Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solutrean-American Artifacts

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

  • #31
    Casts could be made. Casts can be studied. And the originals sold to the highest bidder. The Solutrean connection is speculative. But that speculation is the draw for private owners. Otherwise, they're just nice bipoints. Casts are the norm where study is concerned. Stanford/Bradley don't have to have originals. Different if found in association with a whole suite of known Solutrean artifacts. They weren't. Potential buyers gamble on a hypothesis, in a sense.
    Rhode Island

    Comment


    • #32
      The Cinmar blades' age is not a question, nor is the fact that it establishes a human occupation on the continent's LGM shoreline corresponding with the age of the Cinmar artifact and the mammoth tusk taken from the site.
      The Mark Small blades show the very same flaking tradition/technology as the Cinmar.

      The series of projectile points being found and excavated from pre-Clovis levels along the bay's margins, and at other locations, effectively refutes the Clovis First 'hypothesis'

      Regardless of their origins, these artifacts are among the very oldest artifacts to be found in the Americas

      Whether the establishment of a relationship to Solutrean is proven or not, that situation in no way mitigates the age and extreme rarity of these artifacts, nor what they establish per the above statement.

      Buyers wishing to gamble on the Solutrean Hypothesis can view purchasing these as such--but there is no gamble as to age and rarity, nor to what it means to Clovis First.

      That Solutrean technologies are virtually identical in comparison with these artifacts adds intrigue and the real mystery isn't where they are or are not Solutrean of origin--the question is HOW was Solutrean technology passed on, or was a substantial portion of it merely rediscovered of its own accord here, then possibly 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, yet missing from our view, than any effective rebuttal can conclude now
      Last edited by David Stone Sweet; 11-07-2015, 08:49 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by David Stone Sweet View Post
        The Cinmar blades' age is not a question, nor is the fact that it establishes a human occupation on the continent's LGM shoreline corresponding with the age of the Cinmar artifact and the mammoth tusk taken from the site....
        But the age of the Cinmar blade is under challenge because the circumstances of recovery are not as described in "Across Atlantic Ice":

        http://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/g...e-cinmar-blade


        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


        • #34
          "Buyers wishing to gamble on the Solutrean Hypothesis can view purchasing these as such--but there is no gamble as to age and rarity, nor to what it means to Clovis First."

          I don't know if this is absolutely, and irrefutably true, or not. They were not found in a datable context and everything is a work in progress on the Delmarva. I'd be very concerned, if I were a potential buyer, that I would not know one way or another. I know some dates >20,000 years have been claimed for some sites in the Delmarva. But this is not at the point where we now know the Pre Clovis sequence in the Delmarva and the styles involved. Unless I'm buying a Laurel Leaf blade made of French chert, or unless I know bipoint blades like yours cannot be anything but Pre Clovis when found in the Delmarva, then there is a gamble involved. Not to mention deciding what they are actually worth to a collector.

          Basically, while some value derives from condition, the value for these derives entirely from the claim that they are older then Clovis. So, "very rare and older then Clovis" determines the value.
          Except I would regard that statement , older then Clovis, as unproven at this point. The Cinmar Blade date is in question., the search for Pre Clovis sites there in the Delmarva has barely started, and the archaeology has barely begun. Under those conditions, selecting artifacts recovered out of context and marketing them as Solutrean-American in the first place seems like a pitch. Nothing wrong with a sales pitch. Nothing wrong with calling them "possible" Solutrean-American. But, if you then turn to the discipline of archaeology, and ask "well, what is the consensus here about what I am claiming?", I have a feeling many will say "when did the Solutrean Hypothesis become received wisdom? When did it become the generally accepted paradigm? Where was I when this happened?"

          The artifacts in question were found out of context, and developing a Pre Clovis sequence in the Delmarva must be in it's infancy. At best. You may disagree, but I think these are a gamble as to what they are and how old they are. Nonetheless, even with that said, they are exciting for the very real possibilities you do mention. Because it's possible they are what you believe they are. I just have to wonder how much the pitch minimizes the tentative nature of things. The context is not one of absolute certainty regarding their age. But, of course it might be an excellent gamble when all is said and done.
          Last edited by CMD; 11-08-2015, 07:08 AM.
          Rhode Island

          Comment


          • #35
            If you take C-14 and other dating methods seriously, there should not be any reasoned question of the age of the Cinmar blade nor that of the mammoth tusk it is associated with; denying the age has to confront the age ascertained for the Tusk in association with the Cinmar blade. The arguments for chance simultaneous disassociated recovery suppose a probability factor of near absolute zero to support themselves; I do not consider them as lending any weight to the discussion.

            Then one has to effectively refute the the interpretations of sono-buoy surveys and submersible RV explorations at the site-location recorded by the Cinmar's loran nav-system. Samplings of the location reveal an ancient marsh where the mammoth remains and Cinmar came up from.

            The marsh is logically presumed to be the kill-site, since one didn't remove whole mammoths back to camp, but performed the needed butchery on-site, hence the Cinmar blade's presence.... .

            One must then refute the presence of man on the continental shelf at that time. One must then refute the existence of Cinmar's technological consistency with technologies from another culture on another continent and sharing the same temporal span.

            Regards the location of Cinmar's finding
            One needs to recall that for every depth of tow, the length of cable needed for an effective dredge-tow is a known quantity. Basic algebra will give you an near-absolute position for the dredges' distance behind the boat. It should also be noted that scallop boats do not 'dredge at speed' for the very reason that a skipper has got to be able to have time to react to any adversity encountered by an obstacle on the bottom--failure to do so can loose a dredge, and even a boat and crew , I mention this because once again, nav-systems only work if you use boat and system together intelligently. I'll sum it all up by saying mistakes in placement of an obstacle on a chart can cause harm to one's own and every other boat privy to that set of charted obstacles, and these locations are shared among skippers and fleets..

            Loran allows a skipper to take repeated parallel dredge-paths to clean up a whole bed of scallops if he wishes. Keeping track month after month among a fleet of boats provides a very concise mapping of harvested scallop beds vs. areas not yet accessed. There is an entire industry based upon the accuracy of nav-systems, and unless one has seen loran at work during dredging ops, one can't do more than recite another's words or guess--I've seen a lot of uninformed guessing going on--much of it labeled fact...

            I would have gambled on the association of Clovis and mammoth at Blackwater Draw then, even as I place my faith in the Solutrean hypothesis now. As I see it, a lot more explaining needs be done by these serious critics. So far, speculation and in cases I've seen with my own eyes, blatant misinterpretation of facts to suit an argument, have been thrust forward....none refuting the existence of cinmar and mammoth as associated artifacts from a period when for some yet undetermined reason, its makers used a technology here on LGM Atlantic shores, belonging to people on another continent.
            Last edited by David Stone Sweet; 11-08-2015, 08:24 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              I am only able to access the abstract here. So often the case where the scientific literature is concerned. Nonetheless, this is precisely where I am at a disadvantage, and where most, if not all, prospective buyers of Pre Clovis bipoints are concerned are at a disadvantage. Namely, the fact that not everybody agrees these bipoints are Pre Clovis. If the debate is still ongoing, then uncertainty is indeed still involved.

              http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00007

              Abstract:
              Recently, advocates of an “older -than- Clovis” occupation of eastern North America have suggested that bi-pointed leaf-shaped lanceolate stone bifaces provide definitive evidence of human culture on the eastern seaboard prior to the Late Glacial Maximum. This argument hinges on two suppositions: first, that points of this form are exceedingly rare in the East and second, that all known occurrences of these point forms are from landforms or depositional environments dating to some time before the late Pleistocene. Neither of these suppositions is supported by the archaeological record. Bi-pointed leaf shaped blades have been recovered from throughout the Middle Atlantic and Northeast, where they have been repeatedly dated, either radiometrically or by association with diagnostic artifacts, to between the Late Archaic and the Early Woodland. Statistical analysis of supposed “older-than-Clovis” leaf-shaped blades demonstrates that there are no significant differences in morphology between them and unequivocally Middle Holocene leaf-shaped blades. Until such time as evidence demonstrates otherwise, there is no reason to accept that these leaf-shaped bifaces are diagnostic of a Pleistocene, much less pre-Late Glacial Maximum, occupation in eastern North America.

              ----------------
              I understand the two bifaces described here were dredged, and that not all bipoints are equal. But I can't be certain that the way they are described truly separates them form all other bipoints. I see the uncertainty in the scientific literature, I surmise the debate is ongoing, and not finished, and again, uncertainty appears in my mind.
              Last edited by CMD; 11-08-2015, 11:55 AM.
              Rhode Island

              Comment


              • #37
                Obvious outre' pass flaking is clearly present--there is no evidence to suggest this technique survived beyond the paleo, no other cultures but Solutrean and Clovis are known to have used this difficult technology, nor derived a majority of their toolkit from outre' pass flake blade technology. I am a firm believer in the direction of Noel Justice's works--that type clusters are established upon specific shared flaking attributes, resharpening trajectories and distributional patterns (ex: Hardin evolving from Scottsbluff, Kirk from Palmer, etc)

                Comment


                • #38
                  But there are some significant folk who disagree with that assessment and they are also working from an evidence base to form that opinion. For example:

                  More on the rumor of "intentional overshot flaking" and the purported Ice Age Atlantic Crossing. Lithic Technology (2014) 39:55-65. Eren, Metin I., Robert J. Patten, Michael J. O'Brien, and David J. Meltzer:

                  Lohse, Collins, and Bradley ignore or misrepresent the arguments we have made concerning “controlled” overshot flaking and the purported Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing. Here, we summarize our previous work and explain again how it directly tests the explicit claims of Stanford and Bradley (2012; Bradley and Stanford 2004, 2006)..../...

                  …/...We were hoping that our paper might elicit a thoughtful discussion of technology and the manner in which it could be used to detect historical relatedness. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as not only do Lohse et al. ignore the large amount of archaeological evidence we present that is inconsistent with a Solutrean–Clovis trans-Atlantic connection and the inference of “intentional” overshot flaking /…/ they also misrepresent our work to such an extent that we felt it was necessary to write this rejoinder…/...


                  In full here:

                  http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfpl...3Z.00000000033
                  Last edited by painshill; 11-08-2015, 01:11 PM.
                  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


                  • #39
                    I have not read through this article all the way yet--thank you for posting this link!

                    I do wish to exert a bit of influence here--Clovis ultra-thin platter bifaces are created by removal of outre' pass flakes which are then used to produce a range of tools upon them, filling out the Clovis tool kit. The form becomes a very easily transportable core not only capable of supplying the long, thin, flat prismatic flakes needed to flesh out their tool kit, the finalized form can be used for a point, knife or even be split and two tools produced from the finalized ultra-thin. Clovis points have been found with a distinct bevel, indicating the inside margin of the split platter biface

                    Wenatchee and Colby cache examples abound in outre' pass flaking; in the bay area itself, few useful lithics exist and none in any abundance until one reaches towards the fall line. Most of the bay-found paleo-projectile points I've seen are small compared with many western examples, often made from pebble and small cobble cherts. There is little room for outre' pass thinning on a pebble chert preform of small size. Preform examples made from quartzite I've seen exhibit outre' pass on only the larger, much less common examples. I've also seen platter bifaces here in local collections, replete with outre' pass flaking, both present and partially obliterated by succeeding flake removals and resharpening.

                    A thought--Solutrean peoples are believed by some to have crossed the Med from Africa; It is shown that several migrations were undertaken over time, and that these disparate groups found their own individual niches. Recognizing that while each group practiced the Solutrean lithic tradition, not one group among them utilized the entire known assemblage of Solutrean technologies. Could it be that more than just Spanish Solutrean peoples made their way across the ice. In practice, could it be surmised that these divergent Solutrean assemblages would have sought out independent niches, and from a diverse number of assemblages there sprung the further divergent lithic traditions, thus founding the typologies now well recognized among archaeologists and collectors

                    Outre’ pass flaking technology as a cultural tradition is only found in European Solutrean, the Solutrean-like artifacts found here, and Clovis. While not conclusive of Solutrean being ancestral to Clovis, the suggestion that re-inventions of the technology occurred TWICE, independently, separated by thousands of miles and some 10,000 years later, would appear questionable at best, given that the second re-invention would have taken place in the same region it was previously re-invented and lost....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      France

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        This illustration is interesting. What is the source for this? I think the fact that the two bipoints appeared at the Santa Fe Conference, and were used as evidence in support of the Solutrean Hypothesis is something that would attract buyers/gamblers betting on the Solutrean Hypothesis. But it all has got to be a work in progress, and by no means is the hypothesis meeting with broad approval as yet. But without a doubt the Delmarva appears as a frontier of Paleo studies right now.
                        Last edited by CMD; 11-09-2015, 06:55 AM.
                        Rhode Island

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by CMD View Post
                          This illustration is interesting. What is the source for this? I think the fact that the two bipoints appeared at the Santa Fe Conference, and were used as evidence in support of the Solutrean Hypothesis is something that would attract buyers/gamblers betting on the Solutrean Hypothesis. But it all has got to be a work in progress, and by no means is the hypothesis meeting with broad approval as yet. But without a doubt the Delmarva appears as a frontier of Paleo studies right now.
                          That picture came from Dr Stanford.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Reflector View Post
                            France
                            ?????

                            The type-site for the Solutrean industry is indeed French (Crot du Charnier, at Solutré, in east-central France, dating to around 21,000 years ago) but the majority of sites (more than 100 of them) are on the Iberian Peninsula in Spain and Portugal. There is also a possible site in southern England, which was joined to France by a land bridge at the time. Spain also has the oldest dateable site and probably represents the cradle of the Solutrean as a lithic industry as we know it.

                            It’s important to make a distinction between “the people” and the “lithic industry” when we start looking for possible “Solutrean traits” in other lithic industries, and also to make a clear distinction between “traits” and “proto-Solutrean”.

                            As things stand, the general belief is that the people who ultimately pioneered the Solutrean lithic industry probably entered southern Spain from North Africa around 25,000 years. They likely came via north-east Africa and the Levant rather than the shorter (but more perilous) route across the Straits of Gibraltar. However, there is nothing that could be definitively said to be “proto-Solutrean” in the African lithic industries. Traits, yes… but not proto- in the sense of being the cradle of the technology. Affinities to the Aterian blade industry of Africa are pretty much discredited following the chronological revision of the Aterian with a terminal date of at least 30,000 years ago, and more likely 40,000 years.

                            The “beachcomber migration” out of Africa to America theory is not well supported and one of its former leading proponents (Stephen Oppenheimer) has now switched his support to a trans-Atlantic migration from Europe – siding with Stanford and Bradley.

                            [Note: Sadly, the most vociferous remaining supporters of the African migration are working to a “black America” agenda in the same way that white supremacists have sadly jumped on the Stanford/Bradley wagon. Discussion of those issues has no place here, or anywhere in archaeology but it's always worth bearing in mind when Googling for information.]

                            We don’t know what happened to the Solutrean culture, but the evidence for it is geographically limited and chronologically brief. A migration wave from Africa into Europe 25,000 years ago would have been the latest migration that we know of and at a time when most of Europe was already populated by other cultures. Perhaps those late-comers were forced to settle areas that no-one else had found productive and adapted their tool-kit and culture accordingly. In terms of proto-Solutrean lithic technology, France actually has the most evidence for this, so perhaps at least some of the techniques they used were very site-specific adaptations relating to exploitation of available resources. The site datings don’t demonstrate a completely logical progression of the lithic traits we regard as “Solutrean”.

                            In all probability, the people became assimilated into other cultures and the traits of their specific tool industries became less relevant… but we really don’t know. It seems unlikely that they died out in isolation.
                            Last edited by painshill; 11-09-2015, 07:43 AM.
                            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


                            • #44
                              I think to assume this continent(North and South America) was uninhabited 18,000 ago is outdated.
                              I have put my hands on things that any Arch would die to have the opportunity and time to do.
                              That being said , there is a culture that predated Clovis. There is no way the " Archs" are going to let a novice
                              with no education take credit or even be influenced is this respect.
                              The truth is out there. IMHO

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Reflector View Post
                                I think to assume this continent(North and South America) was uninhabited 18,000 ago is outdated.
                                I have put my hands on things that any Arch would die to have the opportunity and time to do.
                                That being said , there is a culture that predated Clovis. There is no way the " Archs" are going to let a novice
                                with no education take credit or even be influenced is this respect.
                                The truth is out there. IMHO
                                One would hope that no-one in the archaeological community is still clinging to the belief in "Clovis-first". The issues now are who preceded the Clovis culture, where did they come from, what route did they take and when did they arrive?

                                It isn't the case that if a pre-Clovis culture existed then it must have been Solutrean (or African, or whatever). The evidence we have is still consistent with a land-bridge migration (or more likely multiple migrations) from Asia/Eurasia but at an earlier date than Clovis (or at least earlier than the Clovis sites currently known) and earlier than previously believed.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X