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 " .
The HENGES of North America (was something about X mt DNA)
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Re: X mt DNA in North America
Was that a non sequitur, or guilt by association?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 " .
Natural selection favors the paranoid
Re: X mt DNA in North America
Was that a non sequitur, or guilt by association? [/quote]
I don't see the religious analogy as being a non sequitur , more inappropriate .
But if it is to be applied then the Solutrean Hypothesis "crowd" are more deserving .
I don't see the religious analogy as being a non sequitur , more inappropriate .
But if it is to be applied then the Solutrean Hypothesis "crowd" are more deserving .
-
circumspice
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm
Re: X mt DNA in North America
There you have it... The voice of authority has spoken.
"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
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
Re: X mt DNA in North America
As opposed to the usual loud mouthed lack of content .circumspice wrote:There you have it... The voice of authority has spoken
It's an opinion . If you have a different one , why didn't you express it ?
-
circumspice
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm
Re: X mt DNA in North America
You don't allow others to have opinions that differ from your own. If I expressed my opinion on any subject whatsoever you'd pick it apart, parse it, flog it to death, demand refutation & then finally demand total agreement to your opinion. I think I'll pass.Tiompan wrote:As opposed to the usual loud mouthed lack of content .circumspice wrote:There you have it... The voice of authority has spoken
It's an opinion . If you have a different one , why didn't you express it ?
"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
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
Re: X mt DNA in North America
I manage to stop the loud mouthed opinion by not allowing it ? . Lol .
Re: X mt DNA in North America
Actually, stating that the Clovis First position is a religion is a form of ad hominem argument and your comment about the Solutrean Hypothesis "crowd" being more deserving is the same. Since one logical fallacy does not follow another, you've piled on with a non sequitur by linking the two.I don't see the religious analogy as being a non sequitur , more inappropriate .
But if it is to be applied then the Solutrean Hypothesis "crowd" are more deserving .
Hypotheses can be disproved by a single exception, as pointed out often by Chris Hardaker. In my estimation, the Clovis First Hypothesis has been disproved, initially by the finds at Monte Verde and then by a variety of other sites, including Page-Ladson a la Mike Waters, so on and so forth.
Regardless, people like Stuart Feidel and Jared Diamond stubbornly hang onto Clovis First while demanding extraordinary proof (i.e. pre-Clovis skeletal material, etc.). With each new find, they move the goal posts a little farther down the field, now to the point where they are out of the stadium ... Those who accept the Solutrean Hypothesis have a less stringent view of proof and, as Min pointed out, those bifaces in Virginia wound up there somehow, maybe sailors from Europe or elsewhere. I'm skeptical; however, I haven't seen a better explanation for their existence so far other than a Solutrean incursion.
Natural selection favors the paranoid
Re: X mt DNA in North America
My response was to Min's original one i.e." The Clovis-First crowd always has a problem with everything. They are very "religious" in that regard."
I also said that I thought it inappropriate .
There are big problems with the SH and Monte Verde does not support it .
A less stringent view of proof sounds like a euphemism for lack of evidence i.e .much of based on faith or wishful thinking whilst at the same time ignoring
dissent , and not just from Clovis firsters .
The most famous biface ,see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X15000280 .
I also said that I thought it inappropriate .
There are big problems with the SH and Monte Verde does not support it .
A less stringent view of proof sounds like a euphemism for lack of evidence i.e .much of based on faith or wishful thinking whilst at the same time ignoring
dissent , and not just from Clovis firsters .
The most famous biface ,see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X15000280 .
Re: X mt DNA in North America
Cognito wrote: “Why go in the first place”
Good point.
What would make a man pick up his family and go into the unknown?
It has happened in historical times.
The Irish and Italian emigrations to the US, the “Okies” to CA, etc.
Has anyone examined the conditions at source end at this time?
Good point.
What would make a man pick up his family and go into the unknown?
It has happened in historical times.
The Irish and Italian emigrations to the US, the “Okies” to CA, etc.
Has anyone examined the conditions at source end at this time?
Re: X mt DNA in North America
I don't have a problem with exploration for the sake of it , or even accidental tourism but the problem with the method of travel , route and survival has been covered by
Oceanographers and archaeologists http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.3721/J080527 .Needless to say the main proponents of the hypothesis are not oceanographers .
And that is not the only non archaeological discipline that has found flaws in the hypothesis .
Oceanographers and archaeologists http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.3721/J080527 .Needless to say the main proponents of the hypothesis are not oceanographers .
And that is not the only non archaeological discipline that has found flaws in the hypothesis .
Re: X mt DNA in North America
We both agree on that point.I don't have a problem with exploration for the sake of it , or even accidental tourism ...
Actually, I would like to see LGM knowledgeable geologists weigh in on the topic also since Eurasia and North America looked totally different than today. The transit corridor would have been much shorter and any back-and-forth migrations of seafood would have been reason enough to follow in either direction after the introduction of boats which, by the way, preceded the LGM (think Australia circa 50kya, Japan circa 30kya, etc.).but the problem with the method of travel , route and survival has been covered by Oceanographers and archaeologists http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.3721/J080527.
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.Needless to say the main proponents of the hypothesis are not oceanographers .
And that is not the only non archaeological discipline that has found flaws in the hypothesis .
Natural selection favors the paranoid
Re: X mt DNA in North America
Of the several bipoints from the eastern seaboard that have been touted as Solutrean in origin, the two that interested me the most were the two believed to be made of French flint. One had to be discounted because it was found beneath the chimney foundation of a colonial era cellar hole. I inquired about the other and a knowlwdgable friend relayed the following information on these bipoints made from a European flint:
"In “Bipoints before Clovis” Hranicky describes a Solutrean-like point as “found in a 1980 Browning Farm Site (44CC8) excavation in Virginia (Buchanan and Owen 1981)” and also as “found in the Epps [sic] Island site” and that it was “found in a trash pit”. He cites XRF fingerprinting by the Smithsonian as a “near perfect match” to French gunflint material and cites “Bradley 2012” as a reference. He doesn’t specifically say French “Grand Pressigny” flint, but I would assume that’s what he means. Hranicky provides a picture on page 169 which I probably shouldn’t publish for copyright reasons but I can send you it by e-mail if it helps.
It is nevertheless very clearly the same biface as in Clovisoid’s picture, which I would agree is the second example (of claimed French flint). Hranicky adds a caption to the picture saying that it shows “recent breakage” and that the patination shows that “one face was up” during its burial prehistory/deposition.
He adds some confusion by then citing Howard MacCord (Buchanan & Owen 1981): “Its outer surface is patinated with a thick white layer of corrosion products. It had been broken before burial since two small slivers of the stone are missing and the two larger pieces were physically separated about 2 feet when found.”
The confusion arises in part from the apparent contradiction between “recent breakage” and “broken before burial”. Further confusion arises from citing “Bradley 2012” as a reference since it could be (and has incorrectly been) read as referring to the last-minute note on page 110 of “Across Atlantic Ice”. That wasn’t Hranricky’s intention and the note is in any case clearly attributed to Stanford, not Bradley. Stanford’s note describes a completely different point, which I believe was the “first” (of claimed French flint). He describes it as found “in the 1970’s” [other sources specifically say 1971, which is ten years earlier than the point Hranicky describes] from “archaeological excavation of a 17th Century colonial homestead on Eppes island, Virginia” [ie the same general locality as the second point] and found “below a clay chimney” [ie different circumstances]. He references “Grand Pressigny” flint specifically rather than just “French” with regard to the results of the XRF testing. There’s no mention of it being broken and Stanford doesn’t provide a picture.
I think it’s this first point mentioned by Stanford for which we don’t have a picture or any better formal documentation (as far as I know). I believe that although he included the brief last-minute note in his book as it was going to press, he subsequently reconsidered the wisdom of using that point as further evidence because of the uncertain provenience which has the potential to “taint” other evidence on a “guilt by association” basis . He hints at that in the note by saying it couldn’t be ruled out as a 17th Century colonial import for example although I would say it’s pretty unlikely to have come in with flint ballast in a ship as some have suggested. The island was largely settled by the British, which some have taken as an indication that the point wasn’t imported from France, but that neglects the fact that the Solutreans spread from France to Britain – albeit in very limited numbers (as well as to Portugal and Spain). British-found Palaeo artefacts made from French lithics are – in general – not that uncommon.
My take is that Stanford lost interest in the point for those reasons (again, he hints at that in the note by saying it’s “not the smoking gun” but “an intriguing piece of evidence”, however its brief mention in the book nevertheless established it in many minds as the “only” example (of claimed French flint) at the time because the 1981 example wasn’t mentioned at all. I would presume that was because the detailed assessment of its characteristics (which were not initiated until much later) were not ready in time for the publication deadline.
It’s easy to see how the confusion might have arisen.
The circumstances of the second find were published in “The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County: Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Randolph M. Owen - Quarterly Bulletin Archeological, Society of Virginia. Vol. 35, No. 3 (March 1981), pp. 139-158” but I don’t know of a free source for that and haven’t read it myself. I don’t know why Hranicky quotes MacCord when it was Buchanan & Owen’s paper. Maybe MacCord provided an introduction to the paper or editorial comment in the bulletin."
-------------------------------------------------------------
The thread in question, from which the above information is copied, is archived here:
http://forum.arrowheads.com/index.php/f ... t?start=15
I have seen photos of one of the bipointed blades, the broken one, made from French flint, as it was displayed at the Paleoamerican Oddesey conference in Sante Fe a few years ago. It may be in the above link, I haven't checked. Unfortunately, one photo I'm aware of was posted using photobucket, which recently imposed fees, and all archived photos anywhere on the internet were purged.
We should keep in mind how many elements of Solutrean "culture"(it's really a technology, not a culture) have not been found in the Delmarva Peninsula. We should also keep in mind the criticism that did indeed arise regarding the find circumstances of the Cinmar blade. We should also keep in mind the presence of bipoints in later Native American cultures. It may be debatable that outre passé flaking technology is only found in Solutrean and Clovis bifaces, and never during later periods.
Of further interest, perhaps the finest made of these east coast bipoints, that have been included in Stanford's sample size of potential Solutrean derived bipoints, was discovered by Jack Hranicky in a Providence, RI artifact collection, and purchased by him. It was included in the display of these blades at the Paleoamerican Oddesey in Sante Fe. It is reproduced here as a cast. Good photos and line drawings of both sides:
http://cart.occpaleo.com/boatsbladepaleobifacecast.aspx
Note, there is no real find location for this blade beyond its residence in a southern New England collection. Others from the Delmarva have been for sale on the internet for several years now....
"In “Bipoints before Clovis” Hranicky describes a Solutrean-like point as “found in a 1980 Browning Farm Site (44CC8) excavation in Virginia (Buchanan and Owen 1981)” and also as “found in the Epps [sic] Island site” and that it was “found in a trash pit”. He cites XRF fingerprinting by the Smithsonian as a “near perfect match” to French gunflint material and cites “Bradley 2012” as a reference. He doesn’t specifically say French “Grand Pressigny” flint, but I would assume that’s what he means. Hranicky provides a picture on page 169 which I probably shouldn’t publish for copyright reasons but I can send you it by e-mail if it helps.
It is nevertheless very clearly the same biface as in Clovisoid’s picture, which I would agree is the second example (of claimed French flint). Hranicky adds a caption to the picture saying that it shows “recent breakage” and that the patination shows that “one face was up” during its burial prehistory/deposition.
He adds some confusion by then citing Howard MacCord (Buchanan & Owen 1981): “Its outer surface is patinated with a thick white layer of corrosion products. It had been broken before burial since two small slivers of the stone are missing and the two larger pieces were physically separated about 2 feet when found.”
The confusion arises in part from the apparent contradiction between “recent breakage” and “broken before burial”. Further confusion arises from citing “Bradley 2012” as a reference since it could be (and has incorrectly been) read as referring to the last-minute note on page 110 of “Across Atlantic Ice”. That wasn’t Hranricky’s intention and the note is in any case clearly attributed to Stanford, not Bradley. Stanford’s note describes a completely different point, which I believe was the “first” (of claimed French flint). He describes it as found “in the 1970’s” [other sources specifically say 1971, which is ten years earlier than the point Hranicky describes] from “archaeological excavation of a 17th Century colonial homestead on Eppes island, Virginia” [ie the same general locality as the second point] and found “below a clay chimney” [ie different circumstances]. He references “Grand Pressigny” flint specifically rather than just “French” with regard to the results of the XRF testing. There’s no mention of it being broken and Stanford doesn’t provide a picture.
I think it’s this first point mentioned by Stanford for which we don’t have a picture or any better formal documentation (as far as I know). I believe that although he included the brief last-minute note in his book as it was going to press, he subsequently reconsidered the wisdom of using that point as further evidence because of the uncertain provenience which has the potential to “taint” other evidence on a “guilt by association” basis . He hints at that in the note by saying it couldn’t be ruled out as a 17th Century colonial import for example although I would say it’s pretty unlikely to have come in with flint ballast in a ship as some have suggested. The island was largely settled by the British, which some have taken as an indication that the point wasn’t imported from France, but that neglects the fact that the Solutreans spread from France to Britain – albeit in very limited numbers (as well as to Portugal and Spain). British-found Palaeo artefacts made from French lithics are – in general – not that uncommon.
My take is that Stanford lost interest in the point for those reasons (again, he hints at that in the note by saying it’s “not the smoking gun” but “an intriguing piece of evidence”, however its brief mention in the book nevertheless established it in many minds as the “only” example (of claimed French flint) at the time because the 1981 example wasn’t mentioned at all. I would presume that was because the detailed assessment of its characteristics (which were not initiated until much later) were not ready in time for the publication deadline.
It’s easy to see how the confusion might have arisen.
The circumstances of the second find were published in “The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County: Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Randolph M. Owen - Quarterly Bulletin Archeological, Society of Virginia. Vol. 35, No. 3 (March 1981), pp. 139-158” but I don’t know of a free source for that and haven’t read it myself. I don’t know why Hranicky quotes MacCord when it was Buchanan & Owen’s paper. Maybe MacCord provided an introduction to the paper or editorial comment in the bulletin."
-------------------------------------------------------------
The thread in question, from which the above information is copied, is archived here:
http://forum.arrowheads.com/index.php/f ... t?start=15
I have seen photos of one of the bipointed blades, the broken one, made from French flint, as it was displayed at the Paleoamerican Oddesey conference in Sante Fe a few years ago. It may be in the above link, I haven't checked. Unfortunately, one photo I'm aware of was posted using photobucket, which recently imposed fees, and all archived photos anywhere on the internet were purged.
We should keep in mind how many elements of Solutrean "culture"(it's really a technology, not a culture) have not been found in the Delmarva Peninsula. We should also keep in mind the criticism that did indeed arise regarding the find circumstances of the Cinmar blade. We should also keep in mind the presence of bipoints in later Native American cultures. It may be debatable that outre passé flaking technology is only found in Solutrean and Clovis bifaces, and never during later periods.
Of further interest, perhaps the finest made of these east coast bipoints, that have been included in Stanford's sample size of potential Solutrean derived bipoints, was discovered by Jack Hranicky in a Providence, RI artifact collection, and purchased by him. It was included in the display of these blades at the Paleoamerican Oddesey in Sante Fe. It is reproduced here as a cast. Good photos and line drawings of both sides:
http://cart.occpaleo.com/boatsbladepaleobifacecast.aspx
Note, there is no real find location for this blade beyond its residence in a southern New England collection. Others from the Delmarva have been for sale on the internet for several years now....
Re: X mt DNA in North America
OK, the first link I posted above does indeed retain a photo of the broken bipoint made of French flint, or so it's claimed. It is blade #11 in comment #143935 at the following page:
http://forum.arrowheads.com/index.php/f ... tyle-point
Even given its find circumstance beneath the chimney foundation of a colonial cellar hole, I don't think it proves the colonist deposited it there. It just precludes it from being any kind of "smoking gun" for Solutrean presence. But there is that second example, for which I did eventually see a photo. I believe Hranicky would be able to provide that photo, or one could seek out the published paper describing the site where it was found, cited above in the excerpt from a friend that I copied in my previous comment here.
Further discussion and photos at this archived thread:
https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/gen ... erica-news
http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com.au/20 ... e.html?m=1
"What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint."(from the above blog entry)
http://forum.arrowheads.com/index.php/f ... tyle-point
Even given its find circumstance beneath the chimney foundation of a colonial cellar hole, I don't think it proves the colonist deposited it there. It just precludes it from being any kind of "smoking gun" for Solutrean presence. But there is that second example, for which I did eventually see a photo. I believe Hranicky would be able to provide that photo, or one could seek out the published paper describing the site where it was found, cited above in the excerpt from a friend that I copied in my previous comment here.
Further discussion and photos at this archived thread:
https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/gen ... erica-news
http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com.au/20 ... e.html?m=1
"What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint."(from the above blog entry)
Re: X mt DNA in North America
I have read the back and forth regarding the Solutrean Hypothesis for years now. I only knew one individual who took it to the extreme of "true believer", in the hypothesis, to a degree which might be compared to a religion I suppose. Otherwise, I find the suggestion untrue. I've seen good arguments on both sides of this debate. There are a number of pre-Clovis sites in the Delmarva and elsewhere now. The entire subject is much more wide open due to the erosion of the Clovis First paradigm. You know, as has been often observed, new ideas and paradigms only fully take hold when the proponents of the old paradigm die off. It is often that way in many sciences. It's unfortunate I think, but it's also human nature. I would have an easier time equating American ubernationalism to a religion then I would equating Solutrean Hypothesis supporters to a religion. It's a minority opinion, it has not won the day, it awaits much more definitive evidence to ever win the day. But reputable scientists are promoting it, and certainly, the original problem with the time gap has been somewhat answered with the discovery of sites in the Delmarva in excess of 20,000 years BP. I guess one could make a case that Clovis First was a belief system. But it's the nature of paradigms in science in general to exhibit the trait of making it very difficult for mavericks to intrude with new ideas. See Thomas Kuhn's seminal study "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".