Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ancient Migration-Coming to America

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hey fellers, I think you have been "spammed" by some guy named Bill !

    Comment


    • #17
      Aw CMD just relax because that is so fifteen years ago. There hasn’t been a Clovis first mentality in at least ten years. Most of your post is very good and I agree with most of it. 
      Part of the Clovis from Solutrean theory is more about a story of two guys who in searching for Clovis origins, followed the evidence all over the world and found it led to the European Solutrean. There is nobody who has “thought outside the box” more often and better than Stanford and Bradley. Their book Across Atlantic Ice, is a description of their journey in search of Clovis origins and where that journey has taken them. All kidding aside, there are no beginnings of any kind of dogma there.
      Make no mistake because nobody, least of all me, worships at anyone’s alter. I have been following the story of Clovis origins for a long time and was Preclovis when Preclovis wasn’t cool. I was Preclovis because the evidence told me that Preclovis was legitimate and people were on the continents of North and South America a long time before the first fluted point was made.   
      As for Clovis origins, at least ten years ago I read a paper by Drs. Stanford and Bradley about Clovis coming from the Solutrean. Because I already knew a fair amount about it, I understood what they were talking about. I saw the comparisons they made between Solutrean bifaces and those of Clovis and saw the unifacial tools common to both and was very impressed. I soon realized that these guys were on to something everyone else was missing. 
      My impression of most of the people who are among the strongest critics of their theory are those who simply don’t understand what we Easterners see when we find Clovis points and see the Clovis finds of other collectors.  The Clovis points that are found in this area never vary except in size and material. The workmanship never varies and they are all practically identical. It is tells me the Eastern US is the odds on favorite when it comes to finding where Clovis really started.

      Comment


      • #18
        Butch Wilson wrote:

        Hey fellers, I think you have been "spammed" by some guy named Bill !
        Thanks Butch, you always keep it on the light and sunny side
        Searching the fields of NW Indiana and SW Michigan

        Comment


        • #19
          CMD wrote:

          I think an overall message, eloquently delivered in the above article, is that the state of American archaeology regarding the peopling of the Americas, including but not restricted to the origins of Clovis, is one of flux. It is difficult to escape the grip of a paradigm that permits no dissent. The possibility of pre-Clovis has been there awhile. Meadowcroft was a thorn in the side of the Clovis-first paradigm by the late 70's. But much more time would be needed before that paradigm lost its' grip entirely. Now is not the time to codify a new paradigm. We are in terra igcognita, and indeed we always have been. we now know Clovis was not first. And we do not know with certainty the origins of Clovis. We do not know with certainty when mankind first arrived in the Western hemisphere. We do not know with certainty how many routes may have been used by migrants to this hemisphere. We are in a state of flux, a shifting landscape as we emerge from this older paradigm where the answer to the question who were the first Americans seemed certain(to most). Clovis-first stifled the freedom to think outside the box created by that belief. To suggest that there is now a new box, Clovis came from Solutrean, and people should not think outside that box, is to substitute one dogma for another dogma. I will not be so restricted in my thinking. Stanford and Bradley do not have a stranglehold on the truth. Some may be comfortable adopting a new dogma when we've barely begun to scratch the surface in understanding early America. Certainly the Clovis-firsters were quite comfortable in their day. I am not comfortable adopting a new dogma at this stage. I positively revel in the freedom of thinking allowed when the old crumbles and the new is not yet in sharp focus. I do not worship at the altar of Stanford and Bradley.
          They have a theory. Time will tell what the true merits, or lack thereof, exist in that theory. I will not have that theory shoved down my throat by anyone. I have alot of education and a highly discriminating mind, if I do say so myself, and I will be my own judge. We are free from an old dogma and should appreciate that fact.
            Well put Charlie.
          Searching the fields of NW Indiana and SW Michigan

          Comment


          • #20
            [QUOTE]gregszybala wrote:

            Originally posted by CMD post=50181
            I think an overall message, eloquently delivered in the above article, is that the state of American archaeology regarding the peopling of the Americas, including but not restricted to the origins of Clovis, is one of flux. It is difficult to escape the grip of a paradigm that permits no dissent. The possibility of pre-Clovis has been there awhile. Meadowcroft was a thorn in the side of the Clovis-first paradigm by the late 70's. But much more time would be needed before that paradigm lost its' grip entirely. Now is not the time to codify a new paradigm. We are in terra igcognita, and indeed we always have been. we now know Clovis was not first. And we do not know with certainty the origins of Clovis. We do not know with certainty when mankind first arrived in the Western hemisphere. We do not know with certainty how many routes may have been used by migrants to this hemisphere. We are in a state of flux, a shifting landscape as we emerge from this older paradigm where the answer to the question who were the first Americans seemed certain(to most). Clovis-first stifled the freedom to think outside the box created by that belief. To suggest that there is now a new box, Clovis came from Solutrean, and people should not think outside that box, is to substitute one dogma for another dogma. I will not be so restricted in my thinking. Stanford and Bradley do not have a stranglehold on the truth. Some may be comfortable adopting a new dogma when we've barely begun to scratch the surface in understanding early America. Certainly the Clovis-firsters were quite comfortable in their day. I am not comfortable adopting a new dogma at this stage. I positively revel in the freedom of thinking allowed when the old crumbles and the new is not yet in sharp focus. I do not worship at the altar of Stanford and Bradley.
            They have a theory. Time will tell what the true merits, or lack thereof, exist in that theory. I will not have that theory shoved down my throat by anyone. I have alot of education and a highly discriminating mind, if I do say so myself, and I will be my own judge. We are free from an old dogma and should appreciate that fact.
              Well put Charlie.
              I'll second that Greg....very well written Charlie!!
            It seems to me Bill, you've bought into Stanford's and Bradley's theory hook line and sinker....there is no doubt in your mind that they have nailed it....without any fault what so ever....all completely accurate, all factual. Boy, those guys aren't human... theyre.....super humans!....I'm not buying it, they make some good points but I think they also make some assumptions that aren't proven........so it's a theory!!
            What about all this DNA evidence that's pointing a finger at the west coast arrival? DNA is a whole lot more accurate then the "science" of the radiocarbon dating.....ya gotta adjust this and compensate for that to get a "calibrated date".....seems to me there is a whole lotta room for error in the science there.
            It's an exciting time of theories, new evidence and new thinking....I love this stuff, I think I'm with Charlie.......maintain an open mind and not confine my thoughts to a couple of guys theories......I'm certainly NOT going to be underlining and bold printing anyones book titles!!
            Southern Connecticut

            Comment


            • #21
              Bill, I've often noticed a "persuasion by sledgehammer" approach which just doesn't cut it with me.
              I also think you may be an adherent of "Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism", which renders any rational discussion moot. But, perhaps more to the point, had you even read the link at the start of this thread, you might have noticed the Solutrean Hypothesis takes up all of 5 sentences. The article was about much broader issues then the origins of Clovis. I posted the same article in the Cinmar thread, as a logical next comment to an observation made by pkfrey in that thread. That was the Solutrean thread, not this one.
              Turning this thread in that direction based simply on an innocent statement made partly in jest by Greg I believe makes Butch's comment quite succinct: you spammed this thread in effect. So, one thing I've always known: where theories are concerned, persuasion by sledgehammer seldom persuades. And one thing I've learned: Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism is here. It's real, and it is every bit as dogmatic and unyielding as many other forms of fundamentalism.
              Rhode Island

              Comment


              • #22
                CMD, “an adherent of "Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism" , really?
                You must be brand new to Paleoindian research and ideas because the article you posted is just one of hundreds that have been written over the last fifteen years on the same identical subject. Since the discovery of Preclovis they have all said the same things.
                Threads take turns all of the time and are whatever we make them. You seem to be disillusioned and perhaps would be better suited to talking about matters that are philosophical but not scientific in nature.
                I stated I agreed with most of your post and then you seemed to think something else was intended. It all seems very passive aggressive and so anti-establishment to me. I honestly hope you will carry on with a smile on your face because there has been no ill will intended.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hmmm.  Fact:  2 + 2 = 4.  Proven, all in agreement, no controversy or dispute.  Correct?
                  Opinion:  An individual thought, several or more may agree, not fact, not proven.
                  Simple.  Until proven as fact, it is an opinion.  Summary:  Stick to what you know and what you have learned.  Be open-minded in an attempt to seek the truth.  Not to preach as fact or state someone knows it all.  Ludicrous!  We didn't get to where we are in a day.  Further research and time will tell.  Let it ride! 
                  Ever tried to preach to an atheist that God exists?  IMO, :lol:  :lol:  :lol: , this topic has run it's course. :sick:
                  Charlie, Butch,  :cheer:  :cheer:  :cheer:

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Bill wrote:

                    CMD, “an adherent of "Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism" , really?
                    You must be brand new to Paleoindian research and ideas because the article you posted is just one of hundreds that have been written over the last fifteen years on the same identical subject. Since the discovery of Preclovis they have all said the same things.
                    Threads take turns all of the time and are whatever we make them. You seem to be disillusioned and perhaps would be better suited to talking about matters that are philosophical but not scientific in nature.
                    I stated I agreed with most of your post and then you seemed to think something else was intended. It all seems very passive aggressive and so anti-establishment to me. I honestly hope you will carry on with a smile on your face because there has been no ill will intended.
                      I will stand by what I said. I have a great deal of enthusiasm for the subject of ancient migration(s) to the Americas. Where once I thought I saw a fellow enthusiast, I now see a dogmatist. As far as threads taking a turn, well of course they do. However, you have stated your position regarding the Solutrean hypothesis over and over and over and over and over.....
                    I believe we understood your position quite some time ago. Again, persuasion by sledgehammer is extraordinarily weak, IMO. I do love philosophy, BTW. I also like scientific arguments. You have yet to learn how to discuss matters that are scientific, since the whole thrust of your argument amounts to "if Stanford says it is so, it is so". That is not science. That is fanaticism. BTW, I never said you intended ill will. And as for posting the article, can you ever forgive me for posting something that might prove illuminating to some forum members?? Not everyone has the wealth of knowledge you do on the subject. And, IT WAS an excellent summary of the current state of affairs. To answer your direct question, yes, I believe you are an adherent to Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism. It's your right, just as it's my right to distrust your arguments for that very reason. But I will certainly carry on with a smile
                    Sorry, Pam
                    Rhode Island

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      roustabout149, good post and wise thoughts.
                      On the other hand, have you ever tried to convince an Atheist God doesn’t exist? After a few minutes most will end up admitting that they wish there was but cannot deny the possibility.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Remember CMD you brought it up and the one who keeps throwing rocks so let’s just keep smiling. :laugh: 
                        Remember, in order to feel respected one must respect. It is my sincere wish that you feel better now and let’s just let the smiles show.    

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          [QUOTE]CMD wrote:

                          Originally posted by Bill post=50274
                          CMD, “an adherent of "Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism" , really?
                          You must be brand new to Paleoindian research and ideas because the article you posted is just one of hundreds that have been written over the last fifteen years on the same identical subject. Since the discovery of Preclovis they have all said the same things.
                          Threads take turns all of the time and are whatever we make them. You seem to be disillusioned and perhaps would be better suited to talking about matters that are philosophical but not scientific in nature.
                          I stated I agreed with most of your post and then you seemed to think something else was intended. It all seems very passive aggressive and so anti-establishment to me. I honestly hope you will carry on with a smile on your face because there has been no ill will intended.
                            I will stand by what I said. I have a great deal of enthusiasm for the subject of ancient migration(s) to the Americas. Where once I thought I saw a fellow enthusiast, I now see a dogmatist. As far as threads taking a turn, well of course they do. However, you have stated your position regarding the Solutrean hypothesis over and over and over and over and over.....
                          I believe we understood your position quite some time ago. Again, persuasion by sledgehammer is extraordinarily weak, IMO. I do love philosophy, BTW. I also like scientific arguments. You have yet to learn how to discuss matters that are scientific, since the whole thrust of your argument amounts to "if Stanford says it is so, it is so". That is not science. That is fanaticism. BTW, I never said you intended ill will. And as for posting the article, can you ever forgive me for posting something that might prove illuminating to some forum members?? Not everyone has the wealth of knowledge you do on the subject. And, IT WAS an excellent summary of the current state of affairs. To answer your direct question, yes, I believe you are an adherent to Solutrean Theory Fundamentalism. It's your right, just as it's my right to distrust your arguments for that very reason. But I will certainly carry on with a smile
                          Sorry, Pam
                            No need be sorry to me, Charlie.  I completely understand.  I have been keeping up with this topic and it has fascinated me.  I only found it to become less and less informative.  That's all.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Bill wrote:

                            roustabout149, good post and wise thoughts.
                            On the other hand, have you ever tried to convince an Atheist God doesn’t exist? After a few minutes most will end up admitting that they wish there was but cannot deny the possibility.
                              Reverse psychology?  Deny?  Never.  There is no other hand.  And how is it you are aware of what, "most will do?"  Don't try to twist me up.  It won't work.  Period

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Congratulations Charlie, I had to chuckle when you posted this. Even as a Carolina hillbilly, I have been to enough "Knife Swappin's" and "Hog Killin's" to know when someone is being baited.  :laugh: After all "Carpetbaggers" have been trying to sneak up on us down here since 1865 !

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Awww Butch I'm may be an old Southern country boy but I ain't never killed no Hogs. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X