solutrean hypothisis

[will dawes]

:dunno: im gonna stert this thread by saying if you dont agree that theres enough evidence to say there was a transatlantic ice age voyage than please dont get argumenitive not posting this thread for people to crap on it posting it for the person who actually has interest in it now that being said i was flipping thru the old overstreet guide and stumbled on to these points wich look like a cross between the single shouldered solutrean dart tip and the clovis point the origonal date on these points was a questionable date of 20000 bp its made very clear that it can not be accurate in the overstreet and they have been redated to paleo 11500 to 10000 bp anyway here is the caption from this years overstreet guide it is a southwestern point type from new mexico



Now here is an illustration of the solutrean shouldered dart point from the book across atlantic ice i see a resembalnce to both solutrean and clovis here the actual carbon date of 20000 bp is mentioned in the caption so maybe an early band of solutrean/preclovis people carried the idea of shouldered points west while also developing fluting tactics just speculation tho but in my mind it seems very possible tho

[rmartin]

I am not even going to get into the debate on Solutreans in NA. I will share a little about what I know about Sandia though. The site and the type has been surrounded by controversy  since its discovery. It is generally considered to be an invalid type and the whole site a hoax. I am providing two links, the second is to a website by Tony Baker (Deceased) who many consider to be one of the foremost experts on Paleo. http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gall...ointspage1.htm

http://ele.net/sandia_cave/elephant.htm

[painshill]

I have a few comments.
I have moved this thread to the archaeology section since that’s where I think it belongs. The well-researched Stanford-Bradley theory for a Solutrean connection expressed in “Across Atlantic Ice” doesn’t fall in the category of “Off the Wall”. It deserves more respect than that.
It’s unreasonable of you to preface your post with words akin to “if you don’t agree, don’t post any counter-arguments on my thread”. As discussed ad nauseum on another thread recently that isn’t how a forum works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and anyyone with an interest in whether or not the Solutrean theory is adequately proven should take the time and trouble to read both Stanford -and- Bradley’s book (plus subsequent research) and the evidence for the opposing theories (notably from Strauss et al, although the evidence is not so conveniently condensed into a book supported by the same level of publicity)… and then make up their own minds. The easiest start point for accessing the counter-arguments would be Googling “solutrean theory debunked” or something similar.
Whatever the dating for the points you reference might be, neither has been carbon dated at 20,000 BP. There is no satisfactory method of carbon dating a point. You can carbon date the stratum you believe it came from if certain types of organic material are present and the stratum can be proven to be undisturbed (a veritable hotbed of debate)… but that’s all.

[chase]

Hmmmmm, when you only want supporting thoughts on your solutrean hypothisis. I guess I will have to decline posting on this thread. The stretch to New Mexico and the Sandia point, I know I can not make that leap, since I still have a hard time, just getting the Solutrean's to the America's.
Roger, has made a very good point, that a forum is for discussion, which should have a degree of debate to be a healthy forum. Only when we question our ideas and see others points of view is when we learn the most. An old saying that has always stuck with me through my years is "Nobody goes out to prove their theory wrong."

[gregszybala]

Solutrean?
.................

[CMD]

I would not put any faith in the Sandia point being what was once claimed for it.

[will dawes]

Thanks to all exactly the info i needed im not quite understanding how a point surounded by this much controversy made its way into the overstreet in the first place but all good to know basicly i saw similarity in form and craftmanship but could not find any solid info on the site itself much beyond my overstreet itself so now reading the ibfo about it im incined to have this thread removed and live and learn hoaxs in archeaology ate a thing that truely angers me i see no point in intentional decete for personal gain . Thanks every one especially painhill