Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:
Well RS I took the boat view for a number ofreasons.
One, Many of the implements previously used by the Innuit are near identical those used by the Solutreans.

Absolutely.
The Inuit (really proto-indians), however, never crossed oceans with even their 'modern' boats (say in the last 1,000 years)... So it's highly improbable that Solutreans would have been capable of that 18,000 years ago with currachs.

Two, you listed food sources, many of these would be most likely taken at sea rather that on land.

Sure, but the most important of those food sources – penguins – were also the easiest prey to catch (on the ice): they can't run away! No 'boat' required.
I wouldn't be surprised if penguins comprised 97% of their food sources (during the era they lived on the ice).

Three, to survive on the ice for the time scale required to transit the Atlantic I would think the following would be required. Fire making tools, a fire proof base for the fire, fuel for the fire, some form of vessel for heating water, something to suspend that above the fire, fishing lines and hooks, harpoons and lines and possibly floats for the lines, flint or similar, knapping tools, spare clothing, emergency food supplies, a shelter.
If they travelled with women and children, (logical) supplies for those as well.

Absolutely.
The Inuit have done precisely that for millennia!

Man hauling of sleds across pack ice is a killing task, I'd use a boat!

Sure, IF you have a boat (worthy of that name) available to you.
Currachs are not much more than one-person floating devices. Totally unsuitable to haul cargoes. Or families. Let alone both. It was probably a great feat to even schlepp a harpooned seal to the 'shore' (pack-ice) with a currach. Your mother-in-law wouldn't climb into one even if you put a gun to her head! So currachs are not the way to get whole tribes across the Atlantic.
Walking is.

Digit wrote: Look at my previous post and tell me if they could have used less equipment,

I agree with this part.

this would suggest a deliberate move to known land.
Do you think the Pilgrim Fathers would have sailed out into the wide blue yonder with no expectation of finding land? I think not, even Leif Ericsson was following a known course.

The pilgrims knew there was land because someone made the journey then came back and told everyone about it. I doubt the same was true 20,000 years ago.

To survive in the New World was one thing, to have a viable gene pool infers colonisation, that means planning with a destination in mind and sufficient personnel.

Ahhh...we agree again.

As I pointed out Beag, lugging supplies over rough pack ice on a sled is a killer, it's been tried!

In addition to the above comments regarding the Solutreans and the Atlantic crossing I would to add the following: This scenario isn't so difficult to imagine. If people in curraghs decided to follow marine migrations towards the setting sun at a mere 10 miles per day average, they would make North America in 3 months. Once there, getting back home wouldn't be too difficult, just follow the rising sun. Boating on purpose, even in a curragh, was likely 20 miles a day on average with time off for bad weather, etc. Why go? Great fishing and adventure.

With regard to North America if a band of people decided to walk from the Atlantic to the Pacific just to see what was on the other side, they could easily do so in about two years while hunting (5 miles per day for 5 days of the week with two days off for partying). And we assume these people weren't curious about their environment?

Beagle wrote:http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... iner1.html

R/S, check out this link. Also google "Erectus Ahoy". It has become pretty accepted in many circles that humans had early seafaring capabilities.
Dennis Stanford et al agree with the route of migration that you've posted but they believe it was done by boat - hugging the ice shelf and hunting - sleeping on it at night.

Orthodox scientists should stomp all over this theory. But the silence says it all. Robert Bednarik, from Austalia, presents the evidence in the link above.

Digit, as I was saying, nothing was lugged over an ice pack with sledges. They would have to be in boats or not go at all.

I'll join you later today gents, I have some busywork.

While contemplating the formulae for deciding the plausibility of such a trip (and I believe it possible) don;t for get to factor in bad weather and the fact six months of the year is it dark.

I'll try and cover all my points in one post. Firstly, there ain't no Penguins in the Arctic and no evidence that there ever has been.
The similarity between Solutrean artifacts and those recently discovered in America are too similar to have been the end product of millenia of travelling.
There is no flint etc in the Arctic.
If these people left genetic evidence they must have been fairly numerous, that means colonisation, and as I suggested earlier that takes planning.
Walking that distance would require more supplies per person, plus dependents, than one man could carry.
The journey would have to be accomplished before they ran out of non-renewables, flint, firewood etc.
That means boats!
To the best of my knowledge the Australian natives have never been seen to use sea going vessels.
I submit this, they got there, they probably didn't swim, therefore logic forces us to believe boats, even if the evidence is lacking.

Cognito wrote:
And we assume these people weren't curious about their environment?

I don't think they could afford the luxury of being "curious about their environment", Cogito: I submit simple survival was by far no.1 they were interested in.
No. 2 was (is) mating.
"Curiosity about the environment" probably came 10,000 or even 15,000 years later: after farming had been invented and man had time on his hands (while waiting for the harvest).

No Monk! At the edge of the ice 18000yrs ago they would have been at something like the latitude of Spain, so darkness would not last six months.
As regards Charley comments I have to agree. If the Great Auk was still swimming the Atlantic at that time the Solutreans would have known that there was land in the direction of the sun set!

My view entirely Beag, no boats, then don't go.
The Solutreans had harpoons, that also suggests hunting from boats.

Australias a different issue, Digit. The sea levels were 120 meters lower during the LGM and chains of islands run between asia and australia. They could easily see the next island in the chain.

As for the arctic circle, the theory stated that halpogroup X2 was on Orkney Islands. Thats pretty far north isn't it?

The Orkneys are indeed as you describe Monk, but they are not subject to polar nights.
If you lived on the western seaboard of Europe Monk, and each spring the Great Auk was seen to depart in large numbers towards the west, to re-appear six months later accompanied by part grown youngsters, what conclusion would you draw from that?

Digit wrote: Firstly, there ain't no Penguins in the Arctic

Correct.

and no evidence that there ever has been.

Incorrect.

The similarity between Solutrean artifacts and those recently discovered in America are too similar to have been the end product of millenia of travelling.

That would point to 'mere' centuries of travelling then, doesn't it? No less possible. In fact more probable than millennia.

There is no flint etc in the Arctic.

"Flint etc" is not neccessary to survive in the arctic.
The Inuit did/do without.

If these people left genetic evidence they must have been fairly numerous, that means colonisation, and as I suggested earlier that takes planning.

Why would colonisation require long-term 'planning'? Isn't simply setting up camp colonisation?

Walking that distance would require more supplies per person, plus dependents, than one man could carry.
The journey would have to be accomplished before they ran out of non-renewables, flint, firewood etc.
That means boats!

Not to the Inuit it doesn't!
The Solutreans (and the Inuit) adapted to their environment and simply found alternative 'renewables': fat you can burn and eat, flesh you can eat, skin/fur you can wear and use to carry stuff in or to make 'ropes', bones you can fashion into a multitude of tools.

To the best of my knowledge the Australian natives have never been seen to use sea going vessels.
I submit this, they got there, they probably didn't swim, therefore logic forces us to believe boats, even if the evidence is lacking.

Considering that the Ozzie aboriginals probably arrived in Oz about 50,000 years ago*, the likelihood of them using 'boats' to get there (whole tribes...?) is very improbable. To put it mildly.
They simply walked too! Sea levels were hundreds of feet lower than today.
* 2 to 3 times as long ago as the Solutrean walkabout...

If it had taken even hundreds of years the tools would have ceased to be made of flint as was used by the Solutreans. As you correctly point out the Innuit manage without flint, had the journey taken many lifetimes the chances of the American discoveries being so similar would be extraordinary as by then the Solutreans would have had to turn to bone, there is no evidence to suggest that in the American finds.
Yes the Innuit use sledges, but not for long distances, they use boats for that.
Setting up camp is not colonisation, colonisation infers a long term stay with children being raised in the new environment.
If the Oz natives didn't use boats what do you suggest they did use?
50000yrs ago infers knowledge that predated the Solutrean saga by 32000yrs, long enough to develop a seafairing history.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Minimalist wrote:Do you have a decent internet connection, R/S?

DSL: 8 mbps downstream, 1,5 mbps upstream.

I'll send you a National Geographic special that was recently done on this issue....assuming I can find it.

It will come with instructions on how to download the plug in. It's a service called pando which allows for really large e-mail attachments.

Anyway, the show deals with this very issue.