Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cinmar Blade

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    No no Gregszybala, you should have written the Solutrean biface that WAS found off the North Eastern coast.

    Comment


    • #32
      Have read the book. Can't wait for the film. I would suggest:
      Production by: Paramount
      Scripting by: DreamWorks
      Lead actor: Mel Gibson
      Lead actress: Halle Berry (dressed in a suitably small furry bikini)*
      Music by: Hans Zimmer
      Merchandising by: Disney
      *maybe just the bottom half. :whistle:
      I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

      Comment


      • #33
        Ha ha, aw Pain you are really a funny bloke but if you have read Drs. Stanford and Bradley’s book, Across Atlantic Ice then it sounds to me like your only goal was to make an unconstructive (failed!) attempt to ridicule their effort. That is not cool however why don't you send them an email about complaints. :silly:  :side:  :lol:

        Comment


        • #34
          Bill, IMHO, reading a book and having the ability to read it critically is considered normal, not ridicule.
          Critiquing a theory or hypothesis is normal and constructive, not destructive. You know not everyone accepts their thesis wholeheartedly. Personally, I would pay to listen to a debate with Roger and Bob Young from PROS on one side, and Stanford and Bradley on the other. I certainly don't fault your impassioned defence of the Solutrean hypothesis, but there are times I think you support it even more then Stanford and Bradley do
          And Bill, if I haven't told you before, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject of the peopling of the Americas. It's an enthusiasm and an excitement I very much share. I'm very glad I lived to enjoy these heady times in American archaeology!
          Rhode Island

          Comment


          • #35
            I hefted that big stone in the pond to make a splash. I do in fact have a great respect for the knowledge that went into the book. They are professionals and I’m an amateur. But I do follow the archaeological research in Europe avidly (have done for years) and am lucky to be close enough to have made visits to many of the Solutrean sites in France and Spain, including some which are now closed to the public.
            None of that makes me an expert of course and it’s really easy to throw stones and pick holes in someone’s theory. But that’s what theories are for. They have to be robust enough to withstand this. The burden of proof rests with Stanford and he plays the same games that all researchers with a bee in their bonnet play. Quoting selective references, glossing over inconvenient contra-indications, reinforcing comparisons which are superficial, presenting isolated evidence as if it were generic, making assumptions and presenting them as if they were factual. I don’t blame him. He’s trying to fill in the gaps. Everyone does it – even the most objective researchers.
            There is, for example a world of difference between occasional Clovis heat treatment to improve lithic characteristics and the widespread sophisticated techniques apparent in the Solutrean industry. Also a world of difference between crude Clovis rock-scratching and the artistry of Solutrean carving (and painting).
            Are shouldered points confined to the late Solutrean? No. Although it would be true to say that all Solutrean lithic assemblages found so far where shouldered points are absent, date to 20,000 BP or older, the reverse is not true. For example, the Fourneau du Diable rock shelter has yielded several hundred shouldered points and – while they were more abundant in the upper two of the three Solutrean layers – they were also found in the bottom layer sitting on top of Gravettian tools.
            Does the (possible) representation of a halibut give us any proof of Solutrean seafaring skills in deep oceanic waters? No. Halibut mature at about 10 years but normally spend the first 4 of those in shallow coastal waters. Even after that they can be found offshore if the water is cold enough and there is food available.
            That’s nit-picking, but it’s informed nit-picking… and I could do quite a lot of it. Again, the evidence needs to withstand it. As for the “big picture”… what typifies the Solutrean industry more than anything else is the awareness of the environment that is reflected in its artistry. It is inconceivable (to me) that safe arrival after a perilous journey to an exciting new land full of unfamiliar animals and plants would not have been accompanied (big-time) by an explosion of celebratory art. Also, the bow and arrow (assuming you accept it was part of the Solutrean tool-kit) was a hugely significant innovation that rapidly spread across Europe. It wasn’t widely used initially – probably because of the nature of the preferred or available food sources and the hunting environment. By contrast, it would surely have been highly suitable for much of the North American environment and anyone who wants to convince me otherwise is gonna have a hard time.
            Having read the book (and the papers, and the articles, and heard the lectures, and seen the TV programmes), am I convinced? No. Stanford hasn’t proved his case and in my (non-expert) opinion, I think he’s barking up the wrong tree.
            I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

            Comment


            • #36
              Just to lighten up the thread a little, here’s some pictures. I have scavenged for tools in the areas where it is (or was) allowed, such as the vicinity of the caves at Les Eyzies and Laugerie Haute. I have found tools there, but from either side of the Solutrean (dang!)  inch:  such as this nice little Aurignacian burin from the Les Eyzies locality:

              And this nice notched Magdalenian blade from the Laugerie Haute locality:

              Although this next one was in the wrong area and stratum, I almost had an apoplexy when it came out of the ground. What looked like a single shoulder  :woohoo:  was immediately evident (hooray!)  , but a good clean up revealed it to be – I think – a broken Neolithic blade (boo!)  , although it has some interesting features, don’t you think?:

              [Oh. And Charlie. You’d be prepared to pay? OK. You known the drill. Used notes in the hollow tree. Small denomination bills. No consecutive serial numbers]   :whistle:
              I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

              Comment


              • #37
                Roger, do I get a discount if I promise to only stand and cheer for your arguments? Senior discount? What if I give you a ride to the lecture hall? Sorry, don't mean to sound cheap, it's just that I'm..., well, cheap :silly:
                Nice tools, Roger!
                Rhode Island

                Comment


                • #38
                  I have a rock that fits my hand perfectly !

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Butch Wilson wrote:

                    I have a rock that fits my hand perfectly !
                      I think you'll find that you actually have a hand that fits your rock perfectly. Now... given that your hand is exactly the same size as a Viking's hand, that artifact warrants some closer examination.
                    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      That's why I miss a certain banned member.....he would always lighten up a conversation when it was getting too heated or serious !

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Everyone is entitled to believe anything they will. However when someone goes beyond disagreement and crosses the line into ridiculing someone else’s carefully thought out scholarship that entitlement abruptly ends! 
                        CMD, both Roger and Bob Young would quickly discover they were outclassed, overmatched and would be humbled in short order if they debated Drs. Stanford and Bradley this subject. 
                        Believe it or not I have no passion either way because it is simple.  Clovis from Solutrean to me, it is simple logic or Archaeologic if you will. The reduction sequence and technological process between Soultrean and Classic Clovis as well as tools, use of ivory, engraved stones, use of eyed needles, and more is not just similar, it is identical say the Drs. Since they are professionals who have been studying this very thing for at least ten years if not more I cannot say they are wrong and neither can anyone else prove they are wrong either. 
                        I find it offensive that both Roger and Bob Young think they should challenge and ridicule two blue ribbon professional archaeologists who are also outstanding scholars. To think two amateur wannabes should challenge them is laughable in the least.
                        I read pains (AKA Roger, I think) comments on the Solutrean and it immediately became clear to me he would be better served by reading more about the subject than posting a critique that was based upon feeling and belief but not and not scholarship!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Expired equine !

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            So far Pain, you first three paragraphs only demonstrate to me you are missing the Nexus that has been revealed in the carefully researched work by Drs. Stanford and Bradley. If they are correct, Clovis came from the Northern costal Spanish Solutrean.   
                            The Solutrean big picture as far as it extends to North American Classic Clovis includes Outré Passé bifacial thinning. Throughout flint knapping time this technology has only existed in Solutrean and Clovis and no where else. 
                            Drs. Stanford and Bradley have been able to archaeologically tighten the time line of the Northern Spanish Solutrean and realized Clovis sites in the Chesapeake Bay of North America simply made a Solutrean immigration possible.
                              As they revisited Spanish Solutrean costal sites and Eastern North American Clovis sites they realized Solutrean people did have time to have reached Eastern North America before the end of the Solutrean culture. The proof they have offered is the presence of identical Solutrean tools, stone working technology and much so more that is covered in Across Atlantic Ice.
                            Their case is extremely strong and very well laid out. I believe they will be proven correct.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Everyone, except for Bill, might as well lay this subject to rest. Bill apparently holds Stanford and Bradley in high reverence. A dozen people have offered logical and common sense reasons why there probably was never a Solutrean connection, but because Stanford and Bradley SAY there was, then there was. Apparently if someone is a " professional " they have all the correct answers. Remeber though, it was the professionals, who thought the Woody Blackwell Clovis points were authentic. It was the professional who thought the Piltdown Man was authentic. The professional thought the Hodges crystal skull was authentic. During the early days of fossil identification, the professionals mistakenly placed the fossil skull of a T-Rex on the fossil skeleton of a Brontosaurus. Bradley and Stanford are professionals because they passed their academic courses and hold certificates, BUT, I don't care how many certifacts you own, or how many times your on T.V., or how many times your picture is on a cover of a magazine, that doesn't mean you can't be wrong. So now that these two PROFESSIONALS have adopted the Solutrean theory, it would be a huge embarrasment for them to come back and say their wrong, so they will stick with it. If other peolple want to believe it, that's up to them. I don't, never did, and never will, but Bill is welcome to believe it if he so desires.
                              http://www.ravensrelics.com/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                pkfrey, I have great respect for Drs. Stanford and Bradley and that is something they earned.
                                Yep, you got one right because I will defend professional Archaeologists Drs. Stanford and Bradley, against unwarranted insults and uninformed and distorted facts. They deserve no less.
                                “A dozen people have offered logical and common sense reasons why there probably was never a Solutrean connection, but because Stanford and Bradley SAY there was, then there was” ha and nope again. I am afraid that you have once again distorted the issue to make it fit your bias.
                                Most of the comments about the subject of Clovis from Solutrean took on a personal tone as attacks against Drs. Stanford and Bradley became bitter. Apparently because most Archaeologists have professional right after their names causes some people to react negatively. They can’t seem to believe the any of the Drs. could possibly be more right than an amateur. 
                                Nope, all don’t but some professional Archaeologists do have it right. I hope Dr. Stanford and Bradley will be among them. 
                                Nope you are wrong again! Dr. Ken Tankersley, a professional Archaeologist used a UV Lamp to bust Blackwell while most of us the amateurs were too busy drooling the over the points to notice! Read “Woody’s Dream” to learn the real facts and details.
                                Now you have revealed yourself because the remainder of your post has nothing to do with this thread. Instead, you have degenerated into a bitter rant against professional Archaeologists. Everyone can be wrong even you. I am certain that Drs. Stanford and Bradley also realize they could be wrong too. However they rolled the dice with proof and facts, not bitter personal attack rants.
                                I appreciate the permission to believe what the overwhelming evidence leads me to believe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X