Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Post-Clovis Alaska Fluted Points

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    "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."
    Ha Ha, I don't believe you are up to date on what has been found on the Del Marva Penninsula.
    It has, is being, and will continue to be demonstrated the Solutreans were there. The search and proof of Pre-Clovis started out the same way.
    Nobody looked for hard evidence of folks being in North America before Clovis because it was "Clovis first" and Archaeology was prejudiced against anything else.   
    Solutrean Laurel Leafs are on the Del Marva therefore this is the proof that Solutreans were there.
    Now the Archaeological search for the Solutrean occupation of Eastern North America can continue.

    Comment


    • #17
      Bill wrote:

      "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."
      Ha Ha, I don't believe you are up to date on what has been found on the Del Marva Pennisula.
      It has, is being, and will continue to be demonstrated the Solutreans were there. The search and proof of Pre-Clovis started out the same way.
      Nobody looked for hard evidence of folks being in North America before Clovis because it was "Clovis first" and Archaeology was prejudiced against anything else.   
      Solutrean Laurel Leafs are on the Del Marva therefore this is the proof that Solutreans were there.
      Now the Archaeological search for the Solutrean occupation of Eastern North America can continue.
      Ha Ha. I am up to date about the Delmarva Peninsula (note the spelling). But you miss the point. Again. The point is that not everyone agrees the lithics are Solutrean in the sense of having been made by Solutrean people. There is no proof of that and there is unikley to be any until some human remains are found in association with the lithics... and hopefully that such remains can be reliably attributed to a people or a culture. Therefore this is not the uncontested proof that you claim and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that it is by twisting the words of Strauss or other opponents to the Stanford/Bradley hypothesis to create the impression that they now agree. They don't.
      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


      • #18
        "disingenuous of you to suggest that it is by twisting the words of Strauss or other opponents to the Stanford/Bradley hypothesis to create the impression that they now agree"
        I will say that everyone who has seen classic Solutrean Laurel Leafs in France and Spain and have seen been found and continue to be found on the Del Marva agrees they are the same.
        I will state once again Straus is absolutely wrong and the others who have examined the Laurel Leafs from there also cannot say they are not Solutrean.
        The impression that has been created in many others is that "it sure looks like Stanford and Bradley are/were onto something after all". This is all that was/is needed to open minds to the evidence from the Del Marva that will continue to accumulate.

        Comment


        • #19
          "I will say that everyone who has seen classic Solutrean Laurel Leafs in France and Spain and have seen been found and continue to be found on the Del Marva agrees they are the same."
          It depends on what you mean by “the same” because that alone does nothing to counter the “convergance of technology” arguments levied by those who do not support the Stanford/Bradley hypothesis. The Delmarva (note the spelling) lithics indeed have many similarities to (and differences from) blades/points made by the Solutrean culture but that doesn’t prove they were made by the same people.
          "I will state once again Straus is absolutely wrong and the others who have examined the Laurel Leafs from there also cannot say they are not Solutrean."
          To say that Strauss is “absolutely wrong” is an opinion (nothing wrong with that) but it isn’t a fact. He hasn’t been proven to be wrong any more than Stanford has been proven to be right. The jury’s still out. To say that the others who have examined the laurel leaves cannot say they are not Solutrean is correct and factual, but the reverse is also true. Those who have examined them cannot say they are Solutrean.
          Being unable to refute them as Solutrean (which is what you are now correctly saying) is a long way from saying it’s proven and a “done deal” (which is what you originally and incorrectly said). The null hypothesis here is that the laurels are not of Solutrean origin. And that’s what has to be proven. Not the other way round.
          "The impression that has been created in many others is that "it sure looks like Stanford and Bradley are/were onto something after all". This is all that was/is needed to open minds to the evidence from the Del Marva that will continue to accumulate."
          Stanford -and- Bradley may well be on to something. Surely no-one who knows anything about the subject would deny that the existing theories need some drastic revisions.  But that doesn’t mean that everything Stanford -and- Bradley have been proposing as theory is now accepted fact. The evidence base was thin at the beginning, rather stronger now and as you say will (or rather may) continue to accumulate but there remain alternative explanations for their findings which do not invoke the need for supposition of Solutrean arrival by boat. Whether you’re talking dates or lithics.
          Open mindedness applies everywhere. For example, the paper I cited earlier (Meltzer et al) which represents part of the case for refuting the lithic evidence for a Solutrean arrival was also presented at Santa Fe. Only someone with a very closed mind would say it’s not relevant because it’s wrong and doesn’t fit with what I believe. The same applies to the other counter-evidence.
          The harsh reality is that the possibility of a Solutrean connection is never going to be proven (to the satisfaction of all interested parties) by lithic comparison unless a piece of material with a unique petrological signature turns up. A piece of obsidian off the Cape de Gat in Spain or some nice Fontmaure jasper would do it but that’s probably not gonna happen. Other than that, I personally think other physical evidence from a drowned site, human remains and/or genetic studies will hold more promise for the clinching proof Stanford would need to move from theory to fact.
          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


          • #20
            It is a fact that Solutrean Laurel leafs have been found and are being found on the Del Marva Peninsula. So far at least half a dozen of them have been found.
            Their presence alone is proof that Solutreans actually were on the Del Marva. Those people did cross the Atlantic ice just as Drs. Stanford and Bradley have hypothesized.

            Comment


            • #21
              Bill wrote:

              It is a fact that Solutrean Laurel leafs have been found and are being found on the Del Marva Peninsula. So far at least half a dozen of them have been found.
              Their presence alone is proof that Solutreans actually were on the Del Marva. Those people did cross the Atlantic ice just as Drs. Stanford and Bradley have hypothesized.
                No. It is a fact that laurels which strongly resemble Solutrean lithic tradition have been found on the Delmarva (note spelling) Peninsula. It is not a fact that they were made by Solutrean people.
              The presence of unattributed blades is therefore not proof the Solutrean people were also there, or that they crossed the Atlantic ice (or even that they had any involvement in the making of the blades).
              The Solutreans may have been responsible for all of the above but it isn't proven.
              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


              • #22
                Bill wrote:

                It is a fact that Solutrean Laurel leafs have been found and are being found on the Del Marva Peninsula. So far at least half a dozen of them have been found.
                Their presence alone is proof that Solutreans actually were on the Del Marva. Those people did cross the Atlantic ice just as Drs. Stanford and Bradley have hypothesized.
                  Hi Bill. I think Roger's point is that it is perfectly permissible to disagree with your conclusions. In every instance encouragement should always and ever be afforded to dissenting points of view. The simple fact is is that your conclusions are not accepted by everybody. It is your opinion. Your opinion is that it is proven. Others share that opinion. Opinions are not laws of nature. If there continues to be an insistance on additional evidence to support the theory, then what have the supporters, those who know it's the truth, really have to fear? In response to the brief quote above, my personal,answer would be. "Maybe". Skepticism should be encouraged, encouraged, and after a good night's sleep, encouraged some more. Long as a person doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water, insist on the "corpse" and the "gun used" so to speak. Nothing to lose being skeptical. Simply put, it should never be discouraged.
                Rhode Island

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi CMD, that's cool and because is a very controversial theory and I expect a lot of disagreement pro and com.
                  It seems Ice Age people were capable of and didn't mind traveling a long way even if they didn't know where they were going and what they would find when they got there.
                  Plainshill and I are never going to reach a point of agreement about any of this and I am perfectly all right with that. We'll just have to simply agree to disagree!
                  We'll all have to wait and see how the Archaeology of the Delmarva Peninsula shakes out.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    This article includes a photo of the artifacts found with these human remains, including a Venus-like figurine...
                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25020958

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	image_2013-11-22 replaced].jpg
Views:	4
Size:	45.9 KB
ID:	218283

                    National Geo:
                    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...icans_20131121
                    Rhode Island

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      That's a very interesting and important discovery. I know what it tells me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The paper was published yesterday in Nature:
                        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture12736.html
                        And another study from which the quote is taken:
                        http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/tw...siberia-449216
                          "His team proceeded anyway to analyze the nuclear genome, which contains the major part of human inheritance. They were amazed when the nuclear genome also turned out to have partly European ancestry. Examining the genome from a second Siberian grave site, that of an adult who died some 17,000 years ago, they found the same markers of European origin. Together, the two genomes indicate that descendants of the modern humans who entered Europe had spread much farther east across Eurasia than had previously been assumed and occupied Siberia during an extremely cold period starting 20,000 years ago that is known as the Last Glacial Maximum.
                        The other surprise from the Mal'ta boy's genome was that it matched to both Europeans and Native Americans but not to East Asians. Willerslev's interpretation was that the ancestors of Native Americans had already separated from the East Asian population when they interbred with the people of the Mal'ta culture, and that this admixed population  then crossed over the Beringian land bridge that then lay between Siberia and Alaska to become a founding population of Native Americans.
                        "We estimate that 14 to 38 percent of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population," he and colleagues wrote in an article published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
                        A European contribution to Native American ancestry could explain two longstanding puzzles about the people's origins. One is that many ancient Native American skulls, including that of the well-known Kennewick man, look very different from those of the present-day population. Another is that one of the five mitochondrial DNA lineages found in Native Americans, the lineage known as X, also occurs in Europeans. One explanation is that Europeans managed to cross the Atlantic in small boats some 20,000 years ago and joined the Native Americans from Siberia.
                        Willerslev thinks it more likely that European bearers of the X lineage had migrated across Siberia with the ancestors of the Mal'ta culture and joined them in their trek across the Beringian land bridge."
                        NOTE: this has also been posted in the Lake Baikal thread, where I actually intended it go....
                        Rhode Island

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It’s very exciting. These kinds of studies will greatly add to our knowledge and reinforce or erode our theories.
                          I've seen various quotes from interviews with Dr Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen who led the study team and was the main author of the report.
                          It's interesting that the paper was presented at the Santa Fe conference with the author's view (firmly expressed as "the jury's still out") that it potentially provides more evidence for Beringian land bridge than Solutrean boats... yet those who have already made up their minds took it as further evidence for Solutrean boats.
                          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

                          Working...
                          X