03 March 2014

New evidence supports/denies the "Solutrean hypothesis"


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.

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.
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.

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]...

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... 
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.

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...

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.
I have accordingly inserted "/denies" after "supports" in the post's title.

74 comments:

  1. 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
    Replies
    1. ?? why in the world would you consider this theory "racist?" You do understand this is about 20,000 years ago?

      Delete
    2. Intrigued 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):

      "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."

      Delete
    3. ...and I realize now that you weren't speaking of your own viewpoint. Sorry if I suggested that with my initial reaction. :.)

      Delete
    4. Intrigued 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.

      Yeah, 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.

      Delete
    5. 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.

      Delete
    6. Of 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.

      Delete
    7. not as extrreme as the afrocentric excitement for the falso bogus out-of-africa hypothesis lie

      Delete
    8. I 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.

      Delete
    9. 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.

      Paybacks a biatch!

      Delete
    10. 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.

      Paybacks 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.

      Delete
    11. 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
    12. @Barry - you misunderstood Steve's first comment (as I did initially). He is decrying those who inject racism into this science.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous, you must be new to this blog. Ad hominem comments get deleted immediately.

      Delete
    15. Concern here is that bona fide evidences and scholarship will be swept away with the PC broom.
      I 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

      Delete
    16. How is it racist to find new evidence? WOW people really do suck.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. Heck, worrying about who achieved what first... I read this as "soul train" first. Go, me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Human genetics supports the idea that American Indians are descended from Asians...

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-genetic-footprints-africa.html

    -Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
    2. I 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.

      I 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.

      Delete
    3. Good comments, John Long!

      People are.... people. Same species.

      Delete
  4. 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."

    Just 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't understand what it is you think:

      "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.

      Delete
  5. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering the fact that mitochondrial eve and chromosomal adam both came from South Africa, I'm pretty sure that you're wrong about Iraq.

      Delete
  6. It'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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 20 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.

    I 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know about the Ancient Waterways Society? -

      http://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.

      Delete
    2. 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.

      This 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.

      Delete
    3. Anon (Feb 14, 2014) --

      QUOTE -- 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.

      Delete
  8. 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....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Europe and Americas were both populated by a common sourc ein the Atlantic.. ATLANTIS!

    ReplyDelete
  10. When i think of all the possabilities of what could of happend when the earths
    continents 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
  11. Minnesotan,
    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just found this site when looking for information about the Solutrean hypothesis.

    I love it! I'll be back for more soon.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  13. 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)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the Solutrean men were not White Europeans but paleo-Inuits
      this would fit with my studies, i always thought that the american indians look like inuits.

      Delete
  14. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good. Glad we could help. Come back some time and browse the other stuff for fun.

      :.)

      Delete
  15. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Amazing when people start quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center then I know this Soultrean Hypothesis must be on the right track.

    Joe
    CCFIILE.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My thoughts exactly, Joe. Anything that might invalidate the Zionist/Marxists' narrative to wit universal White guilt is as central as maintaining their own monopoly on victimhood will undoubtedly set the propaganda machine into overdrive without fail. As far as I'm concerned, one would be hard pressed to find a more viable means of lending credibility to a theory than that which merits such an effort on behalf of the S.P.L.C..

      Delete
  17. From 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.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I 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.

    Consider 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      So....maybe, just maybe, the first Americans didn't have atlatls? If true, that explains a LOT.

      Delete
    2. 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?).

      Delete
    3. if the boat held up to get you to on place why not try to take it back home

      Of 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.

      Delete
    4. If a racist is someone who believes in truth and reality, and stands by such concepts, no matter how uncomfortable/upset it makes someone else, (or conflicts with whatever agenda someone is promoting) then I certainly am a racist. And proud of it. Accordingly, the evidence strongly supports the notion that the Solutrean were most likely North Americas true First Nation. You can live in denial and pretend, but the truth always wins out in the end. That's the reality.

      Delete
    5. 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.
      The 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.

      Delete
  19. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many 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.

      Delete
  20. The 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burying 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.

      Delete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I 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?

    Looking 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.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've not seen the program, but a quick Google search reveals the transcript of a NOVA program entitled "America's Stone Age Explorers" -

      http://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.

      Delete
  26. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank 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.

      Delete
  27. You're welcome. Yes, it is a fascinating subject. Best wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To 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.......

    ReplyDelete
  29. I 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would change the issue if you thought that paleohumans from 15-20,000 years ago were "white" people.

      Delete
  30. the circular reasoning in this can only be described as pure ignorance!
    they say since he matches mayans , thus in their minds because " it i proven " that mayans are 'asians ' thus he is asian..:(
    not that maybe they can only see male lines and those male lines may have spread too Asia and back again a few times even from a common place.. just more of their special brand of ignorance!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris 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.
    Over 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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?

      Delete
  32. CV 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??
    No 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?

    ReplyDelete
  33. 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.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...