Announcement

**painshill** · 04-13-2016, 03:28 PM

Posted by [CMD ]:
Charles, Americans Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley are the chief proponents of the Solutrean theory for the origins of clovis. Their book on the subject is much anticipated and will be available very soon:

http://www.amazon.com/Across-Atlanti...5530320&sr=1-1

The cover of the book shows what the authors believe to be a Solutrean blade, and which was dredged up from the bottom of Chesapeake Bay. The Delmarva peninsula is where they believe the Solutreans first arrived in the Americas. As others have noted, a hotly debated subject, and I am certainly looking forward to reading this book.

Posted by [chase]:
Here is a clear picture of the Bi-face it is approx 12" long and 4" wide

Posted by [CMD ]:
Thanks very much, Chase! Did not realize it was that large. As a tease of sorts, chapter 2 of Stanford and Bradley's book can be read online:

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn...read-chapter-2
(Link not working)

And this 2008 Stanford lecture also explains their reasoning:

https://gustavus.edu/events/nobelcon...rd-lecture.php

Posted by [chase]:
CMD wrote:
Thanks very much, Chase! Did not realize it was that large. As a tease of sorts, chapter 2 of Stanford and Bradley's book can be read online:
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn...read-chapter-2
(Link not working)
And this 2008 Stanford lecture also explains their reasoning:
https://gustavus.edu/events/nobelcon...rd-lecture.php

I was the same way on the size from the picture. But I got to see a cast of the bi-face along side of a cast of a Solutrean bi-face. Very similar in size and flaking.

**painshill** · 04-13-2016, 03:29 PM

Posted by [greywolf22]:
No proof that Solutraen culture was here. Lots of talk but no proof.

The Solutrean culture was short lived dating from 21,000 to 17,000 years ago in southwestern Europe. It was an Upper Paleolithic culture between the Aurignacian and Magdalenian cultures. The Solutrean culture was characterized by finely crafted tools, such as slender, leaf-shaped blades that look very similar to Clovis, as well as ornaments, carvings, and cave paintings.

If Clovis dates to 14,000 BP, and Solutrean dates to 17,000 BP we have a window of 3,000 years between the two cultures. That lapse of time between when one culture died out and one came to life to me rules out the two being related.

There is nothing stopping a sea faring culture similar to the Eskimos who live off fishing and killing animals from working their way around an ice pack, all it takes is a specialized skill set, but I do not think the Solutrean would be that culture as it was long dead before Clovis showed up.

There are a lot of culture points that look similar to other culture points but that does not make them the same culture, it only means they figured out how to make a point based on Humans ability to make something out of nothing and the end product ended up looking similar.

There is now coming to light that man has been here in the Americas far longer than 14,000 years but the tools are rather crude before Clovis came on the seen. I think Clovis technology for the early Americans was an epiphany to them, it changed the landscape of what they could now call a food source by allowing them to hunt large animals much more efficiently.

Jack

Posted by [chase]:
Jack, I would say that there is no proof on either side, and there most likely wont be hard evidence to prove or disprove this theory. The bi-face in question from Dr. Stanford has issues as to how they are dating it. Found off the coast of Virginia while dredging for claims they found the bi-face with some mastodon bones that date back to around 18,000 years.in my opinion this is not hard evidence that the two are related to one another.The plausibility of man coming to the Americas from Europe is possible.

I would agree that similar flaking is not a direct link to both cultures, but some how they use the same technological process has to be learned from some where. From the shear size of the bi-face this was a skilled flint knapper.

Posted by [CMD ]:
I imagine Stanford and Bradley must address the issues raised by Jack in their as yet unpublished book.

But, I'm sure were there a smoking gun that proved the Solutrean hypothesis, we would have heard of it by now. For certain, considerable evidence will be needed and it's likely to remain simply one hypothesis.

Unless or until there is a smoking gun. As far as pre-clovis thinking is concerned, I'm just glad the clovis-first paradigm is losing its' grip on how we address the question of when people arrived in the Americas. Old paradigms die hard. Not much longer then 200 years ago, people who reported seeing stones fall from the sky were dismissed by scientists of the day as uneducated fools. Now we call such stones meteorites. Old paradigms are overturned by people who think outside the box. At least now, American prehistorians can think outside the box without losing tenure or being relegated to a shunned status on the sidelines of their science. The devil's in the details, but at least we're not locked tightly in the "never-ever-before-clovis" or the "Bering land bridge or else" mindset. Not that the Bering land bridge is a dead and buried hypothesis, it's just nice to see it has company now.

Posted by [greywolf22]:
chase wrote:
Jack, I would say that there is no proof on either side, and there most likely wont be hard evidence to prove or disprove this theory. The bi-face in question from Dr. Stanford has issues as to how they are dating it. Found off the coast of Virginia while dredging for claims they found the bi-face with some mastodon bones that date back to around 18,000 years.in my opinion this is not hard evidence that the two are related to one another.The plausibility of man coming to the Americas from Europe is possible.
I would agree that similar flaking is not a direct link to both cultures, but some how they use the same technological process has to be learned from some where. From the shear size of the bi-face this was a skilled flint knapper.

Chase, all it takes to put this to bed is facts that show that this went down, until then its just loose talk. Who, what, where, when type of facts. When the facts change I will change with the facts.

Jack

Posted by [chase]:
>>greywolf22 wrote:
>chase wrote:
Jack, I would say that there is no proof on either side, and there most likely wont be hard evidence to prove or disprove this theory. The bi-face in question from Dr. Stanford has issues as to how they are dating it. Found off the coast of Virginia while dredging for claims they found the bi-face with some mastodon bones that date back to around 18,000 years.in my opinion this is not hard evidence that the two are related to one another.The plausibility of man coming to the Americas from Europe is possible.
I would agree that similar flaking is not a direct link to both cultures, but some how they use the same technological process has to be learned from some where. From the shear size of the bi-face this was a skilled flint knapper.<
Chase, all it takes to put this to bed is facts that show that this went down, until then its just loose talk. Who, what, where, when type of facts. When the facts change I will change with the facts.
Jack<<

Jack, I am not a preponderant of the theory, but say its a plausible theory. Since we have no facts either way it will remain a theory. I will stay open minded as to how and who populated the America's

Posted by [itwasluck]:
I read it all...but I havent really understood it all :S

Posted by [CMD ]:
itwasluck wrote:
I read it all...but I havent really understood it all :S

I may wait for the movie...

Posted by [turkeytail]:
>>CMD wrote:
>itwasluck wrote:
I read it all...but I havent really understood it all :S<
I may wait for the movie...<<

:cheer: :laugh: :laugh: :woohoo:

Posted by [greywolf22]:
>>chase wrote:
>greywolf22 wrote:
chase wrote:
Jack, I would say that there is no proof on either side, and there most likely wont be hard evidence to prove or disprove this theory. The bi-face in question from Dr. Stanford has issues as to how they are dating it. Found off the coast of Virginia while dredging for claims they found the bi-face with some mastodon bones that date back to around 18,000 years.in my opinion this is not hard evidence that the two are related to one another.The plausibility of man coming to the Americas from Europe is possible.
I would agree that similar flaking is not a direct link to both cultures, but some how they use the same technological process has to be learned from some where. From the shear size of the bi-face this was a skilled flint knapper.<
Chase, all it takes to put this to bed is facts that show that this went down, until then its just loose talk. Who, what, where, when type of facts. When the facts change I will change with the facts.
Jack<<

Jack, I am not a preponderant of the theory, but say its a plausible theory. Since we have no facts either way it will remain a theory. I will stay open minded as to how and who populated the America's

Chase I do not see this being a plasible theory based on what I know about the culture. I thinks its just speculation and conjecture by a small group of people that something will turn up that will tie the two together and that is all. We do have a fact and it currently shows that this did not go on, that is the only fact we have on this.

**painshill** · 04-13-2016, 03:32 PM

Posted by [CMD ]:
Well, there is plenty of counterpoint to Stanford/Bradley's point. So, in fairness, here are the counterpoints as outlined by the leading opponents of the Solutrean hypothesis. Stanford and Bradley have as yet published very little on their theory, so in that sense, it has been largely talk. I expect their upcoming book to represent the full development of their theory. I don't expect a smoking gun. I do expect to be able to say either the argument they present has enough merit to further explore the possibility, or I expect it will not and simply provide more ammo for their critics. In any event, they will need to address several issues or problems with their theory and those issues and problems are best described here:

http://projectpast.org/gvogel/Resources/z_straus_dwd.pdf

(Link not working)

There is also an excellent 5 part video critiquing the Solutrean connection. In this video, Stanford makes his points, then the issues calling those points into question/dispute are raised, and so on. To get to parts 2 through 5, you wll need to move your mouse over the video titles on the right hand side of the Youtube page and locate parts 2-5 in turn. Very detailed point/counterpoint presentation:

The Solutrean Hypothesis, what the evidence really says Part 1 of 5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yDScxPObgBw

Video series originally uploaded by Salsassin[Update study]"Refuting the technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis" Eren et al 20...

I am keeping an open mind until I have read the book, but I do subscribe to the old adage that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. We shall see.....

Posted by [Paleolution]:
I have also seen the casts and presentation by Dr. Stanford. I am not for or against the theory, but I think it raises some interesting points. I personally find it IMPOSSIBLE that sea fairing people could miss an entire half of the world. Populations were moving by boat as early as 60,000 years ago (Australia). How could people have the technology to move by sea, but fail to ever stumble upon a land mass as large as the Americas? Given our knowledge of the ancient resources here, I find it hard to believe a population wouldn't want to stay here long enough to leave any type of evidence. I think they are concentrating on a very narrow theory, when we should be collecting evidence and accepting the fact that several populations at several different times "discovered" the Americas. Ancient people moved for various reasons, but we do know that where there were available resources, there were populations taking advantage of them. I work closely with a mountain lion guide here in CO, and when people ask "where do mountain lions hang out?", and my response is always this; Where there are deer, there are lions. Of course that isn't true for all areas, but in my region, the lions stay close to the deer populations. I feel like native populations were similar, in that, if there were known methods of procuring a resource, they would seek that resource and use it to its exhaustion, then they would move on to the next set of resources.

Posted by [finder]:
yes i have been reading up on there work i to am interested in getting that book. thanks for info and look for the pixs that i will be showing in the next day or so under what did i find soutrean points found in america

**painshill** · 04-13-2016, 03:34 PM

Posted by [painshill]:
If anyone fancies a good read, I can recommend a book called “The Incredible Human Journey: The Story of How We Colonised the Planet” by Dr Alice Roberts. There’s a chapter devoted to “The New World: Finding the First Americans”.

The multi-talented Ms Roberts is an anatomist, osteoarchaeologist, anthropologist and palaeopathologist with a veritable alphabet of letters after her name. If you fancy a lighter journey, there is also a BBC recording on DVD of the TV series she presented, which the book supplements. Also highly recommended… Ms Roberts is very easy on the eye:

I hope she won’t mind me saying so, or giving you a little taster of some preamble from the book:

“When we cast our minds back and imagine our ancestors, sometimes surviving against the odds, and managing to make their way into and survive in the most extreme environments, it may inspire us with humility, awe and great admiration. And certainly it is an awe-inspiring story: from the origin of our species in Africa, to the colonisation of the globe.
But it’s all too easy to start thinking of this journey as a heroic struggle against adversity, and to imagine our ancestors setting out with the explicit intention of colonising the world. In fact, this ‘human journey’ is a metaphor – as it wasn’t really a journey at all – and they had no such goal in mind. I think that words like ‘journey’ and ‘migration’ are useful metaphors for describing how populations have moved across the face of the earth over vast periods of time, but it’s important to realise that our ancestors were not on some kind of quest to get on and colonise the world. Certainly they were nomadic and they would have moved around the landscape as the seasons changed, but most of the time they would not have been purposefully moving on from one place to another. It’s just that, as populations (of humans or other animals) expand, they spread out. But I think it’s acceptable to use words like journey and migration to mean something more abstract, a diaspora happening over thousands of years. So there was no quest, and no heroes.”
Copyright Alice Roberts 2009

I am persuaded by her arguments, which prompt the interesting philosophical question: when did man make the transition from journeying in search of resources, driven by need… to… journeying in exploration, driven by curiosity. A journey by the Solutreans to the New World would certainly not have been driven by a need for resources and that’s another reason why I personally don’t think it happened.
Roger

Posted by [CMD ]:
Thank you, Roger. I thought Ms. Roberts looked familiar. The clip I posted in the Gobekli Tepe thread was taken from the BBC series The Incredible Human Journey in which she visited that ancient Turkish site. Of the many Youtube clips available on Gobekli Tepe, her's seemed the best by far. I believe I've found the American segment of that BBC production. Here is part 1, with links to the remaining segments.

404 Not Found

https://www.youtube.com/feature=player_embedded

(Link not working)

To get to the remaining links, you must view the clip on Youtube itself, and not as embedded in this thread. Simply click on the documentary title in the embedded clip and it will take you to the Youtube page, and you can go from there.

Posted by [greywolf22]:
Thanks. I liked that.
Jack

**painshill** · 04-13-2016, 03:36 PM

Posted by [pkfrey]:
I have been following this new theory for quite awhile, like everyone else. This is my opinion. There are far to many inconsistencies, when trying to prove this theory. These are just a few. It initially was based on one criteria. The fact that Solutrean points and N.A. Paleo points both exhibit basal grinding and outre-passe flaking must mean the two are related. These typological traits are simply a matter of coincidence, not relation. Many points from later cultures will exhibit the same traits. The second fact, as proposed by Dr. Stanford, are the large numbers of Clovis point finds in the Delmarva area. He states, " There are more Clovis point finds in a 200 mile area of Delmarva, than anywhere else in North America. " He states this because, if the Solutrean theory is correct, and they were here prior to Clovis, then we could imply the Clovis culture existed in eastern N.A. first, succeding the Solutrean culture. That's simply not true. Finding a Clovis point does not automatically indicate a Clovis site, and there are 10 times that many Clovis points found from our mid-west area to the southwest areas. What is really missing,that is simply a matter of logic, is this. Let's say, hypothetically, the Solutrean people did cross the ocean and land on our eastern shores. Would they make such a lengthy excursion with out any tools needed for survival? No they wouldn't. They would have needed weapons for survival, for killing whatever animals would exist on that journey. And those tools and weapons would have been manufactored from lithics available to them before they started the seaward journey. There isn't a single shred of lithic evidence, including chips, debitage, or complete artifacts, native to Europe, or France, ever found anywhere near or on the Delmarva peninsula. This is the " smoking gun " that's needed to prove their theory. An Actual Solutrean projectile has to be found, BUT made from a type of chert or flint, native to Europe, not native to North America. The biface pictured in the forum, found off the Va. coast, does resemble a Solutrean point, but appears to be made from the rhyolite common to that area. This does not indicate the presense of the Solutrean people. I don't belive any hard evidence will ever be found indicateing the Solutrean as a pre-Clovis culture in North America.
Paul RS Frey

Posted by [painshill]:
Thanks Paul
I have to agree. Another 'biggie' that does it in for me is the absence of Clovis cave art. One of the key identifying characteistics for Solutrean sites on this side of the Atlantic is the abundance of cave and rock paintings in realistic representations:

The Solutreans were an artisitc people and it seems unthinkable that they stopped being so on arrival in the New World. On the contrary, it would have been such an epic journey that you would expect safe arrival would have been celebrated with every figurative "thank you to the gods" that they could muster.

That would be conclusive proof for me... if someone were to discover paintings in the artistic style of the Solutreans. If it were to depict animals that did not exist in the Americas at the time then that would be the icing on the cake.
Roger

Posted by [pkfrey]:
Roger, Those are great illustrations! Did you draw those? There is also mention of points from the Cactus Hill site showing similarities to the Solutrean. I have no idea where this came from. Cactus Hill points are short, somewhat triangular, unfluted points. I haven't seen one even close to a Solutrean laurel leaf blade. They (the Solutreans) also would have been travelling during the most extreme, ice age cold weather. Where did they build their fires to keep warm? In the middle of the boat? Unless I'm missing something in every thing that I've read, exactly where is all the physical proof left behind by these people. With all the sites that have been excavated, and the tens of thousands of artifacts found in the Delmarva area, there isn't a single piece of lithic material found that would connect the Solutrean culture to North America. If the Bering Straight migration route is challanged, the more plausible theory, and one where there is physical proof, including fluted points, is the migration from South America into the american southwest. Here we have the Fells Cave points, El Jobo points, and other lanceolate forms from as far south as Tierra Del Fuego.
Paul RS Frey

Posted by [painshill]:
pkfrey wrote:
Roger, Those are great illustrations! Did you draw those? There is also mention of points from the Cactus Hill site showing similarities to the Solutrean. I have no idea where this came from. Cactus Hill points are short, somewhat triangular, unfluted points. I haven't seen one even close to a Solutrean laurel leaf blade. They ( the Solutreans )also would have been travelling during the most extreme, ice age cold weather. Where did they build their fires to keep warm? In the middle of the boat? Unless I'm missing something in every thing that I've read, exactly where is all the physical proof left behind by these people. With all the sites that have been excavated, and the tens of thousands of artifacts found in the Delmarva area, there isn't a single piece of lithic material found that would connect the Solutrean culture to North America. If the Bering Straight migration route is challanged, the more plausible theory, and one where there is physical proof, including fluted points, is the migration from South America into the american southwest. Here we have the Fells Cave points, El Jobo points, and other lanceolate forms from as far south as Tierra Del Fuego.

All very good questions. No the drawings are not mine. There's no copyright tag on the pics but I believe they were done by a guy called Mike Boisano or Boizano. My apologies to him or whoever deserves to be credited.

**painshill** · 04-13-2016, 03:38 PM

Posted by [CMD ]:
I posted this migration map in the original thread on this subject. Roger posted a link to that thread earlier in this present discussion. Wanted to post it here again to illustrate that in addition to an Atlantic and Bering Land Bridge migration route, a Pacific "kelp highway" route may also have been in the picture where early migrations are concerned. Such a possibility was bolstered by discoveries in the Channel Islands off California, and also noted in the earlier thread:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303141540.htm

The Pacific Coast "kelp highway" is one possible migration route. I am not suggesting it is the only route or the first route. I think we are only at the beginning where answering the fundamental questions at the heart of the peopling of the Americas are concerned. It took a very long time for Thomas Dillehay to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the archaeological establishment that the Monte Verde site in Chile was pre-clovis. And there are some extremely early dates coming out of sites in South America. Whether those dates pan out only time will tell.

Posted by [Historian]:
I have to admit that my knowledge of the Solutrean culture of southern France is reduced to what I have watched on the History Channel in "10,000 BC."

However, I do have knowledge of the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter findings which predate Clovis by several thousand years at 16,000 BP.

The original site for Meadowcroft was the farm of Albert Miller. I knew Albert well and we talked about his findings many times. He died about seven years ago or so but we were personal friends and belonged to the same SAR chapter. He invited us over many times to see the site and I took him up on it. The "Miller Point" is named after him.

Albert told me how he found the first arrowhead there. The rock shelter was on his farm and when he was a boy a groundhog was digging a hole and tossed a point up on the surface. Over the years he found others. He then contacted the University of Pittsburgh's archaeology department and James Adavasio spent many summers scientifically digging the site deeper and deeper. His documented work was confirmed by carbon 14 dating as well as other methods and it definitely pre-dated Clovis. The earliest points were unfluted and date to 16,000 BP.

Meadowcroft is located in Washington County, PA where I lived most of my life. It is located about an hour from Pittsburgh and was just south of the southernmost point of where the glaciers stopped during the last ice age (my favorite time period).

There is no question that artifacts have been found all over America that predate the Clovis culture. They have been authenticated in VA at 20,000 BP and at some sites even earlier.

So, the question becomes, "Where did they come from?" The Clovis technology is not found in Siberia and it did not originate here in the Americas (or did it?).
Interesting topic.
Historian

Posted by [CMD ]:
Historian, very interesting first hand account of Meadowcroft. How fortunate you were to know the farmer who owned the land and who brought the site to light. Thanks for those personal observations. As far as Clovis technology, to my knowledge Clovis points per se are not found outside the Americas, so I do believe Clovis points did originate in the Americas.

Announcement

Solutrean Style Points in America

Solutrean Style Points in America

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment