Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cinmar Blade

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

  • #61
    “We're not here to belittle you; we're just searching for legitimate answers, which could help prove the validity of the Solutrean connection. Example”
    Well pkfrey, with respect, I'll do my best. 
    1.) The Solutreans would have stepped ashore on the North Eastern American coast. You must remember that many coastal areas that were above ocean 25,000 years ago soon were submerged by rising sea levels.
    However, they would have inhabited those areas and would have begun exploring for marine resources such as seals and fish and also would have searched for lithic resources and land mammals.
    The earliest Solutreans may have inhabited coastal areas that are now submerged and any tools they were using are still there. However since they are the Clovis progenitors, the tools they used would have been indistinguishable from those used by the early classic Clovis people on the Del Marva Peninsula.
    A reading of Drs. Stanford’s and Bradley’s book goes into the archaeological discoveries on the Cantabrian coast of Spain have revealed that Solutrean people who lived there before the sea levels rose were making projectile points that would have meshed nicely with Classic Clovis points.
      2.) Something that helped people survive the cold journey would have the skin boats the Solutreans were using. Those boats would have served nicely as shelters when pulled up on the ice because that’s all people had to do when they wanted or needed to stop to warm up or rest. I doubt fires needed to be built since the skin boat shelters and the extra skins for clothing (that would have been brought along) should have kept the boat occupants cozy and warm (under theit boat tent) during the night or when storms forced them to get out of the water.   
      3.) They did because Ivory has been found at several North American such as the East Wenatchee Clovis site, Anzick Clovis site in South Western Montana, Sheaman Clovis site in Wyoming, Murray Springs, located in Southern Arizona, and in Blackwater Draw.
    Many of the first Solutrean occupation sites on the North Eastern American coast and now under water and I am hopeful that underwater archaeological investigations and more land archaeological excavations in the Del Marva Peninsula can find some of these still in context.
    There was a pretty extensive good bone tool industry in Florida that is early enough to be Solutrean/American that is still under investigation.     
    4.) To me, I really find it unlikely that folks would have brought much rock with them from Spain. They were traveling in skin boats however, it would really be cool if the under water archaeology and further land excavations in the Del Marva area produce some extra local lithics.   
    5.) This is an easy one because the answer has been covered in Across The Ice. When the site dates on some of the Cantabrian Spanish coastal Solutrean sites were tightened up it became the key evidence that convinced Drs Stanford and Bradley that it really was a possibility that Clovis could have come from there. They discovered those dates overlapped the Clovis horizon here. There was no longer a cultural time gap.

    Comment


    • #62
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        Bill wrote:

        Dandielyonwine, that would really be awesome but it wouldn't come from Eurasia. It is my hope that Clovis related DNA could be found in the Chesapeake Bay area here that could be compared to Solutrean DNA recovered from the Cantabria area of Spain.
        That should absolutely prove or disprove whether Clovis came from there.
        Did I type Eurasia? My bad I meant Eureka! LOL And yes I watch a lot of science fiction. I applaud all the research in that direction (Spain) But I just don't see it yet. Clues, we need more clues! In my mind I was thinking South America made sense. Maybe they were dry and needed some water. Or Canada/North Maybe they were cold and wanted to warm up? I don't think anything in history can be proven without a doubt. Well, it can be proven to fit our modes of thought though and helps with classification. But we can always come up with new names! Its fun and I enjoy playing connect-the-dots/un-connecting the dots!

        Comment


        • #64
          [QUOTE]CMD wrote:

          Originally posted by Bill post=49221
          Pain, I believe you are confusing what public opinion may or not want/believe and the weight of accumulating evidence and facts. Opinions are irrelevant against this weight.
          I predict that the weight of evidence for Clovis from Solutrean will continue to accumulate and as it becomes heavier, the weight will both overwhelm and crush those who refuse to accept the truth. I believe the Clovis from Solutrean evidence has reached critical mass and would convince a jury to find in the the Solutreans favor.
            Overwhelm and crush those who refuse to accept the truth?? Obviously, scientific debates can be very contentious but that's a very war-like image. Maybe they could be bombed into submission :whistle:
            Opinions are not likely to become irrelevant because… sure the evidence may well continue to accumulate, but it’s not going to generate a conclusive answer unless a multiple of spectacular discoveries are made. People are people. Reputations will need to be defended and… well… life’s not fair. I am actually still open-minded (believe it or not), but Stanford’s theory is still just that (by his own admission) and his supporters seem to be putting more weight and credence behind it than he does himself! That’s what I object to more than anything else. The prematureness of the assumption in a “bandwagon” manner.
          Even DNA evidence of the kind you suggest will not necessarily help. That will probably achieve nothing more than re-igniting a heated debate about land-bridges, ice-free corridors, windows of opportunity, numbers of migration waves, dates therof and which DNA haplogroups went into the mix. It might emphatically prove European DNA in the original American gene pool but it won’t prove it arrived by boat or disprove that it arrived via a land bridge.
          Also, it won’t necessarily prove a Solutrean origin since there is really no such thing as Solutrean DNA… it’s not a distinct haplogroup. It would be possible to say it’s DNA from the European gene pool and that it dates to the period when the Solutrean industry existed… but probably no more than that. We can’t even properly trace the migrations within Europe that way. There is evidence for both movement of people and transfer or progression of technology. The “Solutrean map” of Europe relies largely on stratigraphy, the underlying presence of earlier industries or overlying later industries, the presence of specific tool types and the carbon dating of faunal remains or meal residues. Not on skeletons and DNA.
          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


          • #65
            Bill, I applaud you for taking the time and answereing my questions in a very positive and constructive manner. And some of your answers are actually very credible. Everything can and will be debated, but you offered some sound input, and now you should feel better about this entire forum discussion. But be prepared! As you know, when one question is answered, that forms a debatable issue for another. And I have another question which I honestly didn't research myself, and haven't seen it mentioned, though it probably was somewhere. 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?
            http://www.ravensrelics.com/

            Comment


            • #66
              Can we say Arguology?  I have listened to Dr. Stanford speak about this same topic.  I can't say I was convinced, but it was interesting to say the least.  Archaeology is a living science, and the problem is just like any other weak case, lack of evidence.  Drawing conclusions off from an isolated find is a pretty big jump, but isn't that how all discoveries become common knowledge and accepted theory?  It is just another stepping stone to our attempted understanding of pre-history. I am glad we have folks like Dr. Stanford seaking answers to seemingly impossible questions, it sparks creativity in all of us, which is beneficial to everyone interested in the subject.

              Comment


              • #67
                I understand your point Pain however I think it would because the weight of the accumulated evidence would become a little (or much) heavier.  I don’t know about you but I would love to know which Haplotypes make up Solutrean DNA and which ones are in the Del Marva Peninsula and Cactus Hill Clovis DNA.
                I understand your point about there being no distinctive Solutrean DNA to separate it from the rest of Europe. However if DNA was retrievable from a Solutrean habitation of burial could be compared to the DNA from early Eastern Clovis DNA it just might settle the whole issue one way or the other. 
                I fail to understand how you can fail to see that Solutrean tools and flint knapping technology and Clovis tools and flint knapping are not only similar they are identical. This fact alone has added a lot of weight to the evidence of Clovis from Solutrean and makes the link that joins them stronger.
                “There is evidence for both movement of people and transfer or progression of technology” I believe that all of the evidence necessary to prove Clovis came from Solutrean has already been assembled by Drs. Stanford and Bradley. This was the reason they wrote their book and there will be more finds that will prove they got it right!

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Paleolution, I believe that in Dr. Stanford’s case that since he has knowingly placed his professional standing at risk and what a firestorm they would cause, he gave his ideas a lot of thought and study before he started this journey.
                    My money is on him he knows his stuff (and this stuff) like nobody else in the business. Archaeology to Dr. Stanford is a passion, his life, and not just a job. I just don’t think he will lose this one.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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
                      Look to the ground for it holds the past!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Bill,
                        I totally understand your backing of the evidence at hand. It is tough to put your stamp of approval on any new idea or theory that has been brought to the table. I had my 7 year old son look at the map and he said Spain would have been a short trip! Sandy

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Chase, everything about ancient prehistory, especially Clovis origin is still just speculation. Smoking guns have been largely absent throughout the archaeology of ancient prehistory. It was so long ago and the evidence is largely incomplete and has large gaping holes.
                          The technological and methodical techniques used by Solutrean and early Clovis knappers to work flint and chert are so close they suggest an overlap. This is not speculation, it is a fact. There is no parallel that is closer anywhere else in the world and this is what inspired Drs. Stanford and Bradley to suggest Clovis must have come from the Solutrean.
                          Is it a perfect theory, no and is it right? This is something only further investigations can try to discover and this is the route of travel during the journey to find the proof of Clovis truth.
                          Examine all of the evidence Drs Stanford and Bradley offer in their book, Across Atlantic Ice and compare it to the other theories and evidence that attempt to explain the origins of Clovis. Come along for the ride and help weigh all of the evidence.
                          Drs. Stanford and Bradley are convinced the once the Solutreans got here everything was in place for a fast transition to transpire.
                          It looks like classic Clovis may have begun in the Eastern United States. The Preclovis people were already here by that time however they lacked the knapping technological knowhow that was required to create the long, broad, fluted lanceolates that defined Clovis.
                          Even though fluting flowered here, it is entirely possible the technology that was required to make the necessary performs was imported from Europe.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Dandielyonwine,Perhaps your son was thinking people instead of coming straight across, folks boated up the coast of Europe and skirted the ice.
                            Tell him he is wise beyond his years because “Bradley and Stanford argue that at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, ca 25,000-15,000 radiocarbon years ago, the Iberian peninsula of Europe became a steppe-tundra, forcing Solutrean populations to the coasts. Maritime hunters then traveled northward along the ice margin up the European coast and around the North Atlantic Sea. They point out that the perennial Arctic ice at the time would have formed an ice bridge connecting Europe and North America. Ice margins have intense biological productivity, and would have provided a major food source.”
                            The way people would have traveled would have made the trip from Spain to the North Eastern coast of America shorter than anyone might imagine.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Bill, I know that this response is pointless, but I am looking for truth. Dr. Stanford and Dr. Bradley have a theory that they wrote a book about.There is no link that can be proven one way or the other concerning this subject. Just as you are passionate about this being fact, others are just as passionate that this could not happen. I am not on either side.This subject has been brought up before on this forum.( http://arrowheads.com/forums/interna...act-or-fiction ) Theory only points you into a direction to look for the truth and is not the truth. Dr. Stanford and Dr. Bradley would have not wrote the book if they did not believe in their theory, but it does not make it fact. Their theory has compelling points, but this is only speculation.To put blinders on and say that there is not another explanation only blinds us from the truth.
                              And with that said, I will not respond to this thread again. ( agree to disagree )
                              Chase
                              Look to the ground for it holds the past!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Paleolution wrote:

                                Can we say Arguology?  I have listened to Dr. Stanford speak about this same topic.  I can't say I was convinced, but it was interesting to say the least.  Archaeology is a living science, and the problem is just like any other weak case, lack of evidence.  Drawing conclusions off from an isolated find is a pretty big jump, but isn't that how all discoveries become common knowledge and accepted theory?  It is just another stepping stone to our attempted understanding of pre-history. I am glad we have folks like Dr. Stanford seaking answers to seemingly impossible questions, it sparks creativity in all of us, which is beneficial to everyone interested in the subject.
                                  Very well put, Tyson!
                                Rhode Island

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X