The Solutrean hypothesis thread

This thread I hope will be used as a continuing point of discussion on this interesting hypothesis over the next few years.

Those who have posted material on this subject in other threads are requested to link to those posts with a short summary as to what they say.

Wikipedia article on the subject

There are several points of contention:

The similiarity or non-similiarity of the stone tools that lie at the heart of matter

The route of the 'Solutrean's' to have made their way to North America

The DNA data

My opinion is that the hypnthesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

Discuss!

reply to post by Hanslune


Awesome Hans

I've got so much to contribute, but am working 80hr weeks right now keeping the world in ketchup, tomato sauce and salsas.
Should taper off in few days.
as i see it the solutrean hyp. is flawed but not for the same reasons you hold.
Am important clue is the paired distribution of Hg c and x there are several studies on this that raise more questions than they answer.


And theres more to it than biface tools and what constitutes s "Clovis "lithic tradition

You do realize that you opened a giant can o worms, being carried by a barrel of monkeys


Also calling member Skalla, your input of knapping tecniques would be appreciated and of value to the discussion

Originally posted by punkinworks10
You do realize that you opened a giant can o worms, being carried by a barrel of monkeys


Also calling member Skalla, your input of knapping tecniques would be appreciated and of value to the discussion

Of course that is why I did it - I've been opening cans of (archaeological) worms for inspection for quite some time.

Archaeology is essentially a long series of contentions, piffle, fighting and gathering evidence, publishing it and then defending that publication and its conclusion from a bunch of yahoo's who seem to think your an idiot who doesn't know the basics - and that is how it should be and is.

My favourite memory is of a meeting in Cyprus when the various archaeological teams in country got together to discuss what had happened that season (there was no internet) a fist fight broke out between the French and British team over the naming of pottery and its association with level VII or VIIa. I always chuckle when I see fringe believers acting like archaeology is some monolithic organization control by 'them'- its always humourous!

Let the skirmishing and exchange of information begin !!

Punkinworks like you I have a looming dead line to finish something, which involves research, reading and typing - exactly what I do here this will limit my time here this summer as I may take a position overseas in fall.

Coredrill you still in Abu Dhabi?

Hello HL, thanks for putting up the thread.

Originally posted by Hanslune
My opinion is that the hypothesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

My opinion is that it is not 'proven' either, if one looks solely on the scant data that we have at hand today. But I believe that the data paints a picture which makes the Solutrean connexion more likely than unlikely. It is also my belief that in archaeology, we will have to actively work towards the possibility that the theory is true. If there is a 'l'Anse aux Meadows' out there, ie a site that will establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a Solutrean presence in America, then it is probable that it will be found underwater, thanks to the rising coastlines that the end of the last glaciation brought with it. Underwater archaeology is still in an embryonic phase (the use of 'mailboxes' and dredging often makes archaeologists shudder). It is expensive, and in a dire need of funding. It is not going to happen if we don't take the theory seriously.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Archaeology is essentially a long series of contentions, piffle, fighting and gathering evidence, publishing it and then defending that publication and its conclusion from a bunch of yahoo's who seem to think your an idiot who doesn't know the basics - and that is how it should be and is.

I really could live without the attacks and the marathon bickering. A peer to peer review is at best constructive criticism of work done, method and hypothesis. At worst it is entrenched, territorial disputes, where larger than life egos search and destroy the work of colleagues simply because they conflict with their own theories.

As punkinworks10, I have a full time job and a full time family to handle, and even though the summer slows things down a bit I still have limited time to offer in this forum. If all 'alternative' inputs and theories are systematically attacked and ridiculed because they do not comply with what certain textbooks claim to be the truth, then it will be a long and tedious thread I won't participate in.

That said, all opinions have the right to be expressed.

reply to post by Heliocentric


All science is subjected to 'attack' take a look at how the discovery of the Hobbits was treated even the Denisovian finger did not go unchallenged.

It's the nature of science and yes human egos mess up and delay the scientific method which is why it sometimes takes longer to get things done but science moves forward continuously.

Although I don't have anything constructive to add, I'd like to say that I enjoy these threads and reading the responses from the participants.

Subjects like this are one of the main reasons why I became a member of this website.

Bump.

reply to post by Hanslune


Yes, you're right about the Hobbits, Svante Pääbo and his team at the Max Planck Institute will no doubt be able to handle the turmoils the Denisovian finger has created, but there are other examples of people who were ridiculed because they followed the data, not the general opinion.

Any science, established or non-established, should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and criticism. Humility while facing conflicting opinions is a rare quality though, something that I'm working on myself.

Sometimes, farfetched theories turn out to be true 30 years later, and established theories turn out to be wrong 30 years later. That's something to think about before attending an auto da-fé.

In my professional life I have to put up with some of the crap. Here I don't, that's all I'm saying.

Who won the fistfight between the Brits and the French by the way? Let me guess, there was no winner...

wool first bit of evidence is the best yet.

The Cinmar bipoint,

The Cinmar bipoint was dredged up in 1970 by Capt. Thurston Shawn from the waters off shore from Hampton, Virginia. It is named after the captain’s ship. It came up with a mastodon skull which provided the radiocarbon date of 22,760 +/- 90 RCYBP (UCIAMS-53545). The depth of the find was from 38-40 fathoms in the Atlantic.

Sure looks solutrean, doesnt it.

he Smithsonian Institution tested the rhyolite and found it was from South Mountain in Pennsylvania. The well-made bipoint has a length-wise slight curve which is the result of its initial manufacture from a large flake or spall. This is suggested by the very small remnant platform at one end. Otherwise, it is flaked bifacially. It has polish from usage and the patination is light due to its water-buried environment. It has several large, bold flake scars; however, none of the scars transverse from edge-to-edge across each face. The cross-section is biconvex which suggests an alternate manufacturing technique of large cobble biface reduction. Edge trim has microflaking scars which finalized its shape and provided a sharp edge. It was probably a hafted implement. It has pointed and semi-round ends (base and tip). Figures 1 and 2 show both faces. The Cinmar bipoint is easily a classic Solutrean bipoint which was made from American stone. With its date, rhyolite is suggested as the first choice of U. S. bipoint makers.

It's the right age ,

www.bipoints.com...


It was discussed at this mainstream conference.



paleoamericanodyssey.com...

reply to post by punkinworks10


It not the only example that has bee recovered.

Continental Shelf Bifaces
Looking over the abstracts for the Paleoamerican Odyssey conference in Santa Fe this October I came across an illustration next to the abstract "North America Before Clovis:Variance in Temporal/Spatial Cultural Patterns, 24,000-13,000 BP" by Michael Collins, Dennis Stanford, and Darin Lowery. Elsewhere, It has been stated that 4 additional "laurel leaf" blades have been brought up from the continental shelf, in addition to the Cinmar blade which appeared on the cover of "Across Atlantic Ice". The first blade on the left here is the Cinmar blade. I believe the other 4 must be the other ones brought up from the continental shelf. Does anyone have any information on the details of their recovery?

www.arrowheadology.com...



It's age puts it at the very beginning of solutrean culture in Europe. At that time solutrean wasn't even that developed. It predates the use of such stone work in the solutrean core area by several hundred years .

Solutrean Industry was a short-lived style of toolmaking that flourished approximately 17,000 to 21,000 years ago in southwestern France (e.g., at Laugerie-Haute and La Solutré) and in nearby areas. The industry is of special interest because of its particularly fine workmanship. The Solutrean industry, like those of other late Paleolithic big-game hunters, contained a variety of tools such as burins (woodworking tools rather like chisels), scrapers, and borers; but blades that were formed in the shape of laurel or willow leaves and shouldered points are the implements that distinguish the Solutrean.

In the early Solutrean, unifacial points (flaked on only one side) are common. In the middle Solutrean, these are gradually replaced by laurel-leaf blades and bifacial points. Tiny blunt-backed flint blades and scrapers and single-shouldered points also occur. Bizarre implements, with notches or asymmetrical shapes, appear; these and laurel-leaf blades so fine as to have precluded their use as tools suggest the production of fine-flaked implements for purposes of luxury alone. In the late Solutrean, the willow-leaf blade (slim, with rounded ends and retouching on one side only) of extremely fine workmanship made its appearance.

www.cabrillo.edu...


So we have quite the conundrum here. We have a collection of wonderfully crafted points from the continental shelf of Virginia, some made of stone from Pennsylvania, in a pattern that shows up in Europe several centuries later. Hmmmm.
Any one who follows these discussions should know that I've been a proponent of a very early entrance into the Americas, and we have what appears to be evidencence for a west to east transfer of technology.
That is a very interesting new bit of information, when combined with the results of this recent genetics study , that shows native American admixture into European populations.

In a commentary on another study,

Earlier this year Joseph K. Pickrell and Jonathan K. Pritchard.  (“Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-wide Allele Frequency Data,” 2012, 16) arrived at the same result using TreeMix (see below).

reply to post by punkinworks10


It's a beauty that Cinmar bipoint!

I was going to start with DNA (in a day or two), but you beat me to it, so bifacial points it is.

Two things worth saying before the refutation begins; we're comparing Solutrean and pre-Clovis points, not Clovis points. So this is not for the traditionalists that still refuse to acknowledge pre-Clovis culture.

Second, comparing knapping techniques is just as important as comparing points. Therefore, comparing a Solutrean point with a pre-Clovis point on the basis that they do or do not look the same is but half the job done.

In their book "Across Atlantic Ice", Stanford and Bradley added a last minute note (page 110) about an excavation in 1970 of a 17th century colonial homestead. A Solutrean Laurel leaf blade was uncovered below a clay chimney base. Jeff Speakman of the Smithsonian's analytical lab conducted an X-ray fluorescence probe of the biface and compared results to French gun flints and Solutrean artifacts made of Grand Pressigny flint from France. The biface was made of Grand Pressigny. At the time of its' discovery in 1971 it was concluded the biface was a relic brought over by colonial era settlers. Standford says that because it was found below a clay chimney base, it's unlikely it belonged to a colonist. But because of the uncertainty it is not the proof of the Solutrean theory. Close, but no cigar...

reply to post by Heliocentric


The Italian/Austalians who
won the day by recommending a complete reshuffling of the sequence. I think it was Dr Petronella who made the suggestion.

Thanks for all the contributions !

Originally posted by punkinworks10
In a commentary on another study,

Earlier this year Joseph K. Pickrell and Jonathan K. Pritchard.  (“Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-wide Allele Frequency Data,” 2012, 16) arrived at the same result using TreeMix (see below).

They summarized all the inferred migrations in the following list, with Russians being a proxy for Europeans receiving admixture from migrating American Indians.

Just wanted to finish that train of thought.

Originally posted by Hanslune
My opinion is that the hypnthesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

While I'm not skeptical about the possibility of people crossing from Europe into the Americas during the Ice Age, I'm skeptical about their being sufficient numbers to make any sort of impact. As far as I know, early immigrations into America could be as far back as 30k years (given the 20k date of Mesa Verde and other places)... but I don't feel I've studied cultures from that timeframe well enough to comment on the apparent dispersal patterns.

If one assumes that there will be cultural diffusion, then perhaps (if we have sufficient older artifacts) we can trace several markers through time and space from the coast to the interior and to the other coast.

Something I can look forward to studying in another four months or so. For now, other things occupy my time.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Hanslune
My opinion is that the hypnthesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

While I'm not skeptical about the possibility of people crossing from Europe into the Americas during the Ice Age, I'm skeptical about their being sufficient numbers to make any sort of impact. As far as I know, early immigrations into America could be as far back as 30k years (given the 20k date of Mesa Verde and other places)... but I don't feel I've studied cultures from that timeframe well enough to comment on the apparent dispersal patterns.

If one assumes that there will be cultural diffusion, then perhaps (if we have sufficient older artifacts) we can trace several markers through time and space from the coast to the interior and to the other coast.

Something I can look forward to studying in another four months or so. For now, other things occupy my time.

Enough to make an impact is another good point. I wish I could find some source that speaks to the Inuit experience of crossing sea ice/or navigation along its edge. Will need to get back into the cultural anthro books in November. As I noted earlier I surmise that an easier way to the Americas would have been by way of the Canaries and then what is now Brazil and then up the chain of islands to NA.

But we shall see, yeah I have four months of work to do too. Meet you back here in November.

Originally posted by Byrd
While I'm not skeptical about the possibility of people crossing from Europe into the Americas during the Ice Age, I'm skeptical about their being sufficient numbers to make any sort of impact. As far as I know, early immigrations into America could be as far back as 30k years (given the 20k date of Mesa Verde and other places)... but I don't feel I've studied cultures from that timeframe well enough to comment on the apparent dispersal patterns.

So far, we have found thousands of Clovis and pre-Clovis points in ALL of the 48 mainland US states, and also in Mexico, Belize and Costa Rica. They were present on the entire North American and Central American continent. We don't know their numbers, we have no human bones from this time period, but they were all over the place. Their numbers should have been quite large.

Originally posted by Byrd
If one assumes that there will be cultural diffusion, then perhaps (if we have sufficient older artifacts) we can trace several markers through time and space from the coast to the interior and to the other coast.

I haven't got the charts and the diagrams at hand right now, but they amass in fertile regions along the East Coast, then move North, West and South. If the Bering Land Bridge theory is correct (which I think it is, it's the Bering Land Bridge ONLY that I put to question), then the older sites would be found the further north you go. As of now this is not so. At present, the oldest pre-Clovis site is in Virginia, I believe. If the Solutrean Connexion is right, then the older sites would be found East, and off the East coast, underwater. Time will work that one out.

reply to post by Heliocentric


You may want to look at the amount of stone tools a HG creates in a life time. Plus they tend to be very survivable and last in the environment.

How many spear or arrow points does a HG make and use how many does he flub, discard and try again?

Unfortunately I don't recall what these numbers are but cultural studies in the Amazon, New Guinea and perhaps Ishi might tell you that number.