Post-Clovis Alaska Fluted Points

[CMD]

A newly published paper supporting a later arrival of fluted points in Alaska.

http://bionews-tx.com/news/2013/11/01/texas-prof-says-discovery-alaska-spear-points-raises-new-questions-human-arrival-north-america/

Here is the full paper:

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/cfsa-publications/Goebel-JAS2010-37-2640.pdf

[rmartin]

Fascinating article Charlie.

[CliffJ]

Why do they publish two articles on fluted points in Alaska, then show pictures of the college building, researchers, and the sites- but none of fluted points from Alaska!??

[JoshinMO]

Thanks but im "with" Cliff. Wheres the points

[CMD]

CliffJ wrote:

Why do they publish two articles on fluted points in Alaska, then show pictures of the college building, researchers, and the sites- but none of fluted points from Alaska!??

  That's odd. Especially in the actual peer reviewed paper. I did see the points in question, maybe I can find where, it was a few days ago...
What a bizarre oversight!

[CMD]

OK, folks, here are the fluted points in question from the site in Alaska....

http://www.archaeology.org/news/1498-131107-alaska-points-clovis

[Bill]

Yep CMD, without a doubt it is becoming clear that fluted points never originated in Alaska or anywhere else in Beringia.
The Clovis Radio Carbon Dates in The Eastern and South Eastern U.S.A. plus the proven Solutrean presence on our North Eastern coast is making it look better that its a good bet Clovis originate right there!

[painshill]

Bill wrote:

Yep CMD, without a doubt it is becoming clear that fluted points never originated in Alaska or anywhere else in Beringia.
The Clovis Radio Carbon Dates in The Eastern and South Eastern U.S.A. plus the proven Solutrean presence on our North Eastern coast is making it look better that its a good bet Clovis originate right there!

  ... proven Solutrean presence on our North Eastern coast???????????   :blink:

[Bill]

Yep it's a done deal because,
Proven: Their projectile points have been found and are still being found on the Del Marva Pennisula!
There is no doubt that they settled there not long after Solutreans arrived here during the LGM!

[painshill]

[Ron Kelley]

:laugh: Rog you really should put that on the "Faces to Names" thread.

[Bill]

I am surprised that you look surprised.
The Santa Fe conference brought the fact the evidence that Solutreans were on the Del Marva is overwhelming.
The Laurel Leaf Bi-points that have been and continue to be found are the proof.

[painshill]

Bill wrote:

I am surprised that you look surprised.
The Santa Fe conference brought the fact the evidence that Solutreans were on the Del Marva is overwhelming.
The Laurel Leaf Bi-points that have been and continue to be found are the proof.

  Marvellous. I'm glad it's not in doubt any more. I can sleep easy now. Has anyone told Lawrence Strauss? David Meltzer. Ted Goebel? Oh. Just one side of the story then? Need the human evidence really, don't we?

[Bill]

Ha Ha, it's interesting you mentioned those names.
Strauss is just plain wrong because the presence of Solutrean points on Del Marva prove him wrong.
Except for Goebels, the others admit that Solutrean points infer Solutrean presence.
As for Goebels, well he is well on the way to proving what has been known for quite a while. Clovis never originated anywhere near the Bearing Straight, in Siberia, or Alaska.

[painshill]

Bill wrote:

Ha Ha, it's interesting you mentioned those names.
Strauss is just plain wrong because the presence of Solutrean points on Del Marva prove him wrong.
Except for Goebels, the others admit that Solutrean points infer Solutrean presence.
As for Goebels, well he is well on the way to proving what has been known for quite a while. Clovis never originated anywhere near the Bearing Straight, in Siberia, or Alaska.

You dismiss Strauss very lightly. He’s not “plain wrong” until someone proves him to be so. More accurately, he has opposing views (and arguments) to your beliefs. And his views represent the null hypothesis, which effectively puts the burden of proof with Stanford, Bradley et al.
When you say “except for Goebels, the others [ie Strauss -and- Meltzer] admit that Solutrean points infer Solutrean presence” that’s a distorted misrepresentation of their views. Their position is that if it were demonstrated that Solutrean points were present in North America then that would infer Solutrean people were present.
And that’s the bit you gloss over. They aren’t convinced that the points found so far were produced by Solutrean people (as opposed to showing similarities to Clovis which represent a convergence of technology and - in fact - show more differences than similarities). Most recently: “Refuting the technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis” (Robert J. Patten, Michael J. O'Brien, David J. Meltzer) Journal of Archaeological Science, July 2013.
I’m still on the fence about who is right but - like I said - both sides of the story deserve to be heard (and read).