The Solutrean hypothesis:
The Solutrean hypothesis is a controversial proposal that peoples from Europe may have been among the earliest settlers in the Americas, as evidenced by similarities in stone tool technology of the Solutrean culture from prehistoric Europe to that of the later Clovis tool-making culture found in the Americas. It was first proposed in 1998. Its key proponents include Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institution, and Bruce Bradley, of the University of Exeter.TYWKIWDBI had three posts on pre-Clovis finds last year, discussing skulls found in a Yucatan underwater cave, paleo-era tools on California's Channel Islands, and a pre-Clovis point found in a mastodon bone.
In this hypothesis, people associated with the Solutrean culture migrated from Ice Age Europe to North America, bringing their methods of making stone tools with them and providing the basis for later Clovis technology found throughout North America. The hypothesis rests upon particular similarities in Solutrean and Clovis technology that have no known counterparts in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia, areas from which or through which early Americans are known to have migrated.
Today the Washington Post and The Independent have articles about new findings on the Atlantic coast of North America that support the Solutrean hypothesis.
At the core of Stanford’s case are stone tools recovered from five mid-Atlantic sites. Two sites lie on Chesapeake Bay islands, suggesting that the Solutreans settled Delmarva early on. Smithsonian research associate Darrin Lowery found blades, anvils and other tools found stuck in soil at least 20,000 years old [note only the soil can be reliably dated, not the artifacts themselves]...One major problem facing investigators is that early peoples would have lived on the coast next to the ocean - but sea levels have risen so far since that time that the original coast is perhaps 50 miles off the current shoreline and deep underwater. Caves and artifacts from those locations are difficult to find.
Further, the Eastern Shore blades strongly resemble those found at dozens of Solutrean sites from the Stone Age in Spain and France, Stanford says. “We can match each one of 18 styles up to the sites in Europe.”..
Stone tools recovered from two other mid-Atlantic sites — Cactus Hills, Va., 45 miles south of Richmond, and Meadowcroft Rockshelter, in southern Pennsylvania — date to at least 16,000 years ago. Those tools, too, strongly resemble blades found in Europe...
“The reason people don’t like the Solutrean idea is the ocean,” he said. No Solutrean boats have been found. But given that people arrived in Australia some 60,000 years ago — and they didn’t walk there — wood-frame and seal-skin boats were clearly possible, Stanford argues...
Addendum: I've updated this post (originally published in 2012) to add some items I've recently encountered - first, from Germany's Der Spiegel, reporting on DNA studies of North Americans:
Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy's [Clovis-era, found in Montana] origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.
Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas -- from the Alaska's Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes -- are descended from Montana boy's lineage.
Last week, the scientists published the results of sequencing the child's DNA in the scientific journal Nature. Late last year, the same team published the decoded genome of another early human: A juvenile buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia some 24,000 years ago. Their genomes showed surprising ancestral similarities.
This earned Willerslev's team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages -- when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over -- in greater detail than ever before.That report is discussed in a Reddit thread and summarized on the Wikipedia page, and at USA Today:
When researchers analyzed the Anzick child's DNA and compared it to the genomes of living Native Americans, they found that the boy's family members were the ancestors of multiple Central and South American groups, such as the Maya of Central America and the Karitiana people of Brazil. Willerslev estimates that roughly 80% of Native Americans are descended from the Anzick group, contradicting claims by other scholars that the Clovis people didn't leave much of a genetic legacy...I have accordingly inserted "/denies" after "supports" in the post's title.
The results overturn the idea that migrants who colonized the Americas after the Clovis people are the true ancestors to Native Americans. And the discovery "puts the final nail in the coffin" for the idea that the ancestors of Native Americans may have crossed to the New World from Europe, says study author Ripan Malhi of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
With the genetic data, the researchers can construct a rough narrative of the peopling of the New World. From Siberia, ancient people gradually crossed a now-vanished land bridge to Alaska. Some drifted south, giving rise to the Clovis people and colonizing the United States and Central and South America. Others stayed in the north and founded the lineage leading to the modern-day Cree and Athabascan peoples of northern North America. The study is published in this week's Nature.
Addendum: Reposted again, in part because this post has become one of the most-commented posts I've ever created for TYWKIWDBI, and I'd like to have the current generation of readers be aware of it. Mostly I wanted to add this infomation from a recent comment:
Just returned from a visit with Dr. Al Goodyear and his folks at "The Topper Site" in South Carolina. Documented, dated by the best available science, Pre-Clovis artifacts found at a Chert quarry have been robustly tested and are found to be 50,000 years old +. In fact, charcoal remnants so old that Radio Carbon dating is impossible found in the same layer have proven the case for human occupation at the site . It is ,in fact, a tool manufacturing site of the first magnitude, It is located on the banks of the Savannah River in S.C.. It is interesting to note that more Clovis and Pre-Clovis artifacts have now been found of the East coast of the U.S.A.than all of the rest of the country. I know not what this means, but it definitely means something. Dr. Goodyear will publish a definitive paper very soon, but his find (The Topper Site) has been visited and observed by many national and international academe professionals and many of the artifacts examined in situ and in the lab.We'll have to await that "definitive paper" for details; I suspect it will encounter substantial resistance during the peer-review process. The Wikipedia entry offers the standard counterarguments:
Goodyear, who began excavating the Topper site in the 1980s, believes that lithic objects at that level are rudimentary stone tools (and thus "artifacts"). Other archaeologists dispute this conclusion, suggesting that the objects are natural and not human-made. Other archaeologists also have challenged the radiocarbon dating of the carbonized remains at Topper...A recent article on the Topper site was posted in Charleston's Post and Courier.
"Unifacial flake tools found at the top of the soil layer holding artifacts said to be 50,000 years old." Provided by Keith McGraw/University of South Carolina
Addendum: A 2017 BBC article updates information about trans-Beringia migration, but doesn't address the question of Solutreans.
Addendum: Reposted yet once again to add a flurry of links regarding a new report describing evidence suggesting human habitation in North American an incredible 130,000 years ago.
The report was published in Nature (top-of-the-line in terms of peer review):
Here we describe the Cerutti Mastodon (CM) site, an archaeological site from the early late Pleistocene epoch, where in situ hammerstones and stone anvils occur in spatio-temporal association with fragmentary remains of a single mastodon (Mammut americanum). The CM site contains spiral-fractured bone and molar fragments, indicating that breakage occured while fresh. Several of these fragments also preserve evidence of percussion...The key contentioius points: bones fractured fresh, bones fractured intentionally, tools found at the site, dating methodology.
230Th/U radiometric analysis of multiple bone specimens using diffusion–adsorption–decay dating models indicates a burial date of 130.7 ± 9.4 thousand years ago.
These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon limb bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool production.
Commentary at NBC News, BBC, The Guardian, The New Reddit Journal of Science.
If the findings are being correctly interpreted, this will require a massive, near-total revision of the history of human migration to the Americas.
I closed comments on this post long ago because of various contentious issues. I'll leave them closed for the present.
Addendum: The Atlantic has a superb article updating this subject and incorporating much new data.
Final (?) addendum: I just finished reading Jennifer Raff's Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas [2022]. I'm not going to take time to transcribe pages of information, but new findings in genetics have "struck the definitive blow against the Solutrean hypothesis." All of the earliest human genomic material in the Americas (including from an individual buried with Clovis artifacts) has Siberian roots. There are no connections to European genes [pages 46-52].
An interesting factoid: "There are estimates that over 1,000 languages were spoken in the Western Hemisphere at the time of European contact." [p.75]
Page 78 has a list of all the documented pre-Clovis sites in the Americas (Monte Verde, Paisley Caves, Page-Ladson, the Manis mastodon kill site, Huaca Prieta, Butterfmilk Creek complex, the Schaefer and Hebior sites in Wisconsin, Cactus Hill, Cooper's Ferry, Taima-Taima in Venezuela and many others... "Humans were in the Americas by (at the most conservative estimate) 15,000-14,000 years ago, more likely between 17,000 and 16,000 and perhaps even as early as 30,000-20,000 years ago."
The racist/white power excitement that surrounds this theory is truly despicable. So sad that these notions of white European superiority have to ingrain themselves in all aspects of history.
ReplyDelete?? why in the world would you consider this theory "racist?" You do understand this is about 20,000 years ago?
DeleteIntrigued by your comment, I did some searching. Apparently some neo-Nazis have embraced the Solutrean hypothesis to claim that North America was settled by "white" people first. Archaeologists know that this is nonsense. From an article at the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/spring/kyle-bristow-takes-aim-at-splc):
Delete"There are several major problems" with using the Solutrean Hypothesis to advance a white nationalist racial politics, said Stanford. The biggest, he explained, is that "even if the Solutrean hypothesis is demonstrated, there is no evidence that these people were the same race as modern Europeans; in fact, they most likely were not the same race. Their origin in Europe is a major research question. At the present, most scholars believe the people who made the European Solutrean artifacts came out of North Africa [around] 25,000 years ago."
The other leading proponent of the Solutrean Hypothesis, Bruce Bradley, is no better disposed to the efforts that Bristow and others are making to use it as intellectual fuel for the white power movement.
"It is quite likely that [if] these events happened, [it was] before 'racial' diversification occurred," Bradley, now an associate professor of experimental archeology at the University of Exeter in England, told the Intelligence Report. "Any facile explanations about the possible implications in relation to modern history will certainly be discredited."
...and I realize now that you weren't speaking of your own viewpoint. Sorry if I suggested that with my initial reaction. :.)
DeleteIntrigued by your comment, I did some searching. Apparently some neo-Nazis have embraced the Solutrean hypothesis to claim that North America was settled by "white" people first. Archaeologists know that this is nonsense.
DeleteYeah, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry, that was not directed at you or anybody associated with the site. If you google around you can see all the white power sites that are titillated by this hypothesis. You can also see it in many of the comments in the comments section of the Post and Independent stories.
Consider many of the people who can't accept the achievements of indigenous people, they must be 'the lost tribes of israel', or were put there by 'ancient aliens' etc. etc.
DeleteOf course, North American and South American indigenous people haven't been indigenous "forever." They have to have come from somewhere. Ultimately Africa. The real question is the route.
Deletenot as extrreme as the afrocentric excitement for the falso bogus out-of-africa hypothesis lie
DeleteI just made a comment and now realize that you weren't necessarily calling the Solutrean Hypothesis racist. Rather, you may simply have been decrying racists who've latched onto this theory like blood-sucking leeches. If this is the case, I apologize.
DeleteHardly a superiority issue. Just sick and tired of being called invaders of the Continent we discovered and were probably wiped out by the Olmecs or the Pre Clovis.
DeletePaybacks a biatch!
Hardly a superiority issue. Just sick and tired of being called invaders of the Continent we discovered and were probably wiped out by the Olmecs or the Pre Clovis.
DeletePaybacks a biatch!
totally agree with this statement. And by the way, i know an archeologist who did work on those findings, and they where over 20,000 years old and come from the same area as the finds from spain and france. and had no similarities from the tools used in asia.
Steve is in error, this is science and factual history. It does appear Europeans were the first Americans. It is sad and wrong to inject politics and racist jargon into the research of the history of what really happened.
Delete@Barry - you misunderstood Steve's first comment (as I did initially). He is decrying those who inject racism into this science.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnonymous, you must be new to this blog. Ad hominem comments get deleted immediately.
DeleteConcern here is that bona fide evidences and scholarship will be swept away with the PC broom.
DeleteI guess I could have a couple of dogs in this fight being a result of cross continental tribal hanky panky.... Frisii, Cherokee, Scot and a few more. It's a matter of delving honestly and honorably into the archaeological evidences and seeing what truly shakes out. One finding or another can't make or break who you are if you are the rational sort and if one's not rational, facts only get in the way. If situations like the Kennewick Man fiasco persist in hindering research, it all will become PC folly. Imagine if DNA showed our Southern hero R.E. Lee to be Korean (Lee a common name there). Would we be better off if they just tucked it away? Heavens no! His reputation as either hero or villain would stand solid. Let's have all available information with which we may energetically, comfortably and fascinatingly peruse!! Scott - Richmond VA, USA
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSteve, it seems to me that you're the only one worried about the races. The fact is, the Solutreans were likely here first--end of story--only racists would deny facts just because they're inconvenient to someone's racial identity.
DeleteAhem, whether people came here via the landmass we now call Europe, or via the place we now call Asia - it just shows that humans got to Americas via both ends. They were what we'd call Euroasians. That would include Polynesians, who also got here, along with the early Japanese who got to parts of S. America.
DeleteIn case anyone wonders, this would not account for differences in appearance SO many years later, when these Natives were discovered by people in more modern times since they'd have diversified after all those thousands of years.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHeck, worrying about who achieved what first... I read this as "soul train" first. Go, me.
ReplyDeleteHuman genetics supports the idea that American Indians are descended from Asians...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-genetic-footprints-africa.html
-Chuck
Yes, human genetics support the idea that American Indians are descended from Asians, but that does not mean that they were first onto the Continent. IIRC, the latest ideas have it that the Solutrean's WERE first onto the North American continent, and they were the ancestors of the Clovis People, but they (along with most of the larger native animals, horses, camels, mastodons, mammoths, rhinos, among others) were killed off by an asteroid strike which hit the glaciers which covered most of the continent at the time, hence the reason for no archaeological evidence found, as of yet, and extensively scientifically studied.
DeleteI am not yet convinced guys. The jury is still out and lots more to learn. On 20th November 2013 Scientific American published an article suggesting that DNA evidence extracted in research of a 24,000 yo Siberia boy by paleogeneticist Eske Willerslev from the University of Copenhagen has recently shown that there IS a strong possibility for a Western Eurasia link. This boy had Haploid U mt DNA which is west Eurasian and includes signatures only found in Native Americans and not Asians, and also 14-38% of Native Americans share Haploid X which is also west Eurasian but not found in Asia/East Asia. While Siberian discoveries are not doing anything for the current cross-Atlantic Solutrian Hypothesis, it does question those who claim single non-west-Eurasian lineage into pre-Columbian America.
DeleteI just think that the jury is out, but this is all a great and exciting saga.
And regards the racial/politicization of the debate goes. I find it EQUALLY disturbing that not only are white-racial-supremacists hoping that Solutrean Hypothesis proves some twisted racist theory of theirs, but also that white-haters or non-white racial-martyrs are desperately hoping that it is all wrong so that they can justify their continued twisted martyrish white-hate racism.
The one thing that this debate should do is teach the white supremacists that they are actually out-of-Africans and they should just get over it, and the white-haters will equally learn that the race-slays-race see-saw has been an ongoing thing since man first walked, and if we don't learn to accept that we are ALL both victims and perpetrators, then we will all be doomed. One family please - and we need to get over our petty sibling rivalries.
Good comments, John Long!
DeletePeople are.... people. Same species.
Yeah, AND? When has anyone disputed the claim that the Indians/"Native" Americans were descended from Asiatics?
DeleteI agree with John Long! Hate gets us nowhere. One family!
DeleteThe latest evidence, hard proof via DNA shows two distinct BIG waves of humans out of Africa. By that, I mean modern humans - not H.erectus or anything earlier. H. erectus did come to EuroAsia MUCH earlier on, maybe 2 million years ago. Would they be called human? I don't know. But I'm not including that. I refer to two more recent waves of HUMANS, 100 thou years give or take; not millions.
DeleteKeep in mind, humans in "Africa" way back 100 thou years ago does not mean that they looked like modern Africans look today. Perhaps that's the problem with naming the continents with their modern names when discussing any of this! If you say "found in Europe" people laypeople, think "oh, white." If you say "found in Africa" laypeople think "oh, black." Well - WRONG.
Anyway, one wave results in ALL Euro-Asians, including Native Americans. The other wave results in Africans, including the Australian aborigines. The first wave has admixture of Neanderthal and Denisova DNA - these are ALL Europeans/Asians including Native Americans. The other one does NOT have any of this mixture; the Africans or perhaps just the subSaharan ones since the more Northern Africans are mixed these days.
One can postulate that there are TWO races of humans if you want to divide it that way. It does make some kind of sense if you look at distinct differences, the way any scientist would look at some other species of animals while categorizing them.
Myths are exploded when facts are gathered. I'm willing to bet that there are just as many Native American elders and traditionalist who feel threatened by the possibility of other groups settling in North America before their ancestors as there are white supremacists who claim that there were "white" people in North America "first."
ReplyDeleteJust because a group of people were "the first inhabitants," that does not automatically make them superior, regardless of the color of their skin, the shape of their faces or the texture of their hair. What I find interesting to contemplate is the belief there were no humans in North America before Native Americans came to it, considering how hospitable it was to humans.
I don't understand what it is you think:
Delete"What I find interesting to contemplate is the belief there were no humans in North America before Native Americans came to it..."
Do you think there was a second evolution of humans apart from the African one? On continents without apes?
And what do you mean by "Native Americans came to it?" They weren't "Native Americans" before they got here. Who were they?
Not hassling you. Just wondering what you think.
Simple point of fact here, but the comment as posted by "Matt Anderson" on June of 2016 is a Copy/Paste of another comment posted on a blog by a "John Massey" in 2014. "... skewered them good and proper" is what struck a memory chord with me. I'd read that somewhere before on this issue, sure enough... Regrettably, this issue suffers from ideological agenda on BOTH sides. You have white power types who want to flog Solutrean because it lines up with some racial superiority worldview, likewise, you have people who stridently oppose Solutrean by virtue of that association. Note, however, that the comment "Matt Anderson" copied and reposted is essentially devoid of meaningful substance. It declares victory a few times, insists it's a settled matter and makes citation of a study, but the study itself merely asserts that Solutrean has been 'debunked' because of the absence of European DNA in Anzick-1. Is that compelling logic? Of course not. There are a half-dozen glaring flaws with that thesis. First, while outgroups will inevitably interbreed given enough time and close enough proximity, the human footprint on the continent at that time was VERY light. For the very same reason we don't find Viking DNA in Canadian First Nation peoples (even though they were unarguably there) explains how there may not have been European Haplogroups present in Anzick-1 (who came from Montana, BTW- quite a ways away from the east coast)
DeleteThis matter is not settled and unfortunately, it may never be settled. There just may never be a smoking gun beyond fragmentary archaeological indicators... and even if we found a smoking gun, with agendas being what they are, it's very likely it would meet with the same kind of blind, mindless resistance that has people copying and pasting the same blog comments, two years later.
I believe all men were dark and orignated in modern day Iraq, going out from in various directions with body shapes and styles as well as skin color changing and acclimating according to environmental conditions. We areall descended from group so all the racial ques are moot.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fact that mitochondrial eve and chromosomal adam both came from South Africa, I'm pretty sure that you're wrong about Iraq.
DeleteConsidering the fact that mitochondrial Eve & chromosomal Adam both did not come from South Africa...you are incorrect also. There is new scientific evidence that we all in fact did not originate in Africa. Sorry to burst your bubble.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIn the words of Razib Khan: “On the order of ~15,000 years ago a small group of Siberians crossed over Berengia into the New World. Their descendants are the various indigenous populations of the Americas which span the expanse from the Canadian Arctic down to Patagonia.” End of story. No Solutreans, no magic fairies, no space aliens.
DeleteRazib has been talking to Pontus Skoglund, one of the authors of the paper.
Dienekes Pontikos agrees.
They are too polite and careful to say it in so many words, so I will – the Solutrean Hypothesis is dead and buried. The proponents will flop around for a while with increasingly bizarre, distorted versions that they try to make fit the data, but it’s a futile rear-guard action. Pontus Skoglund and his mates have skewered them good and proper.
Matt, you are apparently new to this blog, so I'll explain that I curate every comment and delete all that include language consisting of an ad hominem attack on another commenter. Even if I agree with your sentiment.
DeleteIt's worth noting that the map shows the glaciations, but the shorelines of the continental landmasses don't reflect the 300- to 400-foot lower sea levels that resulted from the water being tied up in the glacier ice. These lower sea levels would have put the beaches of North America (at the very least) out as far as the edges of the continental shelves. This is an important detail but it seems to have been overlooked by the map artists and editors.
ReplyDeleteThat's true.
Delete20 years ago, when I first read about Solutreans, it was said then that the Solutrean points were sufficiently like Clovis points to make everyone consider the connection, but everyone said< "Ah, but those intervening 4,000 years (or 2,500 or whichever it was at THAT time) it means there was no connection.
ReplyDeleteI could never comprehend at all why no one said - as I did at the time - well, let us just see what happens to the 4,000 year gap as time goes on. I 100% expected the gap to shrink to zero, and for there to be some overlap.
THE CONNECTION WAS OBVIOUS. And yet not ONE person stepped up and said it out loud, that Clovis points derived from the Solutreans; it was the Clovis Barrier, über alles. Clovis was INVENTED HERE, out of a clear blue sky. It is HOGWASH, and it always WAS hogwash.
The conservatism in archeology, anthropology, geology, astronomy - all of them will NOT even consider that a present state of knowledge can ever change.
- Rocks falling from the sky? Impossible, till it was later proven. Tunguska can't be a meteor. Until it turns out that comets also hit planets - but then all impacts have to have meteors in the bottom. NOT.
ALL evidence of pre-Clovis humans in the Americas was denounced as fraudulent or mistaken, until it couldn't be denied at Monte Verde, Chile in 1997. At which time some Clovis site chief arkies actually looked UNDER Clovis layers and found human artifacts.
They haven't found Solutrean boats? Gee, do you think it MIGHT be because they haven't ever LOOKED for them? . . ./snarc
Besides which, the OTHER find in that article was by an oyster fisherman, who found an artifact under like 200 feet of water, down where the coast was 25,000 years ago. So, it is obvious that any Solutrean boat would be down there, too.
But their conservatism only lets them admit what has ALREADY been found - AND NOT ONE THING MORE. So, every step of the way is like pulling hen's teeth.
And there isn't a ONE of them who will do like real scientists do - make predictions, like I did 20 years ago. ANYBODY can do archeology if all you do is look at what already has been found. 20-20 hindsight - real great scientists there, I tell you...
And the alternate researchers have been saying for probably 50+ years that Clovis was NOT the first here. And the alternate researchers were right - but the arkies say, "Oh, lucky guesses. They don't know what they are talking about. And, besides, where are their peer-reviewed papers?"
If alternate researchers had the funding of academics, they would set science on its ear.
BTW, I have concluded that arkies are not even scientists, just archivists. The only science involved -like C14 testing - is actually done by real scientific labs. And then the arkies toss a lot of the resultant datings, because "it was obviously contaminated." (read: It didn't fit the time period we were expecting) So, much of the real science goes down the toilet, while they pad their paradigms with cherry-picked data.
Arkies are 1% method and 99% trying to fit everything into the existing paradigm (so they don't lose their funding, which is extremely hard to come by and distorts everything, because the funding committees fund only the most conservative digs. The entire science gets progressively more and more narrowed down into a smaller and smaller box.
You can always tell when an arkie has no clue, because they label the confusing stuff, "ceremonial" or "ritualistic," and then they weave the same old same old silly scenarios about the mumbo jumbo stupid ancients peoples and their witch doctors/astrologers/shamans and sacrifices.
Bah freaking humbug.
That's my 2 cents, and I am sticking to it.
Steve Garcia
Do you know about the Ancient Waterways Society? -
Deletehttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/
It's a site for sharing diffusionist ideas and info. The participation is of mixed quality, but some posts are excellent. The Yahoo Group format is an awkward vehicle, but it was the easiest thing to do when I was setting the site up.
So if my grandad carved a fish out of bone in Arkansas, and some other guy's great great grandad carved a fish out of bone in southern Europe, clearly the European grandad came to Arkansas and taught my grandad how to carve fishes out of bone even though he died before my grandad was born and there is no evidence that he ever came to Arkansas.
DeleteThis is the statement you are making about Clovis and Solutrian.
Don't you think it's more likely that the artifacts ate similar because they had the same purpose? Both cultures relied on megafauna for survival, and both cultures died off when their food supply went extinct. There was a 4000 year gap between the extinction events and it hasn't shrunk like you want it too.
Add to all of that the new dna evidence (2014) that shows a strong Asian connection and zero Solutrian connection, and the hypothesis is dead.
Anon (Feb 14, 2014) --
DeleteQUOTE -- So if my grandad carved a fish out of bone in Arkansas, and some other guy's great great grandad carved a fish out of bone in southern Europe, clearly the European grandad came to Arkansas and taught my grandad how to carve fishes out of bone even though he died before my grandad was born and there is no evidence that he ever came to Arkansas. --
No, actually, what we are saying is that that other guy's great great granddad taught someone how to make a tool out of bone in southern Europe, and that guy came to Arkansas to teach YOUR granddad.
Based upon the technology that's what the two sets of tools look like. A knife in southern Europe and a Clovis knife from Arkansas both look almost identical (not exactly, but almost); both made from a single piece of stone. One the other hand, a knife from eastern Asia, used for the exact same purpose, was made using very different technology such as glueing small flakes of stone into a grove cut into a specially shaped bone or antler. Same purpose, very different kind of technology used to make the item.
It is no different from the Wolpoff versus Stringer bs. Turns out, genetics proves Wolpoff right and he got trashed and even slandered and misrepresented quite a bit at the time.
DeleteALL Euroasians (non-Africans) have H. sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovich admixture and at least with the Neanderthal, 4 specific genes are known well, like the MC1R gene. Africans do not have this combination unless they got it much much later from mixing with those who do, i.e., mixing with Europeans or Asians. By Euroasian, that includes ALL Native "indian" Americans, polynesians, etc. Australian aborginies and Negroes are lumped into the African group that does not have this admixture of neanderthal and denisovich.
So one might say that there are 2 races of man on the planet: Africans and non-Africans - and oh yeah, the genes show this.
Very interesting concept. I just came across it the other day and think it is fascinating. My sister-in-law lives in Albuquerque, N Mex., a hot-bed of 'Clovis' stuff and, having visited several museums there, always wondered who the Clovis people were. Even the 'experts' don't have very good answers and the whole subject is almost more mythology than science. I won't even get into the petroglyphs....
ReplyDeleteEurope and Americas were both populated by a common sourc ein the Atlantic.. ATLANTIS!
ReplyDeleteWhen i think of all the possabilities of what could of happend when the earths
ReplyDeletecontinents broke up.
Atlantis fell down under. And land pieces moved. In Sweden we have Gorland an Island outon the eastcoast who has a fauna and genetics like they have in the mediteranian sea.
That is also been proven to be accurat.
And Oue natives Samer also have connections with indians.
Remember that geologic time is on a much larger scale. The continents stopped moving apart about a hundred million years ago. The earliest modern humans appeared less than one million years ago.
DeleteMinnesotan,
ReplyDeleteThe Continental Drift may be rather more recent that you may think and may also have occurred rather faster than than we might think.
At about the time that Charles Darwin'S book on The Origins of the Species, another British scientist called Phillip Sclater looked at the distribution of the small primate called a lemur and concluded that there had been a now-drowned continent stretching across the Indian Ocean from Madagascar to Malaysia.This he called Lemuria.
The Theosophists of a little later in the 19th c. latched on to this but regarded Lemuria as somewhere in the Pacific with an alter ego called Mu.
Given that it is surmised Continental Drift took hundreds of milions of years to happen, the shift of Lemuria from the Indian to Pacific Ocean seems an unseemly haste.
For me, this has a bearing on the belief in the one-time existence of Atlantis.
In any case, a look at a map showing both sides of the Atlantic quickly reveals just how snugly the Bulge of Africa and the shoulder of South America fit. Moreover, the Atlantic Ocean was never large enough to have contained a continent that was equal in size to the whole of Asia and Africa combined (as Plato). This surely is more than enough to remove Atlantis from our thinking.
I just found this site when looking for information about the Solutrean hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteI love it! I'll be back for more soon.
Thanks
In Europe, Solutrean industry was found in the South of France not in Spain and the Solutrean men were not White Europeans but paleo-Inuits. (The rock of Solutré is in Burgundy. It is an hill over the plain. ( comment from France)
ReplyDeletethe Solutrean men were not White Europeans but paleo-Inuits
Deletethis would fit with my studies, i always thought that the american indians look like inuits.
I want to cry at this article and all the discussion posts. It's helping me so much with my Anthropology assignment. I'm not very good at this class and so reading all this is REALLY helping a lot. Thank you guys so much.
ReplyDeleteGood. Glad we could help. Come back some time and browse the other stuff for fun.
Delete:.)
Searching haplogroup x led me to a Wiki page indicating an inordinate percentage of haplogroup x markers being present in the extreme Northeast of North America via a vis Western and Southwestern North America. Looking at the literature regarding the explanation for haplogroup x's presence in the Native American gene pool, I don't see any justification why such a geographic concentration of a given haplogroup should occur. Moreover, the coincidence of proximity to European concetrations of haplogroup x can not be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read, the jury is still out on the claims Dr Stanford postulates in his recent book from the carbon dating of tools found in Cactus Hill and the "french" blade excavated by the ocean trawler. No leading archaeologists have concurred with Stanford's findings putting human presence in North America at 20,000 BCE. On a similar note, Archaeologists in Texas published findings of human tools there dating to around 15,000+ years ago pushing it 2K+ years BEFORE Clovis cultures current established time-line, HOWEVER many other archaeologists have not concurred with their findings. THIS is what's lacking in the Solutrean Hypothesis imho. I don't know if it's because Stanford wants to avoid scrutiny and prefers selling his idea via the popular laymen audience, or if he's not really confident in his findings. I'd like to see him participate in the debate instead of avoiding it.
ReplyDeleteI propose that the population surge and megafaunal disappearance associated with Clovis, represents, NOT an initial colonization event, but the sudden introduction of a new technology. And that the tech was the Atlatl, spear launcher. The Clovis point is just a marker for the spread of the Atlatl tool-kit; it was not by itself the magic ingredient, as stone points were already in use by the pre-Clovis. And I nominate the Solutreans as the source of the atlatl, and Clovis-like stonework, since they had both.
ReplyDeleteConsider this scenario:
1) Pre-Clovis people, with Asian DNA, spread throughout the new world... BUT...
2) They have no efficient long-distance projectile system... HENCE...
3) Their ability to hunt and eat (and defend against) megafauna is limited, and THUS
4) They don't impact the megafauna (much) nor do they reach high population densities... UNTIL
One fine day...
5) A boatload of Solutrean sea-mammal hunters is blown off course, and lands in North America.
6) The refugees are taken in by a band of Paleoindians.
7) They teach Solutrean stonework techniques, and more importantly ATLATLS, to their hosts.
8) The atlatl technology -- and the associated stonework -- spreads "virally' through the pre-existing populations -- enabling them to eat the tasty megafauna, destroy the dangerous megafauna, and rapidly increase their own population.
This explans a number of contradictions,
As to the race question -- Under this scenario, the "Clovisolutreans" that brought new tech from Europe would have been just a few people -- maybe even just one -- landing on a continent already full of Asian DNA. Their technology spread much faster and farther than their DNA. If a boatload of Solutreans had landed on an empty continent -- presuming they had some women with them -- then, Native American DNA would look a lot like stone age Europe, barring founder effect. But that's not what we observe. Ancient American DNA is solidly Asian, yet the tech is solidly European.... so cultural transfer is the best explanation. All it would take would be one boat. And we know from cave art that Solutreans had boats.
Oh, and stone age Europeans appear to have been "bronze", not white, right up til the dawn of agriculture. The recent genetic sequencing of 2 Mesolithic European hunters suggests they both had brown skin (although interestingly, blue eyes.) So our Clovisolutrean castaways would probably have looked a lot like the people who took them in.
PS. One pre-Clovis atlatl -- or some other proof that atlatl technology came with the first Siberian migrants -- would falsify this hypothesis. But googling the subject I find a paucity of such proof. It appears that in North America, atlatl tech spread NORTHWARD from a southern point of origin.
DeleteSo....maybe, just maybe, the first Americans didn't have atlatls? If true, that explains a LOT.
I like it... solid. In terms of the atlatl tech spreading from a southern point Northward... These "castaways" could have been blown of course more than once hitting landing numerous times in an effort to return home before finally giving up and being taken in by the Paleoindians. if the boat held up to get you to on place why not try to take it back home (who would drive a car in perfect condition from the east coast to the west coast with no intent on staying out west and not try to drive it back to the east coast?).
Deleteif the boat held up to get you to on place why not try to take it back home
DeleteOf course. But, our hypothetical castaway may well have hungry, hurt, etc -- he wouldn't necessarily set out for home at once. He might have stayed around long enough to recover from his ordeal... and teach his hosts, how to make atlatls.... before making an attempt to return to Europe.
This would explain why ONLY the Solutrean atlatl & associated stonework, swept the continent. If Solutreans had colonized an empty land, the WHOLE Solutrean culture would have been replicated here -- but it wasn't. The locals had their own art, their own traditions, but they copied the one thing they didn't have. And of course the locals weren't fools -- Clovis has specific local adaptations, it's not just a mindless copy of Solutrean.
How else do you explain Asian DNA + European tech?
Unless, of course, we find a pre-Clovis American atlatl... which, as I said, falsifies my hypothesis.
How sad it will be for white supremicists when they discover the real facts, that is if they are intellectually capable of percieving them. There are apologists for every belief system, incuding the scientific status quo, but at least most of them try to find the truth.
DeleteThe Solutrean hypothesis is a hypothesis. It hasn't been proved one way or another, and evidence points more and more to a migration from Asia. The truth is much more tantalizing. It turns out that many Native American Myths have some basis for migration histories. Here is what the swastika originally meant before Hitler stole the symbol and used it for his own purposes. It is an ancient symbol that represented four migrations. The direction of the legs was supposed to represent the direction the sun spins. Each group was supposed to migrate in four opposite directions until they met the sea, then turn in a new direction until they met again. When certain legs of a swastika were highlighted in some fasion and two people stood together or held hands, it meant that two of the migrating groups crossed paths and left a record in a petroglyph. The symbol shows up in central Asia, in Georgia, Armenia, Tibet, India and North America, particularly with the Hopi. The water clan of the Hopi says that they island hopped over the Pacific during a terrible flood and came over on round rafts made out of hollow reeds.
You have to understand why Native Americans are so sensitive about their beliefs. For them it could spell the loss of what little they have after the white folks took most of it. away, and for those fundamentalist Native Americans who believe they were always here, is that any different than believeing that the world was created in six days despite scientific evidence? Put yourself in their shoes. How would feel if they killed most of your friends and relatives with small pox and measles, and slaughtered the rest, except for a remnant, then they took your children away, beat them for speaking English, call them savages, and tell them they that they could not go to church any more or pray in their own manner. Well that's what was done to them. The jury is out on the Solutrean hypothesis. Using a hypothesis to beat Native Americans on the head to prove wite superiority only gets in the way of the truth. They want the truth? Most people don't really want to know the truth. It's too scary for them. Belief becomes a bad thing when it causes people to lose compassion and harm others.
Signed, White Girl, and no, I'm not an athiest.
I just saw this nonsense about Europeans killing Native Americans and boo hoo blahblahblah written by "white girl" which I think I'm responding to.
DeleteGee, I wonder if Europeans STILL blame MY people, Tatars, for spreading the plague and killing about 1/3 of them? Janibeg catapulted a plague ridden dead Tatar onto a Genoese ship, knowing it would spread. And oh, it spread. 1/3 of Europeans died due to what Janibeg did. Do Europeans blame the Tatars for this today? No, they don't even freaking KNOW the details because it isn't brainwashed into them. Nor would you find ONE Tatar that feels guilty over the genocide - and OH, it was DELIBERATE. Janibeg and the rest knew it spread and how to spread it.
One other detail, take it back 15 thou years ago, Tatars, MY people, are related to the Native Americans. HA - what an irony if someone is STOOOOPID enough to find some "meaning" in any of this.
Native Americans were NOT some peaceful huge bunch of people. They fought each other, conquered each other, wiped each other out and so forth. So someone "white girl" she signed it, bemoans how much they lost? Assuming the mantle of "white guilt" so she can feel superior? Or righteous? HA.
What about how much the Europeans lost when they were conquered by a Semitic foreign religion, christianity, convert or die and LOST their heritage to that wretched belief system that threw Europe into the dark ages? What about that loss. What about the next loss to that wretched monotheistic tyranny that most of MY people suffered, conversion to Islam for most of us (not all) - more convert or die?
I am SICK of hearing about how "bad" the Europeans are. I don't much like KKK and that bunch cuz they don't like me (I'm the wrong race) - but I can see their POINT in this.
People came into the N. American and S. American landmass from BOTH ENDS, east and west. It was way earlier than 15 thou years ago.
I tip my hat to a mind that can encompass the white guilt subject with such down-home eloquence. I concur with all of your points and sentiments. It's refreshing to read such a concise refutation. Thanks, I'm going to pass it around. It's like finding a gem that's not in-the-rough but already faceted and polished for the amazed sleuth of history.
DeleteI had no idea that there was this whole white supremacist Solutrean thing going on. It is simply mind boggling to me that skin color can possibly be so important when assessing history. I am also astonished that so many apparently racist people read your blog, Minnesotastan. You are so open-minded, with a real scientific bent, presenting all the fascinating things you find--one of the reasons I adore Tywkiwdbi.
ReplyDeleteMany of the commenters in this thread are not regular readers of the blog. This particular post has about 10,000 views I think because it comes up on the first page as #5 out of 23,000 hits in a Google search for Solutrean hypothesis.
DeleteThe one good thing about the racism that runs rampant about this hypothesis is that many of the people who are eager to latch onto the idea that white people are the real Native Americans also believe that the Earth is 6,000-8,000 years old. Time to make up your minds, folks: which "fact" are you going to stop believing in order to push the other one?
ReplyDeleteBurying your head in the sand and spouting the same old tired line/hysterics doesn't make something any more real. For example, Native Americans labelling as racist/white supremacists anyone who expresses a view which conflicts with Aboriginal peoples premise that they are North Americas first people. It's not a matter of white, Native or otherwise, it's a matter of truth/reality. If Native Americans were truly North Americas first nation, then that's fine with me. If the Solutrean were, that's fine too. Perhaps, there have been other humans/proto-humans we know nothing about who inhabited North America first. (After all, relatively recent findings tend to suggest we really don't know as much as we like to think we know about human history on Earth or in North America). So, this phoney rhetoric of: "You're a racist!" doesn't cut it...Yes, the truth can be unsettling and often upsets our personal view/agenda, but in the end, good, bad or ugly, truth is paramount. Period.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why ancient peoples couldn't have come to NA and SA through a variety of ways from East and West. Who cares how they got here. The boy's ancestors in Wilsall, MT near where I live by the way, match people from central Siberia. I mean that's Russia, right?
ReplyDeleteLooking at old pics of the local tribes here in Montana (Salish, Kootenai, Pend d'Oreille, Blackfoot , Crow, Assiniboine, etc.) before they interbred, it is amazing to see the totally different facial configurations. Looks like a mix of some kind to me and my wife is part Sioux and couldn't care less whether her ancestors walked, took a boat or whatever.
The rest of you narrow minded folks can go back to the Democrat Party and Nazis. They are the ones hung up on race. That's all those two groups of idiots talk about. Cut out of the same cloth. Really lame - time to move on.
I think the most straightforward way to reconcile the Salutrean and Siberian ancestry it is to suppose that Europe was populated by people who were already adapted to extremely cold weather, that is, Siberians. While the non adapted people retracted to the very south of Europe. Besides, the Mammoth steppe was a big maze of rivers that went from Syberia to Ireland, continuously, so, that also count for the ability to cross the ocean.
ReplyDeleteThe highly respected program Nova aired a program, that according to their research and expert testimony, proved via dna that the Solutrean were most likely the Americas first people. However, Nova later backed off somewhat to appease Native Indians who got upset by the programs content. Typical. If something threatens your status quo/agenda jump up and down and throw a tantrum to get your way. Secondly, no less then the Smithsonian has implied recent evidence strongly indicates the Solutrean were most likely North Americas first inhabitants. Now I suppose the Natives will get on their case too. So much for free speech. Racist? Nazi? No, just the truth. But then the truth is hard for some to face. Man up!
ReplyDeleteI've not seen the program, but a quick Google search reveals the transcript of a NOVA program entitled "America's Stone Age Explorers" -
Deletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3116_stoneage.html
The discussion centers around the Solutrean hypothesis. Is that the program you're referring to?
It aired 10 years ago, in 2004. When did Nova "back off" from the claims in the program? Could it have been because of later evidence that contradicted the theories they presented?
Just asking.
Dear Minnesotastan, thank you for your comments. Yes, likely that was the Nova program. Although I believe I watched it about six years ago. To the best of my recollection, the program presented DNA evidence supporting Solutrean emigration to North America. Likely I have a suspicious mind, but I found it perplexing that when the program re-aired six months later,the highly controversial material re Solutrean being the earliest humans to arrive in N.A. had been altered from the original broadcast. Recently watched another program on History2 channel called "America Unearthed". The relevant episode was entitled "Swamp Mammoth" and dealt with the premise that the Solutrean were the Americas first people. It interested me enough that I re-watched the same episode this evening. There was an interview with a Dr. Dennis Stanford at the Smithsonian Institute (missed his credentials, but probably it was archaeology) who deals with early American artifacts at the Smithsonian. Dr. Stanford unhesitatingly expressed that in light of the evidence he has been party to (artifacts/DNA/his research) it was very likely the Solutrean arrived in North America from what is now France as much as 20,000 years ago. I must admit I was really surprised to here him make such an admission. The Smithsonian is known to be a conservative institution that as a rule refrains from rocking the academic boat. It seems to me that there are a growing number of academics and lay people who are questioning the traditionally accepted version of human habitation in the Americas. Because of the growing evidence I tend towards this view. Time will tell. Regards.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that detailed reply. I have been fascinated by the Solutrean hypothesis ever since I first heard of it, so these additional insights are quite useful.
DeleteYou're welcome. Yes, it is a fascinating subject. Best wishes.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most interesting aspect of the early peoples of this entire hemisphere is that of linguistics. Unless I am way behind in my reading, there are now thought to have been hundreds of distinct languages in N. America alone, not merely the 4 or 5 groupings I was taught as a child. Perhaps some day it will be that linguistics will solve the puzzle, perhaps not, but as a Native American I can tell you quite absolutely that I do not care what race actually took the first steps on this hemisphere, or which was second, or third, etc. My concern lies with the future of the descendants of those peoples as well as the preservation of the ancient cultures of their ancestors. So much has been completely and permanently lost, so many peoples have become extinct, that I fear we may someday be only a footnote in some future history book referencing the date of death of the last known human of Native American ancestry. As interesting as this blog as been on this topic, I would much rather have seen some interest in the NOW, the "where do we go from here", the "What can we do to preserve and protect what still exists?". Maybe a topic for another blog.......
ReplyDeleteI think most of the "white supremacists" want it to be true just so they can point out how it wasn't JUST whites. It's the shedding of the "white guilt" surrounding the whole native american genocides. If whites/europeans were here first and then those that would become the native americans arrived and slaughtered them into extinction, it kind of changes the entire white guilt issue, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt would change the issue if you thought that paleohumans from 15-20,000 years ago were "white" people.
DeleteChris V. here, try this idea on for size. Non-white and non -black peoples came to the Americas in many small groups starting at least 25000 years ago. Some came from the Solutrean area bringing their technologies and DNA profiles, and some came from the Polynesia/Japan area (eg. Kennewick man), and brought their technologies and DNA profiles.
ReplyDeleteOver the next 10000 years they spread across the N. American continent and became the "Clovis culture". These peoples had spear (hunting and war) technology only (fluted points), and lived in peace and harmony with each other, the existing mega fauna, and nature in general.
Roughly 14000 years ago the glaciers retreated to a point that a land bridge/ gap allowed an overland, non glacial route for mass migrations of peoples from Siberia. These peoples had atlatl and notched point (hunting and war) technology. As we have learned from the mass migrations from Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries AD, the new migrants from Siberia brought with them not only superior technologies with which to dominate the existing (clovis ) peoples, and game, but most importantly they brought with them new disease for which the existing(clovis) peoples were defenseless. The diseases spread faster than the new migrants themselves in many areas, and within roughly 500 years the Clovis peoples were nearly extinct, and within another 1000 years most of the mega fauna were also wiped out. This is why the last of the Clovis artifacts are a few hundred years younger in the east than the are in the west, just as the last of the 'Native American' artifacts are a few hundred years older in the east than they are in the west. This is why the DNA tested on peoples living in the late 20th and early 21st centuries (whose direct ancestors we are pretty sure were living in N. America in the 1500's), more closely match the peoples currently living in Northwestern Asia, than they do peoples currently living in western Europe. Until researchers get a significant number of DNA samples from 14000 + year old bones excavated in N, America, we will not see DNA that matches well with "Solutrean" age and locale type DNA.
We have historic (ca.1500-1900) evidence of what happens when mass migrations came to N. America from east to west, so why is it so politically incorrect to apply these same scenarios to a proposed mass migration from west to east roughly 14000 years ago??
NB. This post is partially "tongue in cheek", and partially tongue out in a big "wet raspberry", and is intended to toss out some ideas while also poking fun at political correctness, and not at any particular culture or peoples, alive or dead.
I don't really disagree, although by your timeline, the megafauna extinction (which I always assumed was secondary to improved technology use by natives) occurs after the holocaust of the Clovis peoples. I don't think you're suggesting that the introduced diseases became zoonoses that wiped out the sloths and others. Perhaps climate change instead of human predation decimated the megafauna?
DeleteCV here, My suggestion of mega fauna extinction and the timing of such being after a mass migration of peoples across Sibera, was intended to be a politically incorrect tongue in cheek parallel to the mass depopulation of the American bison, after the mass migration of Europeans here in the last 500 years. My real best guess, is that the disappearance of the mega fauna was a combined result of climate change,(especially the Younger Dryas event), along with the increased hunting pressures brought on by humans using improved hunting technologies, and having to deal with a changing climate, and increased competition from new human migrants from the west??
ReplyDeleteNo strongly held personal beliefs here, just throwing out some thoughts I haven't seen discussed or debated elsewhere, and seeing if anyone wants to bounce some of them around?
The Solutrean idea is probably right...the Solutrean point made out of flints from France found in a Mammoth in Virginia sealed it for me...along with the many many those Solutrean poinst found. Still, so what...it doesn't "prove" anything...clearly the Olmecs were the first true large complex civilization in the Americas and they were Black African Fisherman! Other evidence shows that other people have visited...chinese and even hebrews!....These people probably didn't start a population here but were merely visitors. The so-called Native Americans may not have been the first here...but they were the established people by 1492...no doubt about that. The "Native Americans" may have brought diseases from Asia that wiped out the Solutreans living here 13,000 years ago! That would be ironic considering what happened later.
ReplyDeleteThe Solutrean THEORY is probably right, they cannot explain why the indians have words from europe that were wiped out 5000 years before the 2nd wave of Europeans arrived in the Americas. Also, the genetics show that in fact the indians have all that European genetics, including Montana boy. Why are they just blatantly denying these facts? Clearly, the Euros were here first. Deal with it. And stop calling everyone a nazi just because it shows something you don't like.
ReplyDeleteRelated:
Delete"The characteristic fluting of the stone weapons serve as archeological evidence that the boy, who died some 12,600 years ago, came from the Clovis culture. It was one of the earliest New World groups, disappearing mysteriously a few centuries after the child's burial in present day Montana. From the summit of a hill towering over the burial site near the Yellowstone River, the boy's Ice Age contemporaries could monitor their hunting grounds for mammoth and bison.
Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy's origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.
Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas -- from the Alaska's Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes -- are descended from Montana boy's lineage."
More at Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html
And this at AAAS:
Delete"If correct, the findings refute the Solutrean hypothesis, which postulates that ancient migrants from Western Europe founded the Clovis culture. The data also undermine contentions that today’s Native Americans descend from later migrants to the Americas, rather than from the earlier Paleoindians. And that could help tribes that want to claim and rebury ancient American skeletons such as that of the 9400-year-old Kennewick Man from Washington state."
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy
MINNESOTASTAN---The Anzick boy being found along with Clovis Points ( they weren't found together but in the same pile of back how pilings, to be accurate) is not evidence of the boy being of the Clovis people. It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of the boy being of the Clovis people.
DeleteThe boy could have been a member of a group that had a mix of Asiatic peoples and Clovis people. It could have been a group of Asiatics that had learned the Clovis spear point tech. from Clovis people.
Just as the Solutrean Laurel Leaf spear point found underwater 60 miles off the present Virginia coast line in the same dredge load as Mastodon bones is circumstantial evidence of Solutrean presence 17,000 to 22,000 years BP.
Chris V. here again. The weird idea that people living now in the 21st century, who can trace their lineage back to people living in North America 500 years ago (aka. "Indians, Native Americans, early illegal immigrants, etc,") having a "Right" to any human remains or artifacts found in North America that are 1000, 5000, 10000,or 15000 years old, is the mental and legal equivalent to me saying that I have a "Right" any human remains or artifacts found in Northern Europe that are 1000, 5000, 10000, or 15000 years old, simply because I can trace my lineage back to people that were living in Northern Europe 500 years ago. See what I am sayin, catch my drift. comprende???
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust returned from a visit with Dr. Al Goodyear and his folks at "The Topper Site" in South Carolina. Documented, dated by the best available science, Pre-Clovis artifacts found at a Chert quarry have been robustly tested and are found to be 50,000 years old +. In fact, charcoal remnants so old that Radio Carbon dating is impossible found in the same layer have proven the case for human occupation at the site . It is ,in fact, a tool manufacturing site of the first magnitude, It is located on the banks of the Savannah River in S.C.. It is interesting to note that more Clovis and Pre-Clovis artifacts have now been found of the East coast of the U.S.A.than all of the rest of the country. I know not what this means, but it definitely means something.Dr. Goodyear will publish a definitive paper very soon, but his find (The Topper Site) has been visited and observed by many national and international academe professionals and many of the artifacts examined in situ and in the lab.
ReplyDeleteWe now have definitive evidence of human endeavor in tool making in several locations that predate any known location/dig site in America and very closely coincides with the Peruvian finds.
American Archeology of the past has been proven incorrect and must now be adjusted to accommodate a large population of folks 50 to 60,000 yrs. ago. We now know they were here. The Topper site has a proven time line that demonstrates continuous occupation from just awhile ago to a very, very long time ago.
g
I don't think anyone has the "right" to claim such scientific finds - and the pity is that they ALL see it in terms of MY MY MY - my race, my ancestors, etc. blahblah. I'm Tatar. THAT long ago, the Native Americans and Altaic people were the same people. So then, do I have a "right" to claim these finds as mine? I was born in the USA, but my parents were from the USSR. It's laughable to think I'd claim these bones as mine.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, when Native tribes make these claims, science gets halted and banned. That also should not be allowed. NOBODY has a "right" to these ancient finds or bones. NOBODY.
The white nationalists should grasp the concept that 20 thousand years ago, the H.sapien and Neanderthal mixtures that inhabited EuroAsia were NOT the same people, or even recognizable as the same people, as the people that come from these countries today. I understand why they are doing that - it's due to discrimination against white people this time. It's a reaction to it.
They can sort of tell what they looked like from the skulls - sort of. If anything, this should be a moment of awe at how humans got themselves all over the place so long ago.
I've visited the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter and believe that it is authentic, dating back 17+ thousand years.
ReplyDeleteThere were people in the Americas long before 15,000 years ago. there was a special, forgot channel but "Who Really Discovered America" was the title of it.
ReplyDeleteThe Giants were here first before humans arrived! heh! Sorry, just had to add that. "Si te cah" is the name given to them by the Paiutes.
ReplyDeleteAll this hostility is taking the fun out of learning about the Solutreans.
It is the bane of the Internet that to explore interesting theories like the Solutrean Hypothesis one must suffer the scourge of political correctness and the invective it engenders.
ReplyDeletearticle says that "people arrived in australia some 60k hears ago and they did not walk" 60000 years ago australia may have been connected to asia via indonesia ,malayasia etc just as there were the doglands land mass connecting uk with mainland europe
ReplyDelete