Solutrean style point

[Kyflintguy]

I heard no such "contradiction" in the report provided by Roger . They used visual and chemical analysis to CONFIRM the material used to make the cinmar biface, was from the South Mountain Catoctin Formation. The stone was a closest match to the Samples from the Maria Furnace quarry.
         So to me they were saying it's very similar to this sample found here (Maria Furnace quarry). Not exact, but close. But most certainly from the South Mountain catoctin Formation...
That's just the way I understood it :dunno:

[pkfrey]

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

[paleo pete]

I have never found any paleo artifacts made from rhyolite but have seen hundreds of very thin well made perkiomens  Made from it. They can be fairly large and still made very thin so I don't know what there talking about when they said it was hard to work.

[chase]

pkfrey wrote:

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

When I first was told and saw the blade, which was second hand from Dr. Standford is a recount from the people that dredged it up with the Mammoth bones. It could be fabricated. But Dr.Stanford also said in a lecture that the association could not give context.  The thing is these finders are not educational enthusiasts and when it was discovered was just in a frame, by happen stance. Like I said I am still on the fence but..... a smoking gun is there. I will not close the door when you have a plausibility

[CMD]

"Where are all the Solutrean culture campsites with additional blades and tools made from this same material?"
How long has anyone been looking for sites of that age in Delmarva? Should we expect some of this to be found in surface collections, and are they known to be absent except for the few bipoints included from onshore surface collections? The blade considered the best example of a Solutrean blade was in a Providence, RI collection. Should be campsites between that mountain and wherever the shoreline of the ocean was then.
Roger stated at one point in our numerous Solutrean threads that the bipoint that was part of Stanford's sample that was perhaps the most important of all these bipoints came from a collection in Providence, RI. Note that this, and similar specimens, are known as Boats Blades from later archaeological contexts. And therein lies a problem no doubt. Anyway, here it is:

http://cart.occpaleo.com/boatsbladepaleobifacecast.aspx

But, I take it this was removed as part of their "collection", 11, not 12 :dunno:

[pkfrey]

Your correct, rhyolite isn't that hard to work, when it's fresh. The best rhyolite was the boulders that were buried and protected from weathering. If you tap a large chunk of rhyolite it will give off a " ringing " sound. The higher the ring, the better the quality. When fresh, rhyolite almost has a flint like quality to it. I have several 4 in. rhyolite Perkiomens that are cardboard thin, and very nicely flaked. The problem with finished rhyolite artifacts is that it weathers quickly, and doesn't retain the sharp edges because it is much softer than flint and chert.  Which is why I think the Paleo Indians sought out the best flint and chert they could find.  Flint and chert would  hold a sharpened edge much longer with less damage, which in turn added to better penetration on large game animals with thick skin and hide.

[CMD]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

When I first was told and saw the blade, which was second hand from Dr. Standford is a recount from the people that dredged it up with the Mammoth bones. It could be fabricated. But Dr.Stanford also said in a lecture that the association could not give context.  The thing is these finders are not educational enthusiasts and when it was discovered was just in a frame, by happen stance. Like I said I am still on the fence but..... a smoking gun is there. I will not close the door when you have a plausibility
  There is no real evidence at all that "it could be fabricated". The find location was plotted on the charts and the charts were saved.
clovisoid can address this better, but the site location, as plotted and noted as "bone bed" for future navigators to be aware of, was accurate and can't be brushed off as that weak at all, IMHO, regardless of the merits of the Solutrean Hypothesis itself. I don't think people really need to be on the fence where the find area of the Cinmar Blade is concerned. I think people can have real confidence in the find area noted,  if all the facts are examined.

[painshill]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

If you read that carefully, they are CONTRADICTING their own analysis! In one sentence they state, " the visual and chemical analysis CONFIRMS the material originated near the Maria furnace", then they go on to say, " the material is MOST similar chemically, implying not EXACTLY the same, and the author, however,  CAUTIONS against stating the stone used to make the Cinmar biface originated from the vicinity of Maria Furnace, given the fact the same stone outcrops throughout the South mountain area! Dr. Robert Smith used the same techniques that you mentioned on a cache of rhyolite blanks called the Wasicki Cache, from indiana Co. These were also confirmed to originate from the South Mtn. quarries. In the graph you posted with all the chemicals listed, there wasn't the trace element, Titania, TiO2, that WAS found in the Wasicki cache. would say we finally nailed it!!
And there you have it! Rodger and I have figured it out. The rhyolite used in the Cinmar blade, originated in the vicinity of ONE of the South Mountain rhyolite quarries, and it's not Solutrean related. It's probably a large Adena related bifacial knife from the early Woodland period!

The big problem is where the Cinamar was found. Twenty miles from shore. which would indicate that sea levels were lower. So Woodland,  Adena would be  a stretch and Solutrean would be more probable. We can guess and fit what makes sense but its only a guess.
  The collection of Palaeo laurel-leaf bifaces (11 in total, in various states of preservation, including the Cinmar blade) now under study by Stanford et al were all found within the Chesapeake Bay drainage system with one exception. The exception came from offshore sand dredged to replenish the beach at Ocean City, Maryland. The collection includes a heavily resharpened knife dredged from Mopjack Bay which is also made from banded rhyolite (but of unconfirmed geologic origin).
The distribution pattern of the finds suggests that they were all used (Stanford’s assertion) and lost (self-evidently true if one accepts the find areas as having been accurately recorded) on the now-submerged continental shelf or the adjacent lowlands along the Late Glacial Maximum Susquehanna River channel.
Since sea-levels rose rapidly around 14,500 years ago, that’s what suggests that they represent an early occupation of the terrestrial and aquatic habitats of the Continental margins before they were drowned, forcing any settlement to move westwards into the upland interior.
Those things in themselves do not demonstrate that this early settlement arose from the Solutrean of Europe. Simply that the area was occupied earlier than previously believed. It’s the lithic technology analysis which Stanford -and- Bradley claim to “reflect the same technology as that used by the Solutrean people of southwestern Europe during the LGM” which drives the theory. Those assertions are still very much in dispute… or at least the meaning/implications of “same technology” are disputed.
The words Stanford was using in May 2014 were: “Although more evidence is needed, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to hypothesize that this early settlement of the East Coast of North America resulted from a European Paleolithic maritime tradition”. It continues to be the case that many Stanford supporters (especially amateurs and the media) make much stronger claims for the evidence than Stanford is prepared (allowed?) to make himself… at least in publication.

[chase]

[QUOTE]CMD wrote:

[quote=chase post=144306]

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

When I first was told and saw the blade, which was second hand from Dr. Standford is a recount from the people that dredged it up with the Mammoth bones. It could be fabricated. But Dr.Stanford also said in a lecture that the association could not give context.  The thing is these finders are not educational enthusiasts and when it was discovered was just in a frame, by happen stance. Like I said I am still on the fence but..... a smoking gun is there. I will not close the door when you have a plausibility
  There is no real evidence at all that "it could be fabricated". The find location was plotted on the charts and the charts were saved.
clovisoid can address this better, but the site location, as plotted and noted as "bone bed" for future navigators to be aware of, was accurate and can't be brushed off as that weak at all, IMHO, regardless of the merits of the Solutrean Hypothesis itself. I don't think people really need to be on the fence where the find area of the Cinmar Blade I is concerned. I think people can have real confidence in it, if all the facts are examined.
  :rolf:  B)  Charlie? we have been on this site for a long time. I consider you a friend. but when we have to agree I am not sure I can handle that! :crazy:  Your opinion I respect!  looks like we have turned another  Soulutrean thread into controversy!

[painshill]

pkfrey wrote:

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

  The Cinmar blade was found about 60 miles off Virginia Cape in about 240 feet of water. The patination and corrosion effects are very well documented but the interpretation continues to be disputed.

[CMD]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

[quote=CMD post=144311][quote=chase post=144306]

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

When I first was told and saw the blade, which was second hand from Dr. Standford is a recount from the people that dredged it up with the Mammoth bones. It could be fabricated. But Dr.Stanford also said in a lecture that the association could not give context.  The thing is these finders are not educational enthusiasts and when it was discovered was just in a frame, by happen stance. Like I said I am still on the fence but..... a smoking gun is there. I will not close the door when you have a plausibility
  There is no real evidence at all that "it could be fabricated". The find location was plotted on the charts and the charts were saved.
clovisoid can address this better, but the site location, as plotted and noted as "bone bed" for future navigators to be aware of, was accurate and can't be brushed off as that weak at all, IMHO, regardless of the merits of the Solutrean Hypothesis itself. I don't think people really need to be on the fence where the find area of the Cinmar Blade I is concerned. I think people can have real confidence in it, if all the facts are examined.
  :rolf:  B)  Charlie? we have been on this site for a long time. I consider you a friend. but when we have to agree I am not sure I can handle that! :crazy:  Your opinion I respect!  looks like we have turned another  Soulutrean thread into controversy!
  No, it's been a love fest from the git go.  :rolf:  well, one of the more informative of this unique specie of thread :huh:

[painshill]

paleo pete wrote:

I have never found any paleo artifacts made from rhyolite but have seen hundreds of very thin well made perkiomens  Made from it. They can be fairly large and still made very thin so I don't know what there talking about when they said it was hard to work.

  This is NOT plain vanilla rhyolite we are talking about here. It's metarhyolite... ie it has subsequently experienced light metamorphism which reduces its ability to flake evenly and conchoidally... compounded by the fact that the material was also flow banded before it was metamorphosed... ie it's not completely homogeneous.

[chase]

[QUOTE]painshill wrote:

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

  The Cinmar blade was found about 60 miles off Virginia Cape in about 240 feet of water. The patination and corrosion effects are very well documented but the interpretation continues to be disputed.
LOL I am stupid and need to get information. Since I was told 20 miles then how does 60 miles come into it, was that from the book? How far does the shelve plate extend?

[CMD]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

[quote=painshill post=144315]

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

  The Cinmar blade was found about 60 miles off Virginia Cape in about 240 feet of water. The patination and corrosion effects are very well documented but the interpretation continues to be disputed.
LOL I am stupid and need to get information. Since I was told 20 miles then how does 60 miles come into it, was that from the book? How far does the shelve plate extend?
  http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/G...n-nmnh-geotour

[painshill]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

[quote=painshill post=144315]

Was the blade actually found 20 miles off shore? That's only the reported find area. There are photos of the blade AFTER it was found. If that blade was submerged in water for 20000 years, I would expect  it to be covered with dissolved, dark organic matter, or encrusted with barnacles, or heavy salted caliche deposits.

  The Cinmar blade was found about 60 miles off Virginia Cape in about 240 feet of water. The patination and corrosion effects are very well documented but the interpretation continues to be disputed.
LOL I am stupid and need to get information. Since I was told 20 miles then how does 60 miles come into it, was that from the book? How far does the shelve plate extend?
  Apologies... I meant 60 kilometers... 40 miles. The same mistake (confusion between miles and km) appears in many secondhand accounts. I think it also depends on which piece of the mainland you measure from... Virginia Cape is probably not the closest piece of coast.