The Solutrean hypothesis thread

So,

I've just started reading Stanford and Bradley's "Across Atlantic Ice", and the last paragraph of the introduction really caught my attention.

  And I quote,

" Chapter 11 summarizes the evidence, concluding that the Solutrean hypothesisis is the most promising explanation offered so far for the origin of Clovis people and the first peopleing of the Americas. The Solutrean hypothesis, like any hypothesis, is a skeletal narrative that can incite research in useful directions in a variety if subject areas. There are plenty of gaps in this hypothesis, as there are in the Beringian hypothesis, thus plenty of opportunities for new research. Ultimately,whether the hypothesis is right or wrong, the many questions it raises and avenues it opens should spur scholars to broaden the scope of research possibilities and produce a more sophiticated story of human history."

 The last sentence sums it all up for me, it doesnt matter whether the idea is correct or not, in the long term, but that it should cause us to ask more questions and refine our understanding of our past.

 As I read the book I'll keep up on my take on it.


 

reply to post by punkinworks10


It's funny that you post that excerpt. I was reading an article earlier today about one of the east coast Clovis sites that dates to at least 13,000 BPE and it discusses how the farther west you go the more recent the dates become for Clovis sites. And if memory serves me it is not terribly far from one of the possible Solutrean finds near Virginia. I try not to get too far into the correlation=causation equation but it is certainly an interesting new insight. It's amazing to me how far we've come since the mantra of Clovis First was shouted out by everyone in archaeology for decades and in the past 20 years we've come full circle to accepting the reality posited decades ago. It would certainly be a head turner if this hypothesis plays out.

reply to post by peter vlar


Peter,
I'm now a few chapters into Stanford and Bradley's book, and so far it has been a discussion of the subtleties of the differences between lithic traditions of ne Asia and nw north America.
In the overall assessment, it's clear that Clovis spreads to the north, and that the microblade traditions of Asia are independant from the fluted biface points of north America.

reply to post by Hanslune


I believe we have just scraped the surface really.

But as long as a majority of the scientific community is more interested in defending their own hypotheses rather than finding out the truth and challenge common conceptions, people are in for a really tough fight trying to stir up something in this field.

Some of the sophisticated stone tools found in North and South America is quite mind blowing. I believe one of those fantastic founds that dated stone tools and masonry to a time in history when no man should have been on the continent, only got the following official reaction: "I think it would serve you well to read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species".

Right or wrong, a majority of the scientific community have too much invested in the current dogmas to dare challenge them. Their jobs and reputations is on the line. And truth don't stand a chance against that.

The Solutrean hypothesis is interesting, but Im not sure how much impact it would have had. I doubt there were any large masses of ppl moving, but rather then smaller groups in boats. Like the Vikings. They were pretty much in and out in a short time, probably being chased away by indigenous tribes, which I at the moment believe were present at a much earlier time than our history books tell us.

Maybe some day we will know.

Red Ice Radio - John de Nugent - The Solutreans: The First Ancient Settlers in North America

youtu.be...