same kind of tone that an argument about politics or religion does.

And with all due respect to you Bill, you bear a large part of the responsibility for setting that very tone in this thread. Indeed, you bear most of the responsibility, IMO. Read through all the posts dispassionately, if possible, and see for yourself where most of the anger is coming from in this thread. I'm sorry to put it that way, but it's as clear as the day is long.

[cgode]

I think this horse has been beaten to death several times over at this point. I can understand having a debate, even a passionate one such as this. What I don't like seeing, is one person telling another that he doesn't understand this and that and is just wrong.....especially when it comes to theories that haven't been proven one way or another....making them theories. Remember, the world was flat at one time after all, wasn't it?
Now let's let the poor horse RIP, unless someone has something constructive to add without any degrading remarks.

[Bill]

CMD, I find it interesting and understand why you feel this way because your friends went in that direction several times during the course of this discussion.
It is only natural that you would attempt to rehabilitate them and displace blame.  However this discussion has been far from boring and has been interesting to most because it has generated 993 views so far.
This is a topic that is very popular with people no matter where it is discussed. I always attempt to remain dispassionate during these discussions because they do tend to get heated and I simply state the strong evidence on the side of the Clovis from Solutrean hypothesis. I have noticed that when they are confronted with facts contrary to their beliefs, those who are most virulently anti-Clovis from Solutrean quickly become the fastest to lose their cool and become personal in their comments.
I have read all of the posts because I refer to them as I write my response so I have a clear understanding as I answer what folks said.