A Solutrean Colonization of the New World? Maybe not after all.

Again, for those who say that archaeologists work in the shadows to hide our history, here is the latest from an open source...

The Cinmar discovery and the proposed pre-Late Glacial Maximum occupation of North America
Proponents of a Solutrean colonization of the New World, and a pre-LGM occupation of North America's Mid-Atlantic region, cite as evidence a bifacially flaked, bi-pointed stone blade allegedly dredged from the continental shelf by the crew of the vessel Cinmar, along with portions of a mastodon skeleton later directly dated to22,760 ± 90 RCYBP. However, our investigations into the discovery found several significant inconsistencies with respect to what is currently reported in the literature and raise serious questions that must be addressed before the Cinmar artifact can be considered evidence of anything pertinent to archaeology. In this article we present evidence and questions regarding the history of the Cinmar discovery, the location of the Cinmar discovery site, and the nature of the Cinmar vessel itself. Journal of Archaeological Science

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Thanks for posting,
There is more to the story than just the cinmar point, and its not the only point, of its type, found on the continental shelf.
Am just leaving the shop, so ill read the link and comment after i attain a frosty cold Newcastle.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Thanks for posting,
There is more to the story than just the cinmar point, and its not the only point, of its type, found on the continental shelf.
Am just leaving the shop, so ill read the link and comment after i attain a frosty cold Newcastle.

Enjoy...as I enjoy my Flying Monkeys Smashbomb Atomic IPA. Ahhhh...beer and archaeology! Made for each other!

I think I'm more intrigued by the Flying Monkeys Smashbomb Atomic IPA than by the story lol.

As punkinworks10 already stated, the Cinmar point and the mastodon bones brought up with it is not the only data speaking for the Ice Bridge theory, therefore questioning its validity as evidence does not challenge the validity of the Ice Bridge theory.

I appreciate that Michael O'Brien and his team is going to the bottom of this, but is it strange that there are some minor gaps in exactly how, where and when the bi-face was found? I mean, if you ask any old captain of a scallop dredger what he caught in his net a particular day in 1970, will he remember it all in vivid detail? None of the info furnished by him concerning the bi-face seems to be contradictory, O'Brien is simply unhappy with that he couldn't interview the fishing crew personally.

All in all, the Cinmar point is not proof of Clovis people hunting the coast lines of Virginia 20 000 BCE (the age of the mastodon bone found with it). The point is local and comes from South Mountain, Emmitsburg, MD.

Still, we need to explain why the Clovis culture had such a preference for the East Coast, and why the oldest Clovis sites are found in the South East, when logically according to the land bridge theory, they should be found in the North West.
In terms of Clovis points, we do not see a migration route from the Alaskan North spreading south into the North American continent, but curiously an East to West movement.

We also need to explain archaeological sites such as Topper and Cactus Hill, which speak of human presence in Clovis country before there should be any.

a reply to: Heliocentric


That whole southeast to northwest and west trend of the Clovis dispersal is a bit of a sticky wicket isn't it.

  The more I read into solutrean culture the more I am convinced that the influence was from North America to Europe and not the other way around.


 There is a growing body of evidence that shows modern humans were in north America before they were in western Europe. 

 To cactus hill and topper I'll add Burnham OK, and Snowmass CO, and Texas st. CA.

Oh and can't forget Calico/Manix lake, or Pendejo cave NM.