Solutrean style point

[paleo pete]

I don't know if you all have seen this before .http://gwynnsislandmuseum.org/pre_exhibit.html#Cinmar

[Havenhunter]

I live 12 miles from Gwynn's Island -and- have visited the museum. The island sits on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, connected to the mainland of Mathews County, VA by a draw bridge. With its proximity to Cactus Hill an hour away, this region is rich in Clovis (and perhaps pre-Clovis) artifacts. Ya'll come!

[chase]

It is to my understanding the Cinamar blade was found out of context. Which would not make it a date-able artifact. thou mammoth bones were found there is not context of relationship. when you pre date Clovis the tools are crude at best , which suggest a influx of technology was introduced. But with all that I am not saying the Solutrean connection could  be made. Stone has a way of chipping and can be made independently for the properties of the way it flakes.

[Kyflintguy]

Yeah, that's the part that makes me question that link. .. Doesn't seem like a reliable way of dating the biface, by assuming it and the mammoth tusk were in the same context,  just because they were found in the same dredge scoop... I don't  know why they would think that would be an acceptable method of determining the age of the biface? :dunno:

[CMD]

You'd have to get the proceedings of last year's Santa Fe conference, but I'm pretty sure they tightened up the connection of bones and blade in the case of the Cinmar Blade. I know Joshua(clovisoid) was quite a skeptic and came back a lot more impressed with their evidence. I'll stand corrected but I think they demonstrated that blade was indeed associated with those bones....

[chase]

CMD wrote:

You'd have to get the proceedings of last year's Santa Fe conference, but I'm pretty sure they tightened up the connection of bones and blade in the case of the Cinmar Blade. I know Joshua Ream was quite a skeptic and came back a lot more impressed with their evidence. I'll stand corrected but I think they demonstrated that blade was indeed associated with those bones....

Charlie I am on the fence. :dunno:  I have been swayed both ways. :dunno:  I am not qualified to give an opinion. But right now its just an opinion. I said once is it probable yes it is. I see evidence. dont get me wrong. What I have seen from pre-Clovis it came from some where. My thing is you don't start out with the best technology and the degrees. There is a learning curve. where it came from  :dunno:  but my guess is European's

[CMD]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

You'd have to get the proceedings of last year's Santa Fe conference, but I'm pretty sure they tightened up the connection of bones and blade in the case of the Cinmar Blade. I know Joshua Ream was quite a skeptic and came back a lot more impressed with their evidence. I'll stand corrected but I think they demonstrated that blade was indeed associated with those bones....

Charlie I am on the fence. :dunno:  I have been swayed both ways. :dunno:  I am not qualified to give an opinion. But right now its just an opinion. I said once is it probable yes it is. I see evidence. dont get me wrong. What I have seen from pre-Clovis it came from some where. My thing is you don't start out with the best technology and the degrees. There is a learning curve. where it came from  :dunno:  but my guess is European's
  I haven't the slightest idea. I was just speaking of Cinmar anyway. I remember Joshua had mentioned an update of sorts but I can't find anything using google or google scholar. As for the peopling of the Americas in general, I have no idea, new stuff every day, new stuff from SA every day. I don't have any reason to be in any "camp", whatever those camps are, lol. Let the professionals fight it out, I'd rather stay away from overarching theories and just look at the sites. I think the Solutrean hypothesis got more hyped then deserved just because they were living in Western Europe. Look at the Western Stemmed Tradition age, the West coast as a migration route right down the length of SA, sites of great age in Brazil, etc. A lot more then just possible Atlantic crossings. Maybe it happened, but the Western Eurasian DNA component in Native Americans came with them from Asia, and not from possible Solutrean colonists in the Delmarva. Woops, I'm delving into theory.....

[Kyflintguy]

The  ages of pre Clovis artifacts and styles of these blades are pretty amazing and share much resemblance and form as the European ones.
   Personally I remain undecided and under informed on the subject,  yet open minded. I personally (maybe foolishly?) don't really have a problem with thinking that the earliest people's of North America developed such skills and flint knapping techniques on there own. With no influence, guidance or know how brought over from either direction. Human perseverance and understanding plus abundant lithic resources,  in my opinion could have independently and uniquely been responsible for what we see and have found here.
  But I can see both viewpoints and ways of thinking (Siberian vs Solutrean or both) . The last thing I read was an article to disprove the solutrean theory via Genetics.  Wich I admittedly had a hard time following due to all the genetics lingo and jive.
    So as I said, I remain undecided, under informed, yet open minded. :dunno:

[Havenhunter]

The age -and- origin of mankind in general has changed over the centuries as each new discovery emerges. What is proclaimed the oldest known humanoid today gets displaced by an even older find tomorrow. I would like to remain open to any -and- all possibilities , but admit I enjoy living just a few miles up the road from artifacts that continue to stir the pot.

[paleo pete]

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

[chase]

For one thing there is no context to make the leap of Solutrean in the Americas. So right there the site lied. I will say no more!

[paleo pete]

I am not saying one way or the other but I am very interested in any and all info.. Hell maybe I will find a site with the link. You just never know. If I wouldn't be very interested in it I wouldn't even bother with hunting again.

[Havenhunter]

If we had all the answers it would be a pretty dull place, don't you think? That's what's so great about our hobby! The next great discovery may be in the next shovel-full, high tide, or heavy rain!

[clovisoid]

These two pictures are probably posted in an older thread here, but here are some of the different pieces that are called Solutrean by Stanford -and- Bradley.  As CMD wrote, I went from laughing skeptic to very impressed by the amount of Solutrean connections that Stanford -and- Bradley have made after hearing them talk and seeing them present their findings.  It's still very much a connect the dots puzzle, but they've got a lot more dots than people realize.
The biggest problem with the theory is that in the absence of information from Stanford -and- Bradley, a lot of people and websites started filling in the blanks with absolutely bogus information and claims.  (The Angelfire website posted here shouldn't be taken with any academic credibility at all...  Anyone can set up one of those sites with pictures and claims about anything.)
As of last year they had identified 15 different blades they were calling Solutrean, and had several that were indeed in situ -and- Pre-Clovis.  The question now isn't so much are they Pre-Clovis, but are they actually Solutrean?  And therein lies the current debate as I understand it, do all these dots belong in the puzzle or did Stanford -and- Bradley cherry pick out 500 of the most convenient/compelling dots out of a much larger group of dots?   Personally, I think Stanford -and- Bradley have always demonstrated unquestionable ethics and integrity, and I see no reason to question those now, especially since other archaeologists are digging into them and looking for similar sites across a large area of land -and- seabed.

[gregszybala]

The issue I have with it is it's all based on subjective 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.