Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solutrean style point

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

  • #16
    paleo pete wrote:

    I don't think those points are in the museum anymore. Take a look at this link.  http://www.angelfire.com/va/mobjackr...ricedtogo.html
      I think, having seen them hawked since Oct. 2014, that those two blades are being offered for sale. They are said to be # 8 and 9 in the photo clovisoid posted, but I'm not privy to any information about that personally.
    Rhode Island

    Comment


    • #17
      gregszybala wrote:

      The issue I have with it is it's all based on subject theory,hypothesis, no facts. I guess if you spew that theory for 20 plus years, some will start to believe and it will gain a foothold.
      Genomes, despite their claims more and more studies discount these claims.
      Technology, where is the absolute link or prelink if you will? In my humble uneducated opinion, it's a stretch to call these blades Solutrean, just because they have some of the same similarities. You can find points and blades in the Americas with similar styles yet made during different periods of time across wide expanses of the continent.
      Is the Cinmar blade actually from French stone? If so, that is the only thing that may reinforce the argument. That is if it was actually dredged off the coast of Virginia?
      A long way to go before all this hypothesis becomes fact.
        No, Cinmar isn't made from French flint. It's rhyolite so far as I know. Two blades were suggested to be made of flint from France. The first, because it was found beneath the foundation of a colonial era chimney, could not be accepted as good evidence. Roger posted info about the second one.  That's #11 in clovisoid's photo. I think Stanford and Bradley do have evidence, just not easily available to the public. And as clovisoid pointed out, some of the blades are known to be pre-Clovis in context, so that does remove later bipoint styles in those cases. They've also got very early dates from Delmarva. I think in the order of 26,000 years. Not saying those dates are connected to any of those blades, I think not, but dates putting people there early enough to answer the "gap in time" argument, potentially. I did not order the proceedings, but I suspect clovisoid is correct in feeling they may not be barking up the wrong tree altogether. I'm patient about it myself. I certainly won't live long enough to see the full picture I would love to see, but the Solutrean hypothesis itself can play itself out for yay or nay, regardless of how long it takes to finally accept or reject.  I think they are being honest about it as well. I think the press and the popular press book might have put the cart before the horse a bit, but I think it's an honest effort and should not be discouraged. Time will likely tell, if we are patient and the search for evidence continues. The whole idea does raise emotions for some. There are white supremacists who seized upon the theory, for what should be obvious reasons. And native Americans who rejected it vehemently, for equally obvious reasons. I don't really understand why the genetic argument that demonstrates Native Americans shared a common ancestral branch with Western Europeans when they arrived via Asia necessarily kills the Solutrean arrival. So that DNA did not come from hypothetical Solutreans. So what?
      Rhode Island

      Comment


      • #18
        OK, here's the thread where Roger discussed the blades made of French flint....
        https://arrowheads.com/index.php/for...beria?start=45
        Hi Charlie
        In “Bipoints before Clovis” Hranicky describes a Solutrean-like point as “found in a 1980 Browning Farm Site (44CC8) excavation in Virginia (Buchanan and Owen 1981)” and also as “found in the Epps [sic] Island site” and that it was “found in a trash pit”. He cites XRF fingerprinting by the Smithsonian as a “near perfect match” to French gunflint material and cites “Bradley 2012” as a reference. He doesn’t specifically say French “Grand Pressigny” flint, but I would assume that’s what he means. Hranicky provides a picture on page 169 which I probably shouldn’t publish for copyright reasons but I can send you it by e-mail if it helps.
        It is nevertheless very clearly the same biface as in Clovisoid’s picture, which I would agree is the second example (of claimed French flint). Hranicky adds a caption to the picture saying that it shows “recent breakage” and that the patination shows that “one face was up” during its burial prehistory/deposition.
        He adds some confusion by then citing Howard MacCord (Buchanan -and- Owen 1981): “Its outer surface is patinated with a thick white layer of corrosion products. It had been broken before burial since two small slivers of the stone are missing and the two larger pieces were physically separated about 2 feet when found.”
        The confusion arises in part from the apparent contradiction between “recent breakage” and “broken before burial”. Further confusion arises from citing “Bradley 2012” as a reference since it could be (and has incorrectly been) read as referring to the last-minute note on page 110 of “Across Atlantic Ice”. That wasn’t Hranricky’s intention and the note is in any case clearly attributed to Stanford, not Bradley. Stanford’s note describes a completely different point, which I believe was the “first” (of claimed French flint). He describes it as found “in the 1970’s” [other sources specifically say 1971, which is ten years earlier than the point Hranicky describes] from “archaeological excavation of a 17th Century colonial homestead on Eppes island, Virginia” [ie the same general locality as the second point] and found “below a clay chimney” [ie different circumstances]. He references “Grand Pressigny” flint specifically rather than just “French” with regard to the results of the XRF testing. There’s no mention of it being broken and Stanford doesn’t provide a picture.
        I think it’s this first point mentioned by Stanford for which we don’t have a picture or any better formal documentation (as far as I know). I believe that although he included the brief last-minute note in his book as it was going to press, he subsequently reconsidered the wisdom of using that point as further evidence because of the uncertain provenience which has the potential to “taint” other evidence on a “guilt by association” basis . He hints at that in the note by saying it couldn’t be ruled out as a 17th Century colonial import for example although I would say it’s pretty unlikely to have come in with flint ballast in a ship as some have suggested. The island was largely settled by the British, which some have taken as an indication that the point wasn’t imported from France, but that neglects the fact that the Solutreans spread from France to Britain – albeit in very limited numbers (as well as to Portugal and Spain). British-found Palaeo artefacts made from French lithics are – in general – not that uncommon.
        My take is that Stanford lost interest in the point for those reasons (again, he hints at that in the note by saying it’s “not the smoking gun” but “an intriguing piece of evidence”, however its brief mention in the book nevertheless established it in many minds as the “only” example (of claimed French flint) at the time because the 1981 example wasn’t mentioned at all. I would presume that was because the detailed assessment of its characteristics (which were not initiated until much later) were not ready in time for the publication deadline.
        It’s easy to see how the confusion might have arisen.
        The circumstances of the second find were published in “The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County: Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Randolph M. Owen - Quarterly Bulletin Archeological, Society of Virginia. Vol. 35, No. 3 (March 1981), pp. 139-158” but I don’t know of a free source for that and haven’t read it myself. I don’t know why Hranicky quotes MacCord when it was Buchanan -and- Owen’s paper. Maybe MacCord provided an introduction to the paper or editorial comment in the bulletin.
        Roger (redcoat typology dunce)
        Rhode Island

        Comment


        • #19
          I think it's important to bring up that all of our commonly accepted "facts" in archaeology are actually hypotheses and occasionally theories.  And if your bar for acceptance is too high, you can pretty much ignore anything that you want to...  Did Native Americans build mounds?  I think so, but there isn't any proof.  There is lots of evidence and a commonly accepted set of hypotheses that ties all of that evidence up into a neat little package that most of us accept, but there still isn't any proof from a true scientific standard.  Did paleo people exist?   To me yes, but there are only hypotheses and evidence, no hard proof.
          I think the big difference now-a-days is that with google, forums, PDFs and access to information, people want to immediately see a ton of hard data supporting a claim, or leading directly to a counter claim that completely dispels the original claim.  And archaeology simply doesn't work that way.  It probably took 40 years from the first time someone said fluted points are old until it became a commonly accepted "fact", and it took almost as long for Clovis First to die.  Archaeology moves really slowly.
          Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

          Comment


          • #20
            Thanks Charlie
            As you say, the Cinmar blade is rhyolitic... actually metarhyolite – an extrusive volcanic rock which has undergone light metamorphism. It’s a likely match (90% confidence) to the mineralogy of specimen #60892 in the Rock and Ore Collection of the Smithsonian Museum’s Department of Mineral Sciences. The specimen was collected in 1893/4 from the Catoctin Formation of South Mountain, Pennsylvania… specifically from a quarry at Maria Furnace, around 320 kilometres from where the blade was dredged up. Further recent rock specimens from the site also fell within the same confidence limits as likely matches.  Apart from this blade (the date for which is not established with certainty), the earliest previous evidence for metarhyolite quarrying at the Pennsylvania site dates to around 13,000 years ago.
            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


            • #21
              Theory and speculation is at best what we know. But the "Forums" and internet access, of people that have a passion for artifacts has moved our understanding forward. Since we do not have a historic record, it is all interpretation. But discussion we all form what we see as the truth. I keep an open mind and if its plausible then I will never rule it out. I may think in a different direction. but a narrow mind limits you.
              Look to the ground for it holds the past!

              Comment


              • #22
                Wow, this is a perfect example. Look how much we all have to say but haven't said a thing.
                Sometimes it just seems to be how much crap you can get to stick to the wall or who's mouth it's coming out of before evidence, facts, hypothesis, theories are accepted or denied.
                Searching the fields of Northwest Indiana and Southwestern Michigan

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hmmm, that's interesting information about the quarry Roger. I wonder how they date the use of a quarry site like that? 
                  This is me rambling at this point. ..
                      Seems like there would have to be more in land sites holding data yet? With the quarry roughly 200 miles away from the location of the biface?
                       What would be considered concrete evidence of solutreans in North America?  I mean even if they found another site with "solutrean like" tools in a pre Clovis context, would that be enough?
                      Or would it take more like something undeniably European in origin? As in lithic material,  Cave painting etc...
                        Are there other tools solutreans  used? Surely they had a larger tool kit than just these blades...
                         Feel free to ignore this post, but the more I hear,  the more questions I have... I'm going to have to buy the book I guess :dry:
                  Josh (Ky/Tn collector)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Have just started 'Across Atlantic Ice' and 'The First Americans' to further understand the conflicting viewpoints. It's complicated!
                    Child of the tides

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      gregszybala wrote:

                      Wow, this is a perfect example. Look how much we all have to say but haven't said a thing.
                      Sometimes it just seems to be how much crap you can get to stick to the wall or who's mouth it's coming out of before evidence, facts, hypothesis, theories are accepted or denied.
                        I don't understand why one would say we haven't said a thing. We've discussed aspects of the Solutrean hypothesis. The two French blades. The origin of the rhyolite for the Cinmar blade. I do get the impression at times that some people are angry about the Solutrean Hypothesis. That's what I don't understand at all. I don't understand why some folks get angry when the subject comes up. Our old member and friend greywolf used to get bent out of shape every time the subject came up. Others, we know who they are, get enraged if you disagree with it in the very slightest, and as if Stanford and Bradley were the Godhead. It's exactly as clovisoid described it, IMHO. It takes the very thing we can't speed up: time. There is nothing in the least bit wrong about exploring the possibility of Atlantic crossings. There are Brazilian scientists who subscribe to Atlantic crossings to Brazil from Africa. American archaeology, of the prehistoric variety, is in it's absolute infancy!! It's in it's infancy!! We have just started for heaven's sake. Look at how regionalized our prehistoric studies are, point types with different names in different regions. Despite all we know, what we don't know dwarfs it, and it's among the youngest of sciences. And can't we expect technological breakthroughs to continue to develop tools allowing us to extract still more info from sites? Right now we've barely started to walk, babes in the woods where our past is concerned. Stanford and Bradley DO have evidence, they have had something to say and are not just saying nothing. If it's not enough to prove their case, so what?? Last I knew, that is not a crime. Many times we have had Solutrean discussions that have devolved(not the case in this thread). We've seen it on all the forums too, not just this one. I can understand how it can be used to support someone's twisted philosophy. That's no good. But just discussing it? It's a work in progress and there's enough there to continue to entertain it as a working hypothesis. There's nothing wrong with that, others have their working hypothesis, nobody's crucifying them for looking in other directions. Greg, not dissing you here at all, speaking generally regarding my lack of understanding as to why the subject gets folks more worked up then other hypothesis....
                      I am certainly interested in the peopling of the Americas, as we all no doubt are. But, from maybe a sociological/psychological perspective, I am also interested in getting to the bottom of why the subject itself sets off emotional firestorms when it's proponents and detractors discuss it. It touches some raw nerves and I only understand what some of those nerves represent. On the other hand, I do understand some believe Stanford, et al, never had a case and are just playing games with the flimsiest of evidence/arguments. If one believes that, there can indeed be anger because when truth is the goal, if one thinks some scholars are deliberately wasting our time with BS, that can result in very angry attacks....
                      Any academic scholar, if he or she understands how to play "the game called science", understands they dare not advance controversial ideas, or dare to think outside the dominant paradigm box, without first acquiring tenure. Don't publish radical interpretations or the university that hired you may hand you a pink slip, rather then attract controversy to you and THEIR department. What does that say? Whatever else it might say, it says science is conservative and hidebound. It's almost tantamount to discouraging new ideas! Hidebound doesn't  move fast where change is concerned, it insists on incontrovertible evidence to overturn dominant interpretations. For many of us, it is really TOO slow. We get hunches, we become convinced in one theory over another, and we get impatient when the old guard acts as the old guard must. It's not a perfect game by any means; careers ruined because someone expresses a "crazy" idea, theories ridiculed because they "seem" so off the wall compared to what most expect, etc.  It's academia and science's version of a contact sport. Egos are involved, after all.
                      Rhode Island

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        CMD, well said.
                        Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          That's what struck me when reading people's feedback mostly on other forums.  Why the high emotional attatchment? Why would some get so mad as to trash others? And in one conversation it was pure contention....
                          I'd be tickeled to see a find that either dispelled the notion completely or confirmed it undoubtedly.  Either way, no personal attachment for or against here.  I just want to know (pre)history,  however it happened.
                          Josh (Ky/Tn collector)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I guess I'm coming across misunderstood. That is one reason why I waited so long and wish I hadn't jumped in here. I don't disagree with you at all Charlie, the argument that archaeology is in it's infancy is pretty much my point. Way to little "evidence" for hypotheses like these to be nothing more than that. Will Solutrean some day be proven or as near to proof as we can get as Clovisoid pointed out? To be determined. But to become so impassioned about a theory? I fail to even see why we become so consumed about something we in our lifetime may never know without a doubt.
                            I don't doubt the idea or concept of a theory as a whole, science wouldn't exist or progress without it.
                            Searching the fields of Northwest Indiana and Southwestern Michigan

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              All points of view have validity to those expressing them, and your take is as worthwhile and deserving of rendering here as any other, Greg. I was just thinking off the top of my head in replying to you. Well, in truth, it's because you did seem upset, but all the generalities that followed were not being applied to your specific thoughts, more a case of reflecting on these Solutrean threads in general over the years. Also, being aware of your background in History, I know you of all people understand the degree to which we're pretty much always more in the dark then the light.
                              Rhode Island

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                clovisoid wrote:

                                CMD, well said.
                                  I agree. Do I agree with the Solutrean Hypothesis? Not really on the evidence I have seen to date. BUT, I do not discount it either. I rarely enter these discussions but I always read them with interest. Archaeology is an evolving science and always will be. It took many years to establish the Clovis first theory and even more years to debunk it so it is hard to tell just how long it will take until the Solutrean migration becomes more that just a discussion. I would like to think it happen sooner than later but........
                                Like a drifter I was born to walk alone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X