Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raising Questions on the Cinmar Blade

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

  • Raising Questions on the Cinmar Blade

    Many will recall the story of the Cinmar Blade and it's use by Stanford and Bradley in support of the Solutrean Hypotheseis.
    A new paper raises serious questions about just when and how the Cinmar blade was really discovered.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...52409X15000280
    And a discussion of the ramifications, if any....
    http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/03/...pean-ancestry/
    Rhode Island

  • #2
    While acknowledging that Stanford -and- Bradley's theory by no means rests solely on this biface for its evidence, this must be rather disturbing news for them. It looks to be a very thorough piece of work which reinforces many suspicions about the provenance and provenience of the blade and just exactly how "associated" it was with the mastodon remains.
    It will be interesting to see what S -and- B have to say in response!
    Thanks Charlie.
    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


    • #3
      Thanks for that Charlie. Very interesting read and like Roger, I am curious how this will play out
      Like a drifter I was born to walk alone

      Comment


      • #4
        painshill wrote:

        While acknowledging that Stanford -and- Bradley's theory by no means rests solely on this biface for its evidence, this must be rather disturbing news for them. It looks to be a very thorough piece of work which reinforces many suspicions about the provenance and provenience of the blade and just exactly how "associated" it was with the mastodon remains.
        It will be interesting to see what S -and- B have to say in response!
        Thanks Charlie.
          Perfect explanation PH.  Their theory is built on many different pieces of data, but it's interesting that the artifact on the cover of the book seems to shoulder the weight of the theory.
        Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

        Comment


        • #5
          [QUOTE]clovisoid wrote:

          Originally posted by painshill post=161913
          While acknowledging that Stanford -and- Bradley's theory by no means rests solely on this biface for its evidence, this must be rather disturbing news for them. It looks to be a very thorough piece of work which reinforces many suspicions about the provenance and provenience of the blade and just exactly how "associated" it was with the mastodon remains.
          It will be interesting to see what S -and- B have to say in response!
          Thanks Charlie.
            Perfect explanation PH.  Their theory is built on many different pieces of data, but it's interesting that the artifact on the cover of the book seems to shoulder the weight of the theory.
          Agreed! they have circumstantial evidence. And to listen to Dr. Stanford also say in a lecture there will be no context to associate. The mammoth bones and artifact. and the smoking gun may not be found. But more the technology of kapping is more the match. Who knows? :dunno:  I am not closing the door, and with debate we do get a clearer picture.

          Look to the ground for it holds the past!

          Comment


          • #6
            No comment
            Searching the fields of Northwest Indiana and Southwestern Michigan

            Comment


            • #7
              Probably the most important thing about this blade was that it was the only one found that had a potentially dateable context (the blade itself of course cannot be dated). It's the date that has had holes shot in it. Stanford wisely had already abandoned one of the other blades as having an unreliable provenience (the one found under a fireplace) and this one is now also seriously in question. It also casts a rather dark shadow over Stanford's judgement in the separation of anecdotal information from factual information in this instance.
              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


              • #8
                Thanks for the link Charlie
                South Dakota

                Comment


                • #9
                  What the critics conveniently overlook is that S & B's conjecture as to when it was made, by whom, and how it got to be there makes simple and satisfying real-world sense. Any alternative explanation (tellingly not forthcoming unless I missed it) sets itself up -- if a similar degree of scrutiny is exercised -- for a close encounter with Dr. Ockham's razor.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by amateur View Post
                    What the critics conveniently overlook is that S & B's conjecture as to when it was made, by whom, and how it got to be there makes simple and satisfying real-world sense. Any alternative explanation (tellingly not forthcoming unless I missed it) sets itself up -- if a similar degree of scrutiny is exercised -- for a close encounter with Dr. Ockham's razor.
                    Correct me if I am mistaken. The critique really was not about the Solutrean Hypothesis or whether or not the Cinmar Blade supported that idea. The critique suggested that S + B were sloppy in describing the context and circumstances of the blade's recovery. I did not think the conclusion was "therefore the Cinmar blade must be more recent". I thought it was simply pointing out mistaken assumptions in describing context and recovery. I have not seen a reply by S + B, but I'm not in the loop where periodicals, etc. are concerned and perhaps they have offered further thought. If they incorrectly described the context and or the recovery, it's only right that that be pointed out. That's fair play, as far as I can see.
                    Rhode Island

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Right you are, CMD.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I myself have grown overly tired of supposedly exhaustive investigations after the fact, all of which manage to pick and choose over the actual events purported facts. I just ran into a situation where one researcher went overbaord trying to question existence of the Gwynn's Island Museum prior to 1991...yet the guy never simply asked the Museum staff to determine what was what

                        Instead, he reviewed every third, fourthy and fifth hand account he could find, and this was called research

                        Here again, a thousand articles have emerged describing one event--with nearly as many variations. I could have lambasted that researcher for avoiding all first hand accounts and for failing to simply call the museum and ask.

                        The museum was first housed in a church turned into community center just across the street form the current museum. Meetings of the Gwynn's Island Civic League and other groups met there, museum exhibits were donated to and arranged there for visitors. The same grounds serve as the site for the Gwynn's Island festival, the re-purposed church used again and for many other island events. By the time the museum transferred to the new building, much work had been done to accomodate the exhibits, and renovations to furnish space for newer exhibitshave continues to this day.

                        I think this amply serves to define the quality of researches done in attempt to question the age and authenticity of the Cinmar artifacts.

                        Point is, there are enough doubters of the hypothesis that ruminations of no import assume larger than life aspects to those who simply do not do good research, yet enjoy the debates stirred over their missinformed regurgetations

                        Comment


                        • #13


                          The series of projectile points being found or excavated from pre-Clovis levels
                          along the bay's margins, and at other locations, effectively refutes
                          the Clovis First 'hypothesis'... That Solutrean attributes appear in these
                          artifacts suggest that a non-Solutrean culture could not have made them.
                          Regardless of their origins, these artifacts are among the very oldest
                          artifacts to be found in the Americas

                          The Cinmar blades' age is not in question, nor is the fact that it establishes a
                          human occupation on the continent's LGM shoreline corresponding with the age of
                          the Solutrean occupation of Europe.

                          That Solutrean technologies are consistent in comparison with these
                          artifacts' attributes adds intrigue--the real mystery isn't whether they are or
                          are not Solutrean of origin--the question is: Was Solutrean technology passed
                          on, OR was a substantial portion of it merely rediscovered of its own accord here,
                          then lost, only to surface again with Clovis

                          Cutting to the chase, a lot more explaining needs to be done to refute these
                          facts; how they may be interpreted leans more in favor of an unknown compelling
                          factor for a Solutrean presence here, yet still missing from our view, in this author's opinion.

                          The Solutrean Hypothesis does not rest solely upon the Cinmar blade, as a thorough read of "Across Atlantic Ice" amply demonstrates

                          One should keep in mind as well, that the Mark Small Blades were only made known to Dr Stanford and Dr Bradley AFTER their book had gone to press. Data assembled from the first two Mark Small Blades has not been published. That these artifacts are consistent with Solutrean technologies is not questionable, only how they got here

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "The series of projectile points being found or excavated from pre-Clovis levels
                            along the bay's margins, and at other locations, effectively refutes
                            the Clovis First 'hypothesis'... That Solutrean attributes appear in these
                            artifacts suggest that a non-Solutrean culture could not have made them.
                            Regardless of their origins, these artifacts are among the very oldest
                            artifacts to be found in the Americas"

                            Unfortunately, most of us are probably out of the loop where these Pre Clovis excavations are concerned. I'm not going to take your word for it. I must assign the fault to myself for not finding, somehow, the literature describing the discoveries you mention here. I take it that you are speaking about professional excavations producing Pre Clovis sites. I take it a complete sequence of Pre Clovis styles may emerge from such excavations. I assume reliable dates have been derived from digs that produced bipointed leaf blades in association with Pre Clovis dates. I assume everything that is emerging from the sites and digs you are apparently referring to are indeed toppling old assumptions. And doing so in an unambiguous manner. There can be no doubt . Bipoints like the Cinmar blade in dated contexts at least in the 18,000-20,000+ range have now been recovered from professionally excavated sites in the Delmarva. Is that correct? We now have bipoints that can only have been produced via Solutrean technology, and they have been found in irrefutable association with Solutrean era dates at sites in the Delmarva.?

                            Unfortunately, that's a lot of assuming on my part. I am not privy to all the site reports and published proofs of Pre Clovis that you must be privy to in order to make the claims you make.

                            Perhaps, when you have time, you could provide references to the literature that demonstrates everything you say is beyond any doubt any longer. I'd be particularly interested in any or all references to the professional digs producing Pre Clovis dates and artifacts just like the ones from the Small collection. Bipoints with irrefutable association with dates in excess of 18,000 years. Otherwise, as noted, most of us here are simply not privy to these studies you mention....
                            Rhode Island

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The production of research material is an on-going thing. Nothing in writing yet even about analysis of the Mark Small blades. Current--right now--digs going on in Delmarva will not produce written material for a few years yet. I've had access to several principles in the matter all along. However I do not know but a very little of what has happened since, and only in general terms, as related above. I am constantly perusing the computer to research what I can about the hypothesis and expanding researches. Being in the middle of things and knowing most everyone--I know the skipper of the boat which towed the sono-buoy over Cinmar and two other sites along the LGM coastline--waters were at an almost dead calm and the survey went off well.; and I even know Dean Parker, whose landscaping and riparian work I did at his home in Mathews, just next to one of my favorite spots to hunt. Mark Small and I became friends in the 10th grade, and before his passing, I eventually became the only person he hunted with. Several friends had betrayed him to get at his collection; I see to it his widow stays out of the limelight for this reason

                              I've known the museum since it was just a re-cycled church-come community center. A new church had been built across the street next door to the parsonage. Before long, an accumulation of exhibits--all doanted, began to fill up the community center, and by 1991, a museum and proper board of directors, etc had been created under close friends, Jean and Bob Tanner. I handled the Cinmar long before Dr Lowery saw it--my first thoughts were 'soluterean', but I laughed at myself for saying it....I had no reason to suspect more than the similarity of form, as a wild guess. Ha! Another principle with the museum, , Art Dubey, arranged this showing,at the same time he purchased items from me and donated them to the museum. There are a tallied axe-pendant, near-minaiture sub-trophy-like axe, and a larger 4/4 axe, all from the Island and county.

                              I was involved with the showing of two buildings' full of a total of nine collections, including loans from the states archives to me, for the 1994 Pocahontas Celebration coinciding with Disney's
                              release of Pocahontas the movie. I've given l;ectures and demo's across five states during cultural events--Pow Wow's, etc, also spoken at one university, several museums, to thousands and thousands of students, spent two years' summers volunteering at the Virginia Beach Aquarium--in abo costume.

                              I have honestly spent more than half my life studying, researching and educating myself and others, and with the great good fortune of my associations, I am able to straighten out at least a couple of kinks developed through the multitudinous volumes of 7th, 8th, 9th hand accounts being used as original sources. Trust me I am as hungry for the next latest word as anyone if not moreso. Sometimes being a disabled Vet isn't so bad--I do this all day long when I want to, which is often

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X