Solutrean Connection

[hardaker]

The Stanford-Bradley book is now for sale.
http://www.amazon.com/Across-Atlantic-I ... 0520227832

hooyah! let the revolution begin.

[Digit]

I look forward to that, but I'm afraid that I'll have to wait for the paperback version!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Thanks for posting, Chris.


I may not be able to wait!

[Minimalist]

Well....the Club will be going ape!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47152.html

New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe – 10,000 years before the Siberian-originating ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World.

A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland, discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.

[Digit]

It's made the news over here as well. I'm not surprised at the possiblity as we have discussed it before, but what I'd really like to understand is why people travelled so far?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

If you ever seen Stanford interviewed he makes the point that they did not know they were migrating. They were just hunting along the ice for mammals ( in their boats.... ) and ended up here. It was no mass migration - probably little more than a couple of fools who got lost.

[Digit]

I have seen him Min and I personally don't accept it. 3000 miles is a lot of 'lost!' If you take it with the other migrations that had preceded and followed it looks to me like pure venturesome or wanderlust.
I think it unlikely that Europeans reached the Americas that early under sail, so we are looking at canoes of some kind, even without a compass I doubt very much indeed that they thought they were heading for Europe and home whilst paddling west!
They would also have been paddling into a prevailing wind and stemming the Gulf stream.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I have now got to read that book, though.

[kbs2244]

I would lean toward the long ranging hunter groups being the discovers.
When they get home they know of other places to live.
That knowledge may stay in the background for generations.
But if something goes bad at home those that have that knowledge have an alterative.

Not a deliberate “migration.”
Just people looking to improve their life.

This was repeated in the Spanish and English came to NA.
Most of them were running from religious percussion or treasure hunters.

BTW, I would lean toward this idea in many of the "migrations."
Looking for a “better life” is an old desire.

[E.P. Grondine]

http://www.conserveturtles.org/images/s ... tracks.gif

Not sea lions, sea turtles.

And while one find's chert source was in modern France, I suspect that the bulk of these artifacts came up from South America.

[hardaker]

Something else is busting open. Thanks for the headline!!

Neanderthals were ancient mariners
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... iners.html

[Cognito]

Interesting article regarding Neanderthals and boats, Chris. As stated:

"Strasser agrees Neanderthals were seafaring long before modern humans, in the Mediterranean at least. He thinks early hominins made much more use of the sea than anyone suspects, and may have used the seas as a highway, rather than seeing them as a barrier."

Back then it would have been a helluva lot easier to get around on the water than on land, and much safer. No lions, bears, sabers or dyer wolves to contend with overnight while slumbering.

The idea of crossing the Atlantic ice isn't too surprising to me. Why would they do it? During the LGM, for food ... the first humans into a new area would find terrific hunting grounds with plentiful food, especially along the shoreline which had shrunk to a 1,500 mile crossing when iced over. In opposition to prior comments, I believe any migration was on purpose since a minimum number of breeding females needs to be taken along to successfully establish a foothold on a new continent. And along with them would come children, grandparents, etc. It would have been a high-risk move so the rewards must have been apparent ... they must have known where they were headed. These adventures are not embarked upon with families by mistake or happenstance since they represent potential extinction events for the tribe. Somebody was already "there" and back - probably a damn good salesman.

[Minimalist]

Gut instinct only but I have to go along with E.P. The Africa to South America crossing looks easier and the winds and currents are right, as I recall from an earlier discussion along these lines which included a chart.

Once across contact could have been made between the newly-relocated Africans and a relative handful of Europeans.

But Cogs raises a fair point as well. Why do groups migrate? There needs to be a reason. Either they are thrown out or they leave voluntarily. Unless they weren't moving at all and were simply doing what they do: hunt sea mammals along the edge of the ice pack?

[Digit]

I get the hunting along the ice gentlemen but what I don't get is why keep going west? Hunters bring food baxk to base, they don't just keep on going! Also why hunt such large and dangerous animals as the Walrus if there are only a couple of boat loads of people? Hunting such animals would suggest that the meat was carried back to base.
Yes, the migration/colonisation must have been deliberate, must have been conducted by families, unless there were females already where they landed.
The northern route would seem to have guaranteed a ready supply of food along the way, this would seem not to be the case for a more southerly route.
Yes, the seas must have been an easier option than land travel, but it would appear that isolated islands were not colonised at this time, this suggests that those pioneers stayed withing sight of land, which would suggest that any southern route was unlikely at this time.
Knowing where they were going was explained many years ago, the annual migration of the Great Auk!

Roy.

[hardaker]

"I get the hunting along the ice gentlemen but what I don't get is why keep going west? "

Don't tell Bullwinkle, but maybe it was because of our tasty moose.