The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.
Cognito wrote:
The paper you referenced disputes the Solutrean peopling of the Americas. I'm OK with that and believe that the Americas were peopled from Asia instead. Still, interesting artifacts would up in Virginia that indicate accidental tourism from the east.
" we present data which show that the corridor may not have existed, and that, if it did, its suitability as a migration route is highly questionable."
This would apply to all tourists .
Interesting artefacts do not a Solutrean in the Americas make .
Tiompan wrote:Min introduced the religious analogy in relation to Clovis first "crowd ".
If it applies to them , then it certainly does to the Solutrean Hypothesis "crowd " .
Except for the hard evidence which religion avoids like the plague. Even the Clovis-Firsters have actual artifacts.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Tiompan wrote:Min introduced the religious analogy in relation to Clovis first "crowd ".
If it applies to them , then it certainly does to the Solutrean Hypothesis "crowd " .
Except for the hard evidence which religion avoids like the plague. Even the Clovis-Firsters have actual artifacts.
They not only have artefacts ,they also have human remains and their descendants , and a plausible explanation of where the remains/genes came from and how they migrated .
The belief that they were the earliest inhabitants that we are aware of to date can be falsified .
Falsification is not the stuff of religion .
On the other hand the Solutrean hypothesis , is a belief , with much of it shown to be at least unlikely ,and what is left ,
like the tooth fairy , cannot be falsified ,and like the tooth fairy it will be accepted by the agnostics when the evidence is forthcoming .
They not only have artefacts ,they also have human remains and their descendants
Speaking in the plural?
You omitted the rest of the sentence " and a plausible explanation of where the remains/genes came from and how they migrated . "
Remains is both singular and plural , genes and descendants are plural .
That is true ... and ... you never answered my question. Are you aware of any further Clovis era human remains other than one infant? Clovis Firsters' specious argument is, "Where are the older skeletal remains?" whilst they can only demonstrate one skeletal burial in spite of all those lithic caches.
Clovis appears to be a rapidly spread technological advancement amongst an already existing population of Paleos. I am not disputing that Native American population genetics point to Asia (and even mtDNA X2 from the Altai region); however, Clovis technology did not originate in Asia. Otherwise, we would find similar artifacts in Siberia which we do not.
Are you suggesting the question wasn't rhetorical ?
Clovis didn't need a skeleton and genetics to prove that there was a Clovis culture .
One Solutrean skeleton would falsify Clovis first , instantly . Do you know of any ?
Are there any genetics that might provide some succour to the Solutrean hypothesis ?
What is left of the Solutrean hypothesis that is not problematic ?
Clovis didn't need a skeleton and genetics to prove that there was a Clovis culture.
Nor do Paleos preceeding Clovis need a skeleton to conclude that Clovis First is dead (talk to Mike Waters et al).
One Solutrean skeleton would falsify Clovis first , instantly . Do you know of any ?
How about a pre-Clovis skull? Or, a brow ridge?
Are there any genetics that might provide some succour to the Solutrean hypothesis ?
Apparently you missed my point. A few sailors will not leave traces behind in a gene pool. I do not believe Solutreans left behind any genetic traces; however, that is not to say a few groups weren't kicking around the East Coast about 20kya, dropping lithics as they worked their way through the landscape.
What is left of the Solutrean hypothesis that is not problematic ?
Conversely, why do Clovis Firsters think nobody was in the Americas before Clovis? Various groups could have wandered through the landscape without leaving behind their genetics. Many incursions could have failed to take hold and multiply since there were only a few breeding couples, if any. That explanation goes a long way in explaining anomalous pre-Clovis finds.
Clovis didn't need a skeleton and genetics to prove that there was a Clovis culture.
Nor do Paleos preceeding Clovis need a skeleton to conclude that Clovis First is dead (talk to Mike Waters et al).
You miss my point , as mentioned earlier , Clovis first is falsifiable and unless the finds are confirmed as Solutrean they do not provide succour for the SH .
One Solutrean skeleton would falsify Clovis first , instantly . Do you know of any ?
How about a pre-Clovis skull? Or, a brow ridge?
The question was about Solutrean remains , not pre Clovis .
Are there any genetics that might provide some succour to the Solutrean hypothesis ?
I do not believe Solutreans left behind any genetic traces; however, that is not to say a few groups weren't kicking around the East Coast about 20kya, dropping lithics as they worked their way through the landscape.
They may have done and we just haven't haven't found them , but we both know that there are no genetics , as yet , to provide succour for the hypothesis
What is left of the Solutrean hypothesis that is not problematic ?
Conversely, why do Clovis Firsters think nobody was in the Americas before Clovis? Various groups could have wandered through the landscape without leaving behind their genetics. Many incursions could have failed to take hold and multiply since there were only a few breeding couples, if any. That explanation goes a long way in explaining anomalous pre-Clovis finds.
Clovis and Clovis firsters have no impact on the S.H. . Conversely the SH if it was ever confirmed as true would impact on CF .
CF straw men , ifs and buts and qualifiers are not evidence of Solutreans .
What is left of the Solutrean hypothesis that is not problematic ?
Thus spake Tiompan, our resident didactic, dogmatic dictator; our pedantic pedagogue; our self appointed forum Nazi. Er... Should I have said valiant protector of the status quo? He's here to read your posts & vett them for accuracy. He parses your posts for spelling, meaning & CONTENT... Tirelessly & thanklessly picking apart all posts in this forum ad infinitum, ad nauseum...
Accompanying theme music: Thus Spake Zarathustra ~ Richard Strauss.
His mission, like that of Nomad in the Star Trek episode The Changeling, is to "find and sterilize imperfection".
I ask you... Can there be any nobler mission?
"Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
On the other hand the Solutrean hypothesis , is a belief , with much of it shown to be at least unlikely ,and what is left ,
Then it is a belief with artifacts which puts it far above religion which is based on pious blather and little more.
We also have evidence of Vikings in north eastern Canada 1,000 years ago, yet they also left little impact of their presence.
But they were here.
And, Clovis-Firsters are far too willing to ignore evidence that Clovis was Second... or Third.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
On the other hand the Solutrean hypothesis , is a belief , with much of it shown to be at least unlikely ,and what is left ,
Then it is a belief with artifacts which puts it far above religion which is based on pious blather and little more.
The rest of the sentence was "and what is left ,like the tooth fairy , cannot be falsified ,and like the tooth fairy it will be accepted by the agnostics when the evidence is forthcoming ."
i.e. it's most famous putataive artefact , like some bits of the cross is hugely problematic .
We also have evidence of Vikings in north eastern Canada 1,000 years ago, yet they also left little impact of their presence. But they were here.
The evidence proves they were . Any suggested evidence for a Solutrean presence is hugely problematical .
And, Clovis-Firsters are far too willing to ignore evidence that Clovis was Second... or Third.
"why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
What some believers believe about their particular faith may provide succour to another faith, if they can see problems with the other ,but it doesn't impact on the veracity of their own .
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
