Solutrean Connection

[Digit]

Or Big Mac perhaps!

Roy.

[Cognito]

Yes, the migration/colonisation must have been deliberate, must have been conducted by families, unless there were females already where they landed.

As mentioned before, John Moore of the University of Florida approached the problem of minimum numbers of humans to successfully settle a new continent (i.e. Australia) with his Ethnopop software. His result? Twenty breeding couples minimum. Otherwise the attempt dies off over hundreds of years. Gotta take families along and more than just a couple of lost individuals.

The smoking gun for the Northern route, no matter how non-feasible, is the mtDNA X2 genetic remnants in North America (and not South America except to a negligible trace) that differentiate from their Old World counterparts by 20kya and do not exist in Siberia. If there were females there when they landed (i.e. X2s), when and where did they come from?

Actually, I like the Big Mac theory ... or possibly Chicken McNuggets.

[E.P. Grondine]

The smoking gun for the Northern route, no matter how non-feasible, is the mtDNA X2 genetic remnants in North America (and not South America except to a negligible trace) that differentiate from their Old World counterparts by 20kya and do not exist in Siberia. If there were females there when they landed (i.e. X2s), when and where did they come from?

X mt DNA is Andaste, and originally from a separate hominid line that evolved along the shores of the Black Sea. They left those shores when they flooded following the Plesitocene Holocene rise in sea levels. Accomplished mariners, they arrive in North America ca 8,350 BCE, bringing European diseases with them.

The peoples already here, generally tolerant, welcoming, civil, and peaceful, remember them as acting like a* holes.

[Cognito]

The peoples already here, generally tolerant, welcoming, civil, and peaceful, remember them as acting like a* holes.

The newcomers were politicians?

[Digit]

If there were females there when they landed (i.e. X2s), when and where did they come from?

From my understanding of the situation Cogs, there weren't, but I offered it on that understanding, thus it must have been deliberate.
Taking family members with you not only states a solid intent to colonise but strongly suggests a familiarity with the new land of some duration, which throws me back to that which fascinates me.
Why did the people go there? I cannot believe population pressure in Europe can have been any where near high enough for that, in fact I suggest that some people at that time could have passed through this world without even seeing another being who wasn't from their locality.
8350BCE would be a bit late for any Solutrean connection I would have thought.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

but what I don't get is why keep going west?

Following the animals?

I don't think we are ever going to get a "why" answer from a bunch of artifacts. The why will always remain speculative.Stanford's point all along has been that the parent technology for Clovis was Solutrean as opposed to the microblade tools used in Siberia.

[Digit]

Following the animals?

If we are referring to sea animals Min I'm not aware of any that migrate, I cannot believe that European populations at that time were sufficiently large that the supply of animals would have been reduced to a level that required the sea hunters to constantly move west.
Equally, if we are referring to animals as opposed to fish, transporting a seal corpse a couple of hundred miles back to base seems equally unlikely.
It has been stated that Australia would have been known to the people who migrated there, despite the fact that it was below their horizon, by virtue of smoke from bush fires, so they migrated to a spot they knew existed.
The Maori knew New Zealand as Aotearoa, 'the land of the long white cloud', again they knew it existed before colonisation. Asian Elephants colonised every island in the Malay archepelago that was visible to them.
The Solutreans did not, IMO, set out on a suicide mission, they knew where they were going. The only land masses that were not colonised in antiquity were those whose existance was not known, Easter Island for example, and again I cannot believe that population pressure forced a small number of people to colonise Australia.
Agreed we may never the reasons that drove them, but I'll bet curiosity over need.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

but I'll bet curiosity over need.

Individuals can be curious. Groups tend to be conservative. Leaders of groups including women and children tend to be even more conservative.

But let's say a scout was sent out... what would the report be like.

"Hey, boss. If you paddle along the ice for 1,500 miles you come to a new land which is pretty similar to the land we already have. It's got rocks and trees and animals and there is no one else there. I made the journey twice. You can hunt seals and walruses all the way across. Let's go."

I could almost see a conflict situation more than that. A group was chased out onto the ice and could not go back because there were big hairy guys with spears waiting for them. Of course, I have no evidence for that whatsoever.

[Digit]

As a theory Min, yes, but to me where it fails is all the other places man moved to. Conflict usually has a cause, but even if conflict was the cause I still doubt that they took that action without knowing where they were going.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I don't know. If danger threatens from the East people will flee West.

I just can't see any kind of trans Atlantic commuting on any kind of regular basis.

[Cognito]

As a theory Min, yes, but to me where it fails is all the other places man moved to. Conflict usually has a cause, but even if conflict was the cause I still doubt that they took that action without knowing where they were going.
Roy.

To effectively establish a foothold in the new continent about 60-100 individuals would need to migrate en masse. Agreed, that is just too risky unless they knew where they were headed. Yet at some point mtDNA X2a made the crossing in sufficient numbers to flourish albeit on a small scale. EP thinks the Andastes are the culprit, but at 8,350bce they are too late to be the Solutreans and 3,000 years too early for the Black Sea inundation since the Med overtopped the Bosporus Sill about 5,650bce (Ryan & Pitman et al).

[E.P. Grondine]

I keep on having my comments mis-understood and misquoted. This has to be due either to my poor ability to convey what I mean, or the inability of others to understand. I'll go with the first one for now.

The X mt DNA is not the Solutrean marker, but rather marks the Andaste arrival, "Canadian Maritme Archaic" ca 8, 350 BCE. ("Adena" for the hopelessly slow.)

The "Solutrean" group was not likely from Europe, but rather sea turtle hunters from NW Africa.
Due to 3 major cometary impact events, and genocide during the conquest, their genetic markers remain in too small numbers to show up in the larger random DNA samples.

The data for when the Black Sea first flooded is weak. Based on the sequences for Mediterranean archaeology I'll stay with my Pleistocene-Holocene date for the spread of X mt DNA.

[kbs2244]

A nice write up from todays news page:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... tid=pm_pop

[Cognito]

The X mt DNA is not the Solutrean marker, but rather marks the Andaste arrival, "Canadian Maritme Archaic" ca 8, 350 BCE. ("Adena" for the hopelessly slow.)

Also ... Susquehannock and Red Paint People I would assume. Andaste burials are not uncommon and a genetic analysis on them would be interesting. Personally, I think your argument that mtDNA X2a came to the Americas circa 8350bce makes more sense than with the Solutreans since the genesis of the haplogroup appears to be the Middle East/Caucasus area, not the Iberian peninsula or, as you stated, North Africa. With that said I still believe you are looking at the wrong flood timing-wise. Ali Aksu (Univ. of Newfoundland) et al discovered a 10-9ka delta lobe on the south side of the Bosporus Sill as reported here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/ctlframe3.html

Also (according to personal correspondence) Aksu found evidence of mega-flooding originating upstream (Altay - Aral - Caspian - Black - Med) about the time that you mention, circa 8400bce. If the European ancestors of the Andastes were getting out of town they were doing so as a result of post-YD glacial mega-flooding, not the Med rise which came later. Further, it is interesting that traces of the Maritime Archaic can be found on both sides of the Atlantic if one will bother to look.

The "Solutrean" group was not likely from Europe, but rather sea turtle hunters from NW Africa.
Due to 3 major cometary impact events, and genocide during the conquest, their genetic markers remain in too small numbers to show up in the larger random DNA samples.

Berbers.

The data for when the Black Sea first flooded is weak. Based on the sequences for Mediterranean archaeology I'll stay with my Pleistocene-Holocene date for the spread of X mt DNA.

The topping of the Bosporus Sill by the Med is fuzzy with the most reasonable estimates being circa 5650bce according to Ryan & Pitman. However, nobody but those two believe that there was any catastrophic flooding from that event. For example, see: http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ejr/Roh ... 20Geol.pdf

"The results show that although it might be possible to fill the Black Sea within the order of a decade(s) (assuming a realistic range of parameters for the Bosphorus), to fill it within a single year (or even two) would be physically impossible, without signifcant change in the geology and geography of the connection."

There was no "Ryan & Pitman" catastrophic Black Sea Flood courtesy of the Med, but there were a series of Altay mega-floods passing from the Caspian into the Black Sea via the Manytch Straits that inundated the region in question from 17-10kya. Between floods it was possible to paddle by boat all the way from Lake Baikal to the Med ... must have been a fun ride!!

[Digit]

Solutrean on no Solutrean, if I understand it correctly artifact dating on the east coast is some thousands of years earlier than on the west coast, therefore, applying the normal approach one must assume that either there is a few thousand years of artifacts missing on the west coast or the two migrations are entirely independent.

Roy.