Page 12 of 13
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:14 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Frank Harrist wrote:6000 years is a little tough to overcome. I still like your theory, though it may need a little tweeking.
OK, so let's tweak:
Frank Harrist wrote:Perhaps "benefit of the doubt" was the wrong way to put it. Maybe I should have said "serious consideration", instead.
I'll give serious consideration to a theory if it is seriously presented to me: with arguments, links and references.
Frank Harrist wrote:I might point out that , also that there is a temporal discrepency with your theory. I thought I had posted this before:
No, you hadn't, afaik.
Frank Harrist wrote:"The general claim that Solutrean folks came across the north Atlantic in hide boats is a hypothesis put forth by Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley.
Ah! So I wasn't the first to propose this. I already thought that unlikely. Thanks for putting me straight here.
But there is a major difference with my theory: I think the Solutreans WALKED to America. Across the ice.
Frank Harrist wrote:Their claims are based largely on similarities in lithic technology between Pre-Clovis and Clovis materials from the New World and Solutrean in the Old World. * The problem with these claims is that most of the best comparisons are between Solutrean and Clovis, and they are separated by at least 6000 years in time as well the difference in location.* The quantity of Pre-Clovis materials from the Eastern U.S. is sparce at best and roughly compares to Solutrean in that they had blades and lanceolate points. Comparative technology is not the best way to demonstrate connections since there are only a limited number of ways to flake stone tools. Similar techniques were independently developed or rediscovered by different groups in different periods. For example, prismatic blades were made by both Clovis and Hopewell groups, but they are separated by 9000-10000 years with folks not making those things. Hopewell developed blade technology without contact with Paleoindians. Thus, take such comparisons with some skepticism, especially when there is no direct developmental link in the areas where they were found. Temporal separation negates most of these claims. As for the generalized comparisons of Solutrean with Clovis, etc., Lawrence Strauss (a Solutrean specialist) pretty well destroyed those arguments in an article:
Straus, Lawrence Guy
2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality.
American Antiquity 65(2):219-226.
I think the 6.000 year gap may be partly explained by the duration of the long trek across the Atlantic, across the ice. It wouldn't surprise me if that trek took at least centuries. Maybe even millennia. (How long have the Inuit already lived on the ice...?). Why so long? Could be because the solutreans weren't really trekking. They had no destination: they didn't know there was a land on the other side. So they weren't intentionally going there. They weren't going anywhere, really. I submit they simply lived on the ice. Like the Inuit. And one day, by pure accident, discovered the American landmass.
Frank Harrist wrote:"Finally, the claim that Kennewick is Caucasian is simply BS. That was a mistaken claim based on a statement by Chatters when he was first studying the remains. However, additional examinations indicate Kennewick (and other early remains) are most closely related to Asian populations like the Ainu and early generalized Asian groups."
What 'additional examinations'?
Afaik, only last fall the Kennewick remains were ordered by a judge to be made available for such examination. I am not aware that they 1) have actually been turned over since then to scientists by the indians, or 2) that such examinations have been concluded and publicly reported on. Or do you know something I don't?
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:13 am
by Frank Harrist
You said;
"What 'additional examinations'?
Afaik, only last fall the Kennewick remains were ordered by a judge to be made available for such examination. I am not aware that they 1) have actually been turned over since then to scientists by the indians, or 2) that such examinations have been concluded and publicly reported on. Or do you know something I don't?"
I wasn't aware of this either until they told me on the other forum. As I recall it was more than one person who told me that and I respect the two who did it so I beileve them. They aren't the type to make things up. I, like you, believed KM to be caucasian.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:34 am
by Frank Harrist
6000 years is a long time to live on barren ice with nothing to eat but seals and fish. I would imagine that scurvy would be a big problem. Also I was thinking there should be some kind of trail of evidence, but then again if it was on the ice it would now be at the bottom of the sea. Still more evidence could turn up to push the dates closer together. As always in archaeology, the jury still isn't in. Everything we say in the field of archaeology should be prefaced by the phrase, "as far as we can tell so far". It's an on-going process and theories which may seem foolish now may one day be proven correct. Discussion is very helpful and healthy, but actual evidence and proof are better.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:46 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Frank Harrist wrote:You said;
"What 'additional examinations'?
Afaik, only last fall the Kennewick remains were ordered by a judge to be made available for such examination. I am not aware that they 1) have actually been turned over since then to scientists by the indians, or 2) that such examinations have been concluded and publicly reported on. Or do you know something I don't?"
I wasn't aware of this either until they told me on the other forum. As I recall it was more than one person who told me that and I respect the two who did it so I beileve them. They aren't the type to make things up. I, like you, believed KM to be caucasian.
In other words: the jury is still out on this one!
Let's wait for some scientific corroboration. Either way.
Until then we'll have to make do with what we've got: first impressions (and not from a hot dog salesman either!). Until that thorough scientific report is published I'll stay with what we've got.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:49 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Frank Harrist wrote:6000 years is a long time to live on barren ice with nothing to eat but seals and fish. I would imagine that scurvy would be a big problem.
Well, it ain't a problem for the Inuit... So why would it be an insurmountable problem to the solutreans?
Oh, I remember how the Inuit handle it: whale, walrus, other seals and cod fish supply 'liver tear', which contains vitamin C...
Frank Harrist wrote:Also I was thinking there should be some kind of trail of evidence, but then again if it was on the ice it would now be at the bottom of the sea. Still more evidence could turn up to push the dates closer together. As always in archaeology, the jury still isn't in. Everything we say in the field of archaeology should be prefaced by the phrase, "as far as we can tell so far". It's an on-going process and theories which may seem foolish now may one day be proven correct. Discussion is very helpful and healthy, but actual evidence and proof are better.
Indeed.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:59 am
by Frank Harrist
I wasn't aware of the "liver tear" stuff. Also, I thought the Inuit lived close enough to land to get some veggies sometimes. I know next to nothing about them.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:13 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Frank Harrist wrote:I wasn't aware of the "liver tear" stuff. Also, I thought the Inuit lived close enough to land to get some veggies sometimes. I know next to nothing about them.
These days probably 90% plus of the Inuit live on land (but still hunt on the ice pack and in the sea). But up until a century ago they lived permanently on the ice pack. And had been doing so for millennia!
Re: Pre-historic proof.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:21 pm
by Guest
Rokcet Scientist wrote:I concur.
(Who would have thought we would ever agree on something, eh, Realist?
)
I know......I'm still in shock mate!
reply
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:45 pm
by Guest
With respect, Frank, that website has three or four interesting phrases on it:
The Amazons were "
believed to occupy the area around the Black Sea" - no actual proof then.
"The Amazons of Greek
mythology"
"I think the idea of the 'Amazon' was created by the the Greeks for their own purposes".
So it contradicts itself in the space of a few paragraphs.
And then there's this:
"A race of fierce women who mated with vanquished male foes and kept only the female children they bore"
Which bears comparison to a statement by daybrown:
daybrown wrote: men who don't own women don't go to war to get more of them
But it's alright for it to happen the other way round, apparently.
I dare say there are hundreds are of sites on the Amazons, but how many stand up to scrutiny, and how many are 1960s-style quasi-scientific BS and feminist propaganda?
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:55 pm
by Frank Harrist
Myths often have some basis in reality. Like the bible, for instance.
reply
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:09 pm
by Guest
But not all-like the Amazons, for instance.
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:08 pm
by Frank Harrist
reply
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:19 pm
by Guest
Frank,
That article states " in a find that hints at a matriarchal society"; it doesn't say "proves the existence of beyond all reasonable doubt". And it's also almost word for word what daybrown posted earlier anyway!
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:23 pm
by Frank Harrist
Find me anything in archaeology that "proves beyond all reasonable doubt" any theory. When it's proven it is no longer a theory. Then it's called a law. Show me one!
Re: reply
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:28 pm
by Frank Harrist
Realist wrote:Frank,
That article states " in a find that hints at a matriarchal society"; it doesn't say "proves the existence of beyond all reasonable doubt". And it's also almost word for word what daybrown posted earlier anyway!
There you go nit-pickin' again.
