Is the solutrean hypothesis correct

[melo13]

Basically the solutrean hypothesis states europeans made it to the americas first. Evidence comes from archaeological finds on the east coast that date older than ones on the west coast. If "beringians" came to the americas first woudlnt we expect to find older artifacts on the west coast instead of the east coast?

 

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

 

 

[pavelcherepan]

I think only a handful of scientists consider this theory to be likely scenario of migration:

 

 

 

Most professionals discount the theory for a variety of reasons—including the fact that the differences between the two tool-making traditions far outweigh the similarities, the several thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean they would have had to cross, and the 5,000-year-span that separates the two cultures.^[70][71] Genetic studies of Native American populations have also shown that the Solutrean theory is unlikely, showing instead that the five main mtDNA haplogroups found in the Americas were all part of one gene pool migration from Asia.^[72]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Atlantic_coastal_model

[melo13]

I think only a handful of scientists consider this theory to be likely scenario of migration:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Atlantic_coastal_model

i Understand that it is highly unlikely but i was just wondering why all the oldest artifacts show up on the east coast when supposedly we came from the west.

[pavelcherepan]

i Understand that it is highly unlikely but i was just wondering why all the oldest artifacts show up on the east coast when supposedly we came from the west.

 

a. You'll need to provide some evidence of the above.

b. The northern part of North America was cold, covered in glaciation and was not very hospitable place. I'd imagine that migrating people would quickly migrate south to some warmer and friendlier lands.

c. Say, you have some artifacts left in the North on top of glaciation. What would happen with those when glaciers eventually melted?

[melo13]

 

a. You'll need to provide some evidence of the above.

b. The northern part of North America was cold, covered in glaciation and was not very hospitable place. I'd imagine that migrating people would quickly migrate south to some warmer and friendlier lands.

c. Say, you have some artifacts left in the North on top of glaciation. What would happen with those when glaciers eventually melted?

I had already posted links to archaeological finds but i will again. Like i said though, i realize it is highly unlikely but it was bugging me and i thought i'd come on here where people tend to know what they're talking about. Your other points actually explain a lot, I had gotten into an argument with some random guy about the solutrean hypothesis and he had showed me these links, I guess i was so used to thinking of the west coast as this dry hot place that i forgot it was a lot colder back then and people moving more southeastern isn't really that far fetched. either way though these artifacts are older and are on the east coast.

 

EDIT: "Say, you have some artifacts left in the North on top of glaciation. What would happen with those when glaciers eventually melted? "

 

How is a lack of evidence considered evidence? I know you didn't mean it like this but it seems kind of like an excuse. Solutrean supporters will sometimes claim the lack of maritime tools and other equipment on the ice the solutrean would of had to travel on are at the bottom of the Atlantic. both of these explanations seem like excuses to me.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

 

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

Edited May 28, 2015 by melo13

[pavelcherepan]

I had already posted links to archaeological finds but i will again. Like i said though, i realize it is highly unlikely but it was bugging me and i thought i'd come on here where people tend to know what they're talking about. Your other points actually explain a lot, I had gotten into an argument with some random guy about the solutrean hypothesis and he had showed me these links, I guess i was so used to thinking of the west coast as this dry hot place that i forgot it was a lot colder back then and people moving more southeastern isn't really that far fetched. either way though these artifacts are older and are on the east coast.

 

EDIT: "Say, you have some artifacts left in the North on top of glaciation. What would happen with those when glaciers eventually melted? "

 

How is a lack of evidence considered evidence? I know you didn't mean it like this but it seems kind of like an excuse. Solutrean supporters will sometimes claim the lack of maritime tools and other equipment on the ice the solutrean would of had to travel on are at the bottom of the Atlantic. both of these explanations seem like excuses to me.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

 

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

 

OK. Firstly, you have rather misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't trying to go all out ad ignorantiam but rather I was trying to give a reason as to why archaeological finds in the north of North America are less common. There are other reasons too. For example, mainland US is densely populated, but western Canada and Alaska are not and so while it's very normal for some farmer in the continental US to find stone tools in his paddock and call archaeologists, such situation is much less likely in Canada or Alaska. Also, see below the map of archaeological sites in North America older than 8000 years. As you can see, while there's not as many sites in the north-west the distribution of those is quite consistent with migration from Asia.

 

 

Secondly, the solutrean hypothesis is based predominantly on similarity of stone tools found in Clovis, New Mexico with those found in Europe. But if you look at the map, Clovis is not what you can refer to as "east coast", actually it's location again is quite consistent with the general theory of migration from Asia to Alaska and then south-east along the Rockies.

 

 

 

 

either way though these artifacts are older and are on the east coast.

 

Yet again I have to ask you for some sort of evidence showing that all the oldest archaeological sites are on the east coast. I have read the links you have posted, but nowhere does it say that all of the oldest sites are in the east.

Edited May 29, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[melo13]

 

OK. Firstly, you have rather misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't trying to go all out ad ignorantiam but rather I was trying to give a reason as to why archaeological finds in the north of North America are less common. There are other reasons too. For example, mainland US is densely populated, but western Canada and Alaska are not and so while it's very normal for some farmer in the continental US to find stone tools in his paddock and call archaeologists, such situation is much less likely in Canada or Alaska. Also, see below the map of archaeological sites in North America older than 8000 years. As you can see, while there's not as many sites in the north-west the distribution of those is quite consistent with migration from Asia.

 

 

Secondly, the solutrean hypothesis is based predominantly on similarity of stone tools found in Clovis, New Mexico with those found in Europe. But if you look at the map, Clovis is not what you can refer to as "east coast", actually it's location again is quite consistent with the general theory of migration from Asia to Alaska and then south-east along the Rockies.

 

 

 

Yet again I have to ask you for some sort of evidence showing that all the oldest archaeological sites are on the east coast. I have read the links you have posted, but nowhere does it say that all of the oldest sites are in the east.

 

Well their point is that europeans came over here by crossing the Atlantic preclovis or not. So it doesn't really matter where the clovis are. I would have expected to find more articles for older evidence but they tend to be from racist websites. The only suitable links i Found were the two that i just posted earlier but just googling "oldest tools dated in north america" i can already show you 3 sites that state the oldest tools are 12,000 to 15,000 years old. So why do my links say the oldest tools are 19,000 to 26,000 years old and found in Virginia? Like i said, you explained that confusing part but at the same time it's irritating because i have this source that says this and another that says the opposite. I'm just trying to be sure.

all of these are what state the dates are 12,000- 15,000

http://www.redorbit....america-030815/

http://westerndigs.o...in-western-u-s/

http://www.theguardi...ica-stone-tools

Edited May 29, 2015 by melo13

[TM1]

 

OK. Firstly, you have rather misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't trying to go all out ad ignorantiam but rather I was trying to give a reason as to why archaeological finds in the north of North America are less common. There are other reasons too. For example, mainland US is densely populated, but western Canada and Alaska are not and so while it's very normal for some farmer in the continental US to find stone tools in his paddock and call archaeologists, such situation is much less likely in Canada or Alaska. Also, see below the map of archaeological sites in North America older than 8000 years. As you can see, while there's not as many sites in the north-west the distribution of those is quite consistent with migration from Asia.

 

 

Secondly, the solutrean hypothesis is based predominantly on similarity of stone tools found in Clovis, New Mexico with those found in Europe. But if you look at the map, Clovis is not what you can refer to as "east coast", actually it's location again is quite consistent with the general theory of migration from Asia to Alaska and then south-east along the Rockies.

 

 

 

Yet again I have to ask you for some sort of evidence showing that all the oldest archaeological sites are on the east coast. I have read the links you have posted, but nowhere does it say that all of the oldest sites are in the east.

 

1) You are totally correct in your assertion that due to the nature and density of habitation of the US East compared to the US West, this makes finding paleoindian sites much more likely. This does not, however, explain the reliable difference in lithic technologies associated with specific, time-indicating geologic strata in different geographic regions. When it comes to this particular question, a stone point is not a stone point is not a stone point.

 

2) Your assertion that Souletrean hypothesis is predicated on a comparison of stone tools associated with "Clovis, New Mexico" is completely incorrect and suggests you don't know much- if anything- about this topic but nevertheless tried to Google-Fake-Knowledge your way through it. The Solutrean Hypothesis supporting tools in question are yielded a) mostly from the Delmarva area and B) from context indicators suggesting timeframes WAY before the Clovis range. While that particular area of lithic technology is named for Clovis, NM (since that's when they were first discovered in the 1920's), Clovis tools have been found everywhere in North America but chiefly associated with the westerly locations and in a timeframe roughly 13,000 BP. That leaves an intervening 5,000-8,000 years for the two to commingle or influence each other (thus explaining why Clovis bears such a striking resemblance to Solutrean technologies)

 

Whether or not Solutrean Hypothesis is ultimately correct is something historians will have to decide on, but I'm just old enough to remember all the strident and "CASE, CLOSED!" theories that were presented about the extinction of the Neanderthals... how smug and confident various 'academic establishments' were until OOPS! Turns out this weird, new technology called "DNA Sequencing" revealed the presence of Neanderthal DNA in specific groups of human beings, thus shattering everything the 'experts' once claimed. There is pretty compelling stuff for Pre Clovis / "Archaic" peoples in North America who may have not come from Asia and who may or may not have made much- if any- contribution to the larger genetic makeup of present day NA's.

 

Sorry to necro an old post but for whatever reason, this ranks in Google and there were a few errors that needed to be corrected.

Edited December 9, 2015 by TM1

[pavelcherepan]

Thanks for your reply, and I guess there are a few things that I need to clarify. First off, I've never claimed to be an expert in the topic, but I come to this forum to learn new things and participate in meaningful discussions, and this discussion seemed interesting. Obviously, when looking up my "Google-Fake-Knowledge" I couldn't get all the information that you seem to know, but what I've seen was enough to form some sort of opinion on the matter. I'm happy to be proven wrong but unfortunately the OP didn't stay to discuss further.

 

Secondly, while I think that your comment is rather interesting and informative it could do with a little less condescension and appeal to authority.

 

Lastly, the Solutrean hypothesis is not a generally accepted idea and I can play devil's advocate as much as I please. Again, it's unfortunate that OP didn't stay for longer so that we could discuss it more.

 

I'll have a bit more read on the topic and will come back with more discussion points if you're keen to keep going.

[TM1]

I'm not appealing to any authority. Solutrean Hypothesis stands on its own two feet, even if it does require compounding presumptions (as most any prehistorical theorems will)

.

"Across Atlantic Ice" postulates one possible concept as far as 'how' the voyage was made but even if we disregard that, it cites a base of technological evidence that is extremely compelling.

 

SH is clearly an issue that suffers from agenda problems and intellectual dishonesty. If we disregard white supremacists who champion the pro SH side, I think we have to be equally mindful to disregard the vastly larger- and more mainstream- group of people for whom a certain sort of 'racial identity advocacy' is viewed as a high-minded moral issue and against whom SH works. These tend to be the people willing to accept any shallow assertion as disproof of SH. When you look at what evidence these people claim 'debunks' SH, its not decisive and not very compelling (for example, DNA sequencing a Clovis era person- Anzick1- found in Montana, and the absence of traditionally "European allele's")

 

We can never know for absolute certain whether or not SH is true, but we can look at the evidence and at a minimum, it's certainly compelling. What gets hard to watch are the agenda-driven types who are willing to accept garbage to refute SH, because they don't like what it stands for. If you're going to debunk SH, debunk it with something meritorious.

 

(Keep in mind I'm using "you" generally, not you = you)

Edited December 10, 2015 by TM1