Why doesn't ancient kurgan culture in America make it a Solutream fact?? I mean, that is what these mounds are- kurgans.. It's not just the kurgans, it's their genetics, which have never been found on the "northern route". They were a copper wares kurgan culture, and we think we don't know who they were?! Nonsense! Obfuscating nonsense. Clearly, the mere idea is outside the scope of The Overton Window. "The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose bones fill the Mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara as ours do now." - Lincoln.
First of all, Solutreans didn't build kurgans. You're mixing unrelated cultures and time periods. Second, as we explained, there has never been legitimate European DNA found in precolonial America. Third, burial mounds started in the Americas LONG after the Kurgan culture. They're not related.
@@NathanaelFosaaen That's only because your kind don't consider haplogroup X, "European DNA", but it most certainly is. So what is the time window for so-called Solutreans?
@dieselphiend X2b,c,and d are European. X2a is not. The Solutrean culture ended some 17,000 years ago, and the "Kurgan Culture" didn't begin until a full 10,000 years later. They have nothing to do with eachother.
No the caveat is - I have told you we have the burials everyone seeks at a twice documented Mound 100+ yr. C.O. Here is evidence for our ancient city site ! Early Human Settlement of Northeastern North America - Parsons Island Charcoal collected above this in-situ biface produced an age estimate of 17,133 ± 88 14 C yr BP or 20,525 ± 341 cal yr BP. .Artifacts discovered by a Smithsonian affiliated archaeologist along the Island’s eroding southwestern shoreline indicate that Parsons’ original inhabitants were pre-native people whose origins span the Atlantic Ocean to the Solutré territory of east-central France some 20,000 years ago - suggesting a new timeline and arrival route for human settlement on the North American continent. ! Magdalenian sites stretched from Portugal in the west to Poland in the east, and as far north as France, the Channel Islands, England, and Wales.
The only time I attend AA and stay awake for the duration of the discussion is when this guy is giving the speech! What? Oh, Hi my name is Jake and I am an alc... ancient-histolic 😅 Great work fellas 👏
I’m not giving up on Solutrean or pre Clovis artifacts found at Cactus Hill…right down the road from where I live. Amazing what you can find just by digging another 6-10 inches. Mind blowing. I imagine much more will be discovered in the next 10-20 years about how these people came here.
I live near Meadowcroft. They can't keep saying the natives were a small primitive population. As you go down more than 20,000 years ago, the number of artifacts INCREASE in number, not the other way around!
@@NathanaelFosaaenarchaeology has found cache sites of roughed-in but unfinished points often coated in red ochre. Has anyone considered that these strategically placed caches were drop off points in a long distance trade practice? One tribe might leave a set of goods, which another tribe might later pick up the goods, and deposit their own reciprocating trade goods?
As an archaeologist myself, and as someone who has handled a lot of fluted points, and been immersed in the literature for several decades, it is important to recognize that while "pre-Clovis" components were "obvious" to some of us, others flatly rejected the notion, and when Stanford and Bradley published their book, there were many North American archaeologists who still insisted Clovis was the earliest occupation, reflecting the actual colonization of the Americas. This was despite the inherent logical problems and evidential issues the Clovis First hypothesis, which had been regarded by many as a proven fact. Recently (2022) work has been published by the National Academy of Science that demonstrated that the Ice Free Corridor was not open soon enough or long enough for people from the arctic to populate the lower latitudes. Most American archaeologists were still supposing that while pre-Clovis had to be a thing, that the time depth of their entry could not be too much earlier than the appearance of Clovis. Bradley and Stanford were adhering to that. If you add an additional 5,000 years to earliest Clovis, then you are still looking at an entry not much earlier than Meadowcroft. ca. 18 kya. There are still problems, because scattered older dates _must_ mean the continent was largely explored by that time. If you add dates from South America even that 18 kya estimate begins to look too recent. The White Sands footprints, and osteoderm beads in Brazil push the problem back immensely farther. Currently there are no working hypotheses that handles the available evidence efficiently. The one fact we can draw is that Clovis hunters did not emerge from the Ice Free Corridor, and eat every mammoth on the continent, along with every horse, camel, giant ground sloth and short-faced bear. As concerns the size of Clovis populations, the distribution of a technology _may_ correlate with a people, but it may also reflect the spread of an idea through many peoples. The spread of the use of the bow and arrow in North and South America is an example. Clovis technology, the manufacturing and weapon construction ideas may well have spread widely through word of mouth or example rather than colonization. In fact, entire technological, material culture and ritual complexes can spread through adjacent populations, independent of colonization. The late prehistoric archaeology of California, or the Northwest Coast both exhibit this. In California much of the northern state reflects a broadly uniform material and ritual culture which multiple linguistic populations p[articipated in prior to historic contact. The Northwest Coast shows a similar spread of material culture reachin from southern Alaska, south along the Pacific Coast to Northwestern California, with dentalium shell used as a medium of exchange throughout that range. So, a technological distribution is not at all necessary evidence of a single population. The real take away, IMHO, that despite what looks like an immense amount of data, 1) it is not that much data when you are trying tunderstand around 20,000 years or more of prehistory, and 2) we don't know much at all when you accept the reality of the immense canyons of missing information. Unlike the science of archaeology, prehistory is mainly story telling, based on tiny glimpses of what might have happened once upon a time.
Early Human Settlement of Northeastern North America - Parsons Island Charcoal collected above this in-situ biface produced an age estimate of 17,133 ± 88 14 C yr BP or 20,525 ± 341 cal yr BP. Jonathan C. Lothrop,Darrin L. Lowery,Arthur E. Spiess &Christopher J. Ellis
'Currently there are no working hypotheses that handles the available evidence efficiently'. Except the one discussed above....White Sands even fits nicely into that period. The thing about most people digging into the Solutrean hypothesis is that they only pay attention to the American finds without knowing much about the Solutrean period at all. They don't even know the correct period which is from 28 to 16 thousand cal BP. Proffessor Bradley was ridiculed for saying the Solutrean is that old but he is absolutely correct. Just ask the Spanish archeologists. So that means 12 thousand years of Solutrean 'time' for them to cross an ocean. They experienced disastrous events in that period giving them every reason to migrate elsewhere. Such as volcanic winters dropping temperature during the already coldest of times. And we can all put to rest the idea that there was not enough sea ice for an ocean crossing. At certain times during that 12 thousand year period there would have been enough ice to walk back and forth between continents 10 times over. After the last super volcano eruption people in Europe also fled and reached Sardinia by boat...as evidenced in Corbeddu Cave. The charcoal dated there is around 25,600 cal BP. Those people were either Solutrean or Epi Gravettian. The Solutrean hypothesis fits right in with that. It is a perfectly fine working hypothesis on people arriving in America. If people would simply stop misrepresenting this hypothesis...desperate to debunk it...they could learn a thing or two from it. Nathaniel here did a better job than most but he is still far off....and repeating false claims about the hypothesis and the Solutrean period in Europe.
@@forestdweller5581 We have the evidence Solutrean or Epi Gravettian sandstone slab City in Northeastern Ohio under 10 feet topsoil, Government knowingly Permitted dump ! LOL
I believe settlement happens in waves One group across the bearing straights, another group from the Pacific, group from Europe. Humans love to explore.
Being a scientist by training and profession, and having long been interested ancient American culture (and, incidentally, living about 1.6 km from the Anzick site) what I find particularly interest is that the Solutrean hpothesis was actually presented as a testable hypothesis. That meant it could be tested, with some rigor, and either either falsified or accepted (but never actually proven, of course). And, then, how the subsequent studies actually did support an alternative hypothesis. Your treatment and presentation was informative, balanced, and well-done. Actually, the whole resultant body of work generated by the Spolutrean hypothesis is one the best really clear-cut discrete examples of archaeology being truly a science, I have seen. This joint presentation was really good, playing off both narrator's strong points. Nicely done, gentlemen!!! Thanks!
That's mostly because people's eyes glaze over when we get into the hard science part of archaeology, so we usually leave that stuff out of our public education material. Even this is SUPER stripped down.
@@NathanaelFosaaen I personally think the Solutrean Hypothesis is unlikely. Even if it is an intriguing possibility. And a remote possibility at that. Unfortunately some unsavory individuals latched on to it. To be followed by the knee jerk political correctness response about racism. And predictably Native Groups responded with talk that it was all about justifying dispossing them. In response to the whole question l have several questions 1) How many lithic cultures worldwide post or pre Solutrean developed very similiar stone working techniques. 2) What are the time frames similiar stone working techniques relative to Solutrean. 3) What type of blue water boat technology did exist or could have existed during the Wisconsin/Wurm Glaciation. I know that the terms Wisconsin and Wurm are obsolete but the still act as a convenient place holder in terms of era. Plus a lot of people might not be familiar with terms such as MIS 2 or MIS 4) Why is the highest concentration of Clovis artifacts in Eastern North America. More specifically in the Delmarva Peninsula area. Is this due to a higher percentage of excavation for building purposes. Due to Late Wisconsin environmental conditions. What could prove a Solutrean presence of any sort in North America. 1) Genetic evidence. First is there any genetic information as to the origins of the Solutreans. As l recall Stanford thought their source vm population was Northwest Africa. Even if they were not derived from a recent migration out of North Aftica they would have been from the Hunter Gatherer population that occupied Europe at the time. 2) Lithic evidence. This would require finding stone tools of the proper type. In undisturbed datable soils. And most importantly of stone that could be traced to quarries in the region occupied by the Solutrean Culture. #1 would be hard given the general lack of skeletons connected to early occupation. #2 is possible but not probable. Having listened to a number of talks by Stanford ty here are a number of points he brought up. One is a stone tool which I believe is from Meadowcroft. The stone has been traced to a quarry on the coast of Labrador. How does anything that sources from Labrador wind up in Pennsylvania during a Glacial Advance. Either we are completely wrong about ice coverage or it implies boats. The second is a stone tool found as a surface find in the Jamestown area. A stone knife traced to a known Solutrean quarry. First what are the odds that any English settlers from Roanoke onwards were using stone knives. And they just happened to be using stone sourced in Southwest France. If the knife is Native made it has to date from the pre contact period. And if it how did they get the stone. Possible ballast stone from a European wreck? Or is there a source of stone in the region that is chemically indistinguishable from the one in France.
I appreciate that you have approached this with respect for all involved. It pained me to see the ad home I'm attacks that Stanford was subject to. Thank you.
Excellent work you two! I appreciate the framing that this hypothesis isn't as totally wild or racist as it seems on its face, but also the discussion about why it doesn't make sense after it drove so much good research.
It is becoming part of the long and proud history of archeological/paleontological hypothesises (what's the plural form of hypothesis?) that started out as serious academic theories but were then abandoned only to get picked up again by pseudoscientists.
Thanks for what has to be the most thorough address of the Solutrean Hypothesis on UA-cam since Stanford; that I can find. Though I’m a Solutrean “Fan Boy”, I appreciate the thoroughness, as opposed to outright dismissiveness, which only fans my paranoia more than answering any real questions.
I can’t fault you for “keeping hope alive”, but it’s a closed case unless there are findings that warrant reopening the case and reconsidering the hypothesis.
Thank you gentlemen for covering this. I have been looking for more than conspiracy information about this topic for a while & this is exactly what I wanted lol.
Loved this, you two are both fantastic. I've always been intrigued by the Solutrean Hypothesis and for a while found merit in it but more recent scholarship has given me reason to doubt its usefulness with things like you've presented here. One thing I do enjoy about it still is that if anything it has produced more research and scholarship on both sides leading to more discoveries and understanding, and after all isn't that what a good hypothesis is supposed to do?
The Soultrain Hypothesis proposes that the first migrants making their way into the Americas sung an ancient version of Soultrain as they traveled. No evidence of this exists or could really exists but archeologists unanimously agree that it would be really cool if it were true. Source: Me just now making it up for the joke.
Great video! I haven't heard this hypothesis before and very interesting. I like that you look at all the evidence and it's very respectful. Also, kudos on the team up. AA is another favorite of mine. Keep up the good work Nathanael!
This is a brilliant break down of the facts and I appreciate the non emotional form of presenting them. Plus your partnership worked wonderfully, thanks for your time and effort. 💯
Dude I need that paper on the phylogenetic (phylomemetic?) relationship of Clovis and Solutrean lithic material! I’m an evolutionary biologist and just seen the figures blew my mind! I need the doi, please, I wanna impress my doctoral adviser 😅. Kudos on the good work! Excelent video 🎉🎉
You can also find an excellent paper on researchgate testing the hypothesis about blade/core technology and the similarities between Clovis/pre Clovis/Solutrean. It' s open access.
One thing I think gets overlooked by people opposed to the Solutrean Hypothesis is the fact that currently there are tons of people who can make flint tools in styles other than those of the culture into which they were born. For example, EVERYONE currently making stone tools is doing so in a style other than the non-stone age technology in which they were raised. As such, it would be possible for a single individual with a Solutrean point to make it to the East coast and either demonstrate the technology or trade the point to someone with enough know how to reverse engineer it. At that point (pun) the Solutrean tech can travel across the whole of North America without any additional individuals coming over. Clovis as a "culture" is really just a technology. It could be a single culture spanning the entirety of North America or it could be thousands of individual cultures who've all gained access to the same material technology and are producing their version of the latest iPhone -- a much better tool than what they had been using and it gets adopted by everyone who comes across it.
There's just the slight issue that Clovis only appears about 6000 years after the Solutrean material culture disappears, so unless that single man survived for 6000 years and also somehow cross the North Atlantic alone with stone age technology this isn't really possible. Also like your second paragraph is just a description of what a material culture is. There's a reason why archeologists use the term material culture, or technological complex, and not just culture, because the two aren't the same thing.
@@hedgehog3180 If you think about how slowly ideas and people would be moving around back in those days, 6000 years really isn't that long a time gap. Plus, the timeline is only based on the finds we have and the gap could actually be a lot shorter.... but we don't have the evidence to show it. Just like we've only recently discovered those very old footprints in the desert southwest, and are revising the timeline of human habitation, we could turn up something new tomorrow that'll completely rewrite our understanding of the Solutreans and a thousand other things.
@@mpetersen6 Yep. The scientific community makes a lot of assumptions. They might be very educated assumptions based on the evidence we have, but it's very very slim evidence.
There is another point (1) about today's flint knappers. They are copying historical items that they have examples that they have seen. Techniques they have read about or seen demonstrated. They are not copying styles or techniques that they have not seen or have no knowledge of. 1) No pun intended
Thank you both for exploring this topic. I appreciate that you are not destroying anyone’s hopes about a possible Solutrean influence, only that it is becoming increasingly unlikely, and the more dna evidence we have, the less likely it seems to be. I applaud your objective critical approach, it is refreshing to see, cheers!
What a great adressing of the topic. I have seen so many unknowledgable people on the internet and in the other medias adress the Hypothesis out of hand as Eurosupremacist and leave it at that. As you acknowledge, many non-academic proponents do indeed take that view. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with the idea honestly. Which you both do. Best short-form analysis of the hypothesis I've seen. I totally agree with the conclusion.
I'm glad you did this because it helped me understand it a little better. I've been around long enough to have been aware of the Solutrean hypothesis when it was still pretty new. I thought I had seen the late Dennis Stanford talk about it on video and say that it was no longer as hopeful as it had been because of new DNA evidence. It made me sad for him and his colleague. One of the reasons the Solutrean Hypothesis always interested me is because when I was a kid there was a diehard insistence that paleolithic people didn't know about or use boats. Since all young boys and a few of the girls I knew spent time trying to make things float during warm weather, I thought they were wrong. The last fifty years or so has made a dent in the boat viewpoint. And there are those interesting sites such as Monte Verde.
@@ATOQ777 There are videos of Stanford out there on the web. The question is if the site owners kept the material available. I would think the idea of a migration from Southwestern Eurasia around the Iberian Peninsula is highly unlikely. The possibility of a small number people from the region winding up in North America after a summer of hunting seals along the fringe of the ice is a possibility. Even if a remote one. One thing l think that could prove any Solutrean presence in North America is an artifact found in a datable soil layer. An artifact tracable to a known quarry used by the Solutreans.
That’s the danger of individual archaeologists getting so stuck on their theory. People can become personally invested in their theory. The real talent is to accept when evidence doesn’t support your theory and be willing to look elsewhere. Even negative evidence is still helpful as it crosses off the list one possibility and helps to narrow down the truth.
I thought this was a very good episode, informative. I remember reading the text book that was attributive to the theory, and noticed the similarities as well back in the early eighties. Much appreciation for the breakdown.
Great presentations. You two really worked well together!!! Here is another hypothesis - Maybe the Solutrean did make it to North America 5000 years earlier but then abandoned their sites or migrated south during a cold period. It was only later that an early indigenous archeologist found a Solutrean cache of projectile points and said "Wow these are really neat and so much better than what we have. Lets learn how to make them".
Can you guys explain the Chesapeake bay site? Or are we going to ignore that being older than clovis? Also using genetic data of people clearly of different region to say Solutreans didn't make it to America is kind of weird. Of course the indigenous of central and western US are not going to be sharing genetics with eastern natives that we have very little genetics data on comparatively
Clovis points have a stem. Solutrean points, proclaimed to be so identical, don’t have a stem. Clovis points are nearly always fluted on both sides. Solutrean points lack fluting. They might not have been used the same way either, ei one a projectile point vs the other a knife. I think usage is debatable. Two unrelated cultures can produce similar materials if they live a similar lifestyle. Independent invention can happen. My understanding is that the blades are the only real material culture that is even remotely comparable between the two societies and they aren’t quite as identical as people make them out to be. There is also a timing issue. Solutreans existed around 22kya and went away around 17 Kya or so. Clovis doesn’t start until around 13,500. So migrating Solutrean peoples would have had to stop making those iconic points for some 3-4ky and then pick right it right up again in Clovis. That’s just completely unrealistic. Solutrean people were a warmer climate culture most identified with southern France and into Spain and Portugal and occupied inland areas with some access to coastline areas. They were not a cold climate adapted culture capable to surviving a journey skirting the frigid arctic. Nor is there any evidence of them being an ocean going culture. There’s only limited evidence of boat usage and that was not ocean capable. We aren’t talking anything remotely like Viking boat technology. More likely boats for crossing rivers or lakes. And it’s limited evidence of even that. Plus no blue water ocean going animal material remains have been identified with Solutrean culture. They weren’t hunting fish that occupy seas away from the coasts. They just weren’t traveling out to sea. Lastly, the final word is Anzick-1, the only Clovis associated burial ever found (and in Montana at that). The DNA is distinctly of Asian origin with no link to Europe. One more point. The entire Solutrean hypothesis smacks of a teleological bias. It’s suggests a society more adapted to a Mediterranean life style would have had a reasonable expectation that the western hemisphere landmasses existed, or that they would have also had a reason to go there risking an arctic climate and environment which they would not have any experience with. They would not be following any animal herds from Europe to the Americas because there was no bridging there. Just no reason for them to go. All of these expectations are completely satisfied for a bearing land bridge migration. Cold weather adapted hunting societies following game herds using the grasslands land bridge leads people right into Alaska without any of the teleological problems. They happened to get there by circumstance and not by intention or design. Plus the costal route down the bearing bridge coastline and the Canadian coastline were likely not ice locked making boat travel easier. Boats traveling the northern most Atlantic (against the direction of the North Atlantic currents by the way) would have encountered more stretches of open water, more ice locked coastline with little to no land game animals. It just would have been dramatically harder to approach North America from Europe. That the Vikings could do it is not surprising as they had the boat technology, that they were a maritime culture, that they had deep blue water hunting experience, and were cold climate adapted. All the things that lead to successful voyages for them but which the Solutreans completely lacked. But ultimately with the dna evidence It’s really an open and shut case.
This theory does have a strong potential. There have been several recreations of ancient Atlantic voyages, The Brendan voyages and the Ra Expeditions by Thor Heyerdahl come to mind. And the ancient voyages describes by Herodotus where Phoenician ships circumnavigated Africa. Indeed, there is no Ocean on the planet that cannot be crossed by primitive boats; a 40-60 foot dug out canoe can travel around the world
I’m reading about the full moon and disseminating phase associated with the Solutrean and the Magdalenian period. I’ve never heard of either so here I am, trying to weave. Great video, I really appreciate the pictures and percise details 👍🏼
What a GREAT collaboration! Very happy to see this. I'm really grateful to Ancient Americas for the policy of not showing remains of Native folks out of respect. I'm a non-Native person who cares about that issue very deeply, and am grateful.
Hello there. This is fascinating. I’m definitely here for the wisdom that’s presented. I’m into kayaking and rock hounding around the creek beds around where I live. I just wish I didn’t wait until my mid-40’s to begin learning. New sub here👍🏻
It could be seen as somewhat ethnocentric to think that two separate and isolated groups couldn't have come up with similar strategies in tool making on their own.
But that's not a very scientific way of thinking is it? Just because something CAN be interpreted or seen a certain way doesn't mean it should. Whining about and accusing people of ethnocentrism doesn't actually mean anything in regard to the truth of a hypothesis and is just an unscientific way of trying to get people to stop talking about something.
@@alexdunphy3716 If you make the claim that the appearance is explained by Europeans doing it, and yet have insufficient evidence for that claim, it could very well be regarded as Eurocentric. To rob whole cultures of their own cultural achievements, and then to credit them to Europeans, and to do so without sufficient evidence, is deeply problematic.
I don’t think it’s a matter of the techniques being uniquely advanced, in which case the assumption would be ethnocentric. Instead, it’s about weighing the probabilities of a particular set of uncommon techniques being developed and converging independently.
Nice study, I congratulate you. You should also take into account that X mtdna is close relative of A mtdna, possibly younger than A mtdna. I think A, X mtdna are paralel to P, Q, R ydna. P1 is altaic siberian ydna and ancestor of both native american Q and central asian and european R similar to A is older and X is younger maternal linage of same separation to east and west from siberia. Because, A mtdna is found inside turkic, siberian people as also found in native americans. If we take into consideration, X is related to A mtdna and found both in Turkey (west) and America (east) originated from siberia. So, everything is getting clear in my mind. Thanks and regards!
The genetics not matching can easily be explained. About 12,000 YBP north America saw massive flooding, the "black mat" layer of massive fires, and the extinction of fauna over ~100 lbs, including (but not limited to) mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth, camel, horse, saber toothed cat, short faced bear, and many others. It seems that such an extinction level event would have also wiped out people (who tend to be over ~100 lbs), especially if the depended on the hunting of prey animals that are also over 100 lbs in size. Then, in the years following, north America could easily have been repopulated by siberian and western eurasian peoples migrating across from the north west of north America. So, ancient stone tools buried in caches or left in caves could still be found, while the genetics would not exist in current populations. Either way, it's an interesting and thought provoking hypothesis. All good science comes from keeping an open mind, looking at new evidence, making new hypotheses, testing against evidence, "lather, rinse and repeat."
This isn't a bad hypothesis in principle, but the fact that we have pre-Younger Dryas human DNA from Paisley Caves that is directly ancestral to modern Native American peoples demonstrates that no such human extinction event occurred, and the cultural continuity from the pleistocene through the holocene also demonstrates that no such extinction event happened for humans.
@NathanaelFosaaen Uh, I'm not following your logic. Do you think that just because DNA from paleoamericans have been found prior to Younger-dryas, this means no cataclysm event occurred? That doesn't seem to make sense.
So in Indiana I've found 3 Clovis points in a field with " pea gravel" and Willow leaf points. The field is in the area once known as the Grand Kankakee Marsh on a sand hill surrounded by black dirt. As I was told " pea gravel" is found where Glacier Cane areas. Another find inthis area has been 2 rat tail copper points. What do you think 🤔
Thank you for a fascinating dive into this. I had not heard of this hypothesis before, but you folks both laid out its contents and the evidence extremely well. I definitely don't feel the hypothesis is white supremacist in nature, but instead a rather plain attempt at applying Occum's Razor to the lithic information we had. Its also good that we can rule it out with a healthy amount of certainty, though, because it makes the real story so much more interesting and shows just how ingenious our ancient ancestors were (ours as in all of humanity, as I do not claim any Native American decent). To me, it feels similar to the fact that copper was worked around the great lakes, and that central america showed evidence of ceremonial use of iron, both of which were developed completely independently from metal working technology from the Middle East from which European metalworking technology developed. Iron working also seems to have sprung up independently in Sub-Saharan Africa as well, if I remember correctly. This is just a similar (but even more impressively intricate) example of that same technological convergent evolution.
Actually middle eastern metal working developed from European metal working as Bronze and Iron working were first seen in Neolithic European Farmer civilizations of the balkens and in proto-indo-european cultures respectively
@@alexdunphy3716 I can see why you object to the criticism of ethnocentrism. Does metal working in the Balkans imply that metal working elsewhere originated there?
The bit about white supremacism is because it very quickly became popular with white supremacists. Their interpretation obviously didn't make sense and bore little similarity to the actual hypothesis but that's just how it goes with white supremacists since their worldview is fundamentally pseudoscientific. And of course now that the hypothesis has largely been rejected I'll bet that white supremecists will claim that this is somehow the work of the woke cabal or whatever their current antisemitic dogwhistle is.
While I am not going to dispute anything spelled out here, I will point out that everything we are told about the past (especially where it comes to humanity) demands that we ALL accept the idea that EVERYTHING is a product of co-evolution. Around the world we see stone works like Stonehenge, and we are told that ALL the cultures who erected these sites did so for the exact same reason-- astrological mapping or something like following the seasons. We are likewise assured that even though the people who constructed these almost sites had no contact with each other, and yet we see that a bit younger than the Stonehenge-type constructions we see (around the world) pyramids, and looking closer we see that there is a sort of polygonal construction method (where stones are set one upon the other without mortar, and featuring corners that interlock perfectly) in every place from Easter Island, South America, Egypt even in the islands of the South Pacific. Again we are assured that each culture sporting these building methods did not have any contact with each other. This is like seeing a Ranch Style ( a domestic architectural style that originated in the United States) house in places around the world like China, or Australia and not understanding that its being there is because someone who knew about Ranch style homes used that style to build their home. It did not spring up coincidentally around the world as we are expected to believe these other building styles did. When you look at the other things we we are told to accept as coincidental we see the same tortured logic being used to explain them. The dates on these ancient buildings, cave are (compare the newly discovered 9 mile long wall in South America and the cave paintings in Lascaux to see that they are not only of the same age, but depict much the same style of drawing and animals) and even tool marks (the same around the world) are not only the same age, (30,000 years), but use similar materials. Red Ochre is also used around the world in much the same way--especially when dealing with the dead. How can all of these things be coincidental? They can't. However, they could reset the entire history of Earth but perhaps this is being concealed for a reason.
What is the style where a slightly curved flake is the entire piece (arrow point) and there is absolutely no flakes removed from the concave side? It only has 1 flake knocked off for the base, 2 for the sides and 3 or 4 for the point. 3/4 of an inch long by almost half. Pretty much diamond shaped with a flat bottom and only a suggestion of "wings" to tie to (not sure the term). Between the east coast and the Great lakes area. Solid tan and nearly transparent like a lighter beer bottle glass that is slightly milky. It isn't anything like the grey flint I find that's got 70 to 100 flakes removed to finish it. It looks nothing like all the rest (dozens of points and scrapers), except the polished slate blade/scraper. That's kinda novel too, slate chest plates are not unheard of around here along the rivers.
This is fascinating. You kept it interesting with images. I do a lot of reading on the Archaic in North America and have just started making content because of this encounter lithic related materials. I aspire to make content like you. P.s working on a BA
I found alot of useful information here. I believe I'm in possession of artifacts from the preclovis overshot pieces. I have identified a settlement sight. Southeast Appalachia.
19:08 I will say from a perspective of someone who works stone, once you have the idea to make a point with the flaking method, overshots can happen by accident with too much pressure or the tool angle. Once you do this a few times by mistake, I'm sure they learned how to harness that to their advantage. So like you said, these two culture groups likely had no contact.
20:18 - 20:48 Another thing to point out, regarding convergent evolution, is the different peoples working stones the same way in different places at different times, are working with very similar materials for a prolonged period. Remember, the Eastern coasline of North America and the Western Europe were just a single landmass before the Atlantic Ocean formed. These rocks that 2 different cultures an ocean apart were working were once the same rocks, not an ocean apart because said ocean is younger than the rocks in question.
Personally I think there were multiple waves of migrations. The American continent was known and there was trade across the atlantic and even via pacific. The Eskimo are a good example of a people that live on the edge of thie ice and were more than capable with basic tech to make the trip. Personally I think the groups may have met and perhaps taught others and it spread like wildfire with Clovis. I think if they had other artifacts that were similar we could surmise that the Solutreans did indeed make it to N America. The tool kits are a good start. This needs more research. I am an armchair history nerd and actually have found a small clovis stash which I gave to the state. Ever aince I have been obsessed.
The stone actually is likely similar because at one time europe and north america were connected so you may see similar stone tools when the same kind of stone (with even a shared source) is used.
I believe, and Gravettian also, I have collected both from collections some over 100 yrs old along the east coast. For the last12.years, the book is a wakeup call Rember Toper dates 50,000 years ago. Great videos thank you very much Nathanael. .
I would like to recommend Dr.Darrin Lowery work on ResearchGate , Parsons Island and other . He has very great knowledge of this subject and should be mentioned with the Solutrean hypothesis. He would make a great addition to a interview on your channel. Thank You Nathanael , I try to keep a open mind on this subject. The Upper Paleolithic is a important part of our History.
I've got one degree of separation from Lowery and I'm privy to some group emails with him and colleagues on the eastern bipoint phenomenon. I referred to his work several times when I was doing background reading for this episode.
It wasn't found by a Jamestown Farmer, it was found while excavating a historic farmstead. People have been collecting stone tools for hundreds of years, especially farmers in Europe. There's no reason to believe it was made in the Americas at all.
Lol. Lincoln was buying into a completely false idea that was popular back in the 19th century. Giants aren't real. Regular-sized people built the mounds. Don't be ridiculous.
21:01 The feature common to Magdalenian and Clovis, _"the pebble paved floors are __20:52__ interesting but the Solutreans never made __20:54__ them as far as we know that's a later __20:57__ Magdalenian feature"_ ... well, would fall within the years from 2693 and 2644. It would also fit within the lifespan of a single early post-Flood artist.
This is fascinating and I think maybe in 20 years we’ll be closer to the truth. I think the bog bodies having no genetic relatives and having 1000 years of habitation, evidence for Vikings in America, the footprints in New Mexico, the mammoth carved monuments at the bottom of the Great Lakes, the bluefish caves in Canada. I think it’s time someone tried to synthesize all that with the Clovis data. Polynesian influence in South America but not north? Seems everyone picks their own little piece of history, ignores everything else and says here’s how people got to America. Would just love to see someone try to paint an actual picture of what was going on here 25k years ago.
My theory is that because geologically the americas and europe share some similar stone types and working the same type of stone would cause one to make similar choices in working the stone without any contact.
How do they explain the distribution of Clovis points? Maybe I missed something but to me it seems it was more established on the East Coast and moved out westward. It seems like a beachhead when you look at the map...
There's really not much to explain. By the time Clovis points were invented, the continent had already been inhabited for about 10,000 years. The eastern part of the continent is full of fertile river systems that attract lots of people so you end up with more clovis representation in the east than you do the west.
@@NathanaelFosaaen But why are some of the oldest also in the east? Decades ago I helped briefly with a dig on the DelMarVa peninsula and we were told the oldest Clovis points were all on the eastern side of the Mississippi and the oldest of the oldest was in the mid Atlantic area.
@richjageman3976 I don't understand the question. They're oldest in the east because the tradition was probably invented there. Like I said in the video, the pattern is one that moves northwest from the southeast.
@@NathanaelFosaaen The question should have been worded better and was only partially for you. If as many others elsewhere stated that Clovis point proved the only prehistoric peoples came from Siberia why does it not match their stone tech and the most numerous and oldest are on the opposite side of the continent and more closely matches others? I rewatched the video without outside interruptions here and have a better understanding.
@@richjageman3976 Ok. Yeah Clovis has nothing to do with Siberia. Right on there. people had already been living in the continent interior for thousands of years before the Clovis technological complex was developed and it appears to have been invented in the eastern woodlands.
There are other arguments that can be made for either of those cultures such as a single group from either did make it the cashes could be previously repaired blades or a cashe that had been used repeatedly although I'm sure someone has already thought of that and made that argument
Do you have any more insight on the dating of X2a splitting from X2? Reidla et al, 2003 finds it to be ~18000 YBP and the Altaian X2e is much more recent ~6700 YBP@@NathanaelFosaaen
Would you be willing to weigh in on another subject? I watched a video recently where an archeologists was skeptical of the White Sands footprints for various reasons. One reason bothered me a little. He was skeptical due to lack of material evidence that would date to the same 23k time period. Material evidence such as a camp site, fire pit, lithic material etc. He also said that the ancient lake in the area was alkaline. Here is my problem: If the ancient lake was alkaline, it wouldn't be a good place to set up camp in the first place. What if the people who left the footprints were simply passing through, perhaps on a journey, and didn't leave any material evidence behind? Perhaps they camped several miles away while on their journey and that evidence hasn't been found yet. Wouldn't it be a little premature to discount the age of the footprints based on his assumption? Thanks!!
His gripe is asinine. They're footprints with embedded single-year organic material. Not everything gets preserved, contemporaneous campsites included.
@NathanaelFosaaen -- Interesting!! Thanks for the reply. Another thought occurred to me. If these footprints do indeed date 21k to 23k years ago, White Sands is quite far inland from the Pacific coastline. My thought is thus, if Native Americans then came by boat, probably in small numbers originally, it would take awhile for them to eventually migrate that far inland from the coast. I mean, why would they? It would seem more likely that once they settled in the coastal regions and their numbers increased sufficiently, then they would venture out. This would take considerable amounts of time. Does that imply a much earlier date for their original arrival?
@ironcladranchandforge7292 the Colorado River takes you from the Pacific all the way inland, and white sands is just across the continental divide. Those footprints weren't of the first people to get here for sure.
I'd leave the zigzag on the bone rods out, unless there is a progression of attachment technology shared through time. It may just be a widespread solution to the problem of point fixing. It comes from ancient pre-human tradition and tech, and very well may be coincidence owing to not ever being forgotten despite migration. We were pretty good at passing things along before writing could cross generations of non-related separate populations. Our survival depended on it. The opposite was done (onto the shaft itself) going back to Neanderthals and between then and now, it may be the only surviving examples of cross hatch to increase the surface area for an adhesive in non humans. Knowing for certain with half of something is difficult anyway.
Too bad you couldn't get Bruce Bradley to come on your program to counterpoint your argument He's an incredible archaeologist and would be a great asset to be able to have his point of view in this discussion.
Having seen the point and the mastodon bones that were dredged from 400 feet of water on the South side of Norfolk Canyon, when the ocean was 420 feet below present I am going with the 23K years for the oldest point in Virginia. The odds of dredging the point and mastodon bones in the same dredge selection and not associated together is virtually what, virtually impossible? You should see some of the privately gathered points I have seen found in situation on some of the very small islands in the upper Chesapeake Bay definitely pre Clovis and having been found along with Clovis.
2 questions. one is outlandish but im still curious. How could all this connect and relate if say instead of saying that ancient western europeans went to eastern america, that western europeans and eastern americans were disseminated from say greenland. Yes I know greenland has been an ice cube for at least 100k years, and they had to come from somewhere but human migration is full of back n forth and criss crosses and is messy, and greenlqands ice has 'changed' its age before. 2nd question. is it possible that there is a specific prey item in the north atlantic that may necessitate these types of similarities in hunting tools?
Where do unifaced granite points from the New England area fit in ? Is it Clovis or Folsom learning how to work harder stone ? Is it before that ? Lithic ?
@@NathanaelFosaaen ya, me. I live in MA. I'm not a scholar but I specialize in collecting granite and other hard stone artifacts from around my area. It's a unifaced style for the most part but not always. Quartzite is another seemingly preferred material around here . Any thoughts on this ? You can see some of my collections !
@@AncintArt2ndColony *_"ya, me"_* So, you found some rocks, and you think they look like spear or arrow points? And no archaeologist has ever found such things? {:o:O:}
@@AncintArt2ndColony *_"are you saying no archeologist has ever found a unifaced point made of granite"_* No, I though that's what you were saying. {:o:O:}
Truly fascinating. I wonder" without the accusations of Eurocentric supremacy, would the Solutrean Hypothesis have been subjected to the same degree of *urgent* scrutiny? In other words, it seems that in this case an objection born out of an ideological premise was actually stronger that a purely technical argument as a motivating factor in stimulating futher research on the topic.
The eurocentric issues weren't really a big thing until many years after the hypothesis had permeated academic circles. That whole thing was the product of white supremacist writers misusing the hypothesis in bad faith. That's about when academics got really loud about our objections in the press. Within published academic material we were already objecting pretty hard based on the merits.
The very people who proposed the hypothesis went out of their way to encourage critical examination of it and specifically pointed out what should be done to confirm or reject the hypothesis. So like given that why wouldn't archeologists go out and try to examine it right away? I mean it was an interesting theory that hit at just the right time where it could be given the scrutiny it deserves and in rejecting lots of interesting things were learned.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Why doesn't ancient kurgan culture in America make it a Solutream fact?? I mean, that is what these mounds are- kurgans.. It's not just the kurgans, it's their genetics, which have never been found on the "northern route". They were a copper wares kurgan culture, and we think we don't know who they were?! Nonsense! Obfuscating nonsense. Clearly, the mere idea is outside the scope of The Overton Window.
"The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose bones fill the Mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara as ours do now." - Lincoln.
First of all, Solutreans didn't build kurgans. You're mixing unrelated cultures and time periods. Second, as we explained, there has never been legitimate European DNA found in precolonial America. Third, burial mounds started in the Americas LONG after the Kurgan culture. They're not related.
@@NathanaelFosaaen That's only because your kind don't consider haplogroup X, "European DNA", but it most certainly is. So what is the time window for so-called Solutreans?
@@NathanaelFosaaen Everything under the sun is "related".
@dieselphiend X2b,c,and d are European. X2a is not. The Solutrean culture ended some 17,000 years ago, and the "Kurgan Culture" didn't begin until a full 10,000 years later. They have nothing to do with eachother.
@@NathanaelFosaaen Perhaps you're comfortable with the idea that kurgan culture in North America emerged from nothingness. I'm not.
Loved being a part of this ! Thank you!
Thanks for all your contributions!
This was the best collab ever!
No the caveat is - I have told you we have the burials everyone seeks at a twice documented Mound 100+ yr. C.O. Here is evidence for our ancient city site !
Early Human Settlement of Northeastern North America - Parsons Island
Charcoal collected above this in-situ biface produced an age estimate of 17,133 ± 88 14 C yr BP or 20,525 ± 341 cal yr BP.
.Artifacts discovered by a Smithsonian affiliated archaeologist along the Island’s eroding southwestern shoreline indicate that Parsons’ original inhabitants were pre-native people whose origins span the Atlantic Ocean to the Solutré territory of east-central France some 20,000 years ago - suggesting a new timeline and arrival route for human settlement on the North American continent. ! Magdalenian sites stretched from Portugal in the west to Poland in the east, and as far north as France, the Channel Islands, England, and Wales.
The only time I attend AA and stay awake for the duration of the discussion is when this guy is giving the speech! What? Oh, Hi my name is Jake and I am an alc... ancient-histolic 😅
Great work fellas 👏
You have the voice of someone who would tell me that they’re smarter than me, and be correct.
I’m not giving up on Solutrean or pre Clovis artifacts found at Cactus Hill…right down the road from where I live. Amazing what you can find just by digging another 6-10 inches. Mind blowing. I imagine much more will be discovered in the next 10-20 years about how these people came here.
I live near Meadowcroft. They can't keep saying the natives were a small primitive population. As you go down more than 20,000 years ago, the number of artifacts INCREASE in number, not the other way around!
Looking forward to this! Two of my favourite channels on a crazy hypothesis 🔥
It's significantly less stupid than most channels are willing to concede.
Very nice Nat and thankyou, nick zentner is on with in half hour he is south of me rocking washington state. Imagine a basalt cedar splitter?
@@NathanaelFosaaenarchaeology has found cache sites of roughed-in but unfinished points often coated in red ochre. Has anyone considered that these strategically placed caches were drop off points in a long distance trade practice? One tribe might leave a set of goods, which another tribe might later pick up the goods, and deposit their own reciprocating trade goods?
@NathanaelFosaaen I never thought it was stupid
@@DanDavisHistory I definitely did. You're a better person than I am.
As an archaeologist myself, and as someone who has handled a lot of fluted points, and been immersed in the literature for several decades, it is important to recognize that while "pre-Clovis" components were "obvious" to some of us, others flatly rejected the notion, and when Stanford and Bradley published their book, there were many North American archaeologists who still insisted Clovis was the earliest occupation, reflecting the actual colonization of the Americas. This was despite the inherent logical problems and evidential issues the Clovis First hypothesis, which had been regarded by many as a proven fact. Recently (2022) work has been published by the National Academy of Science that demonstrated that the Ice Free Corridor was not open soon enough or long enough for people from the arctic to populate the lower latitudes.
Most American archaeologists were still supposing that while pre-Clovis had to be a thing, that the time depth of their entry could not be too much earlier than the appearance of Clovis. Bradley and Stanford were adhering to that. If you add an additional 5,000 years to earliest Clovis, then you are still looking at an entry not much earlier than Meadowcroft. ca. 18 kya. There are still problems, because scattered older dates _must_ mean the continent was largely explored by that time. If you add dates from South America even that 18 kya estimate begins to look too recent. The White Sands footprints, and osteoderm beads in Brazil push the problem back immensely farther. Currently there are no working hypotheses that handles the available evidence efficiently. The one fact we can draw is that Clovis hunters did not emerge from the Ice Free Corridor, and eat every mammoth on the continent, along with every horse, camel, giant ground sloth and short-faced bear.
As concerns the size of Clovis populations, the distribution of a technology _may_ correlate with a people, but it may also reflect the spread of an idea through many peoples. The spread of the use of the bow and arrow in North and South America is an example. Clovis technology, the manufacturing and weapon construction ideas may well have spread widely through word of mouth or example rather than colonization. In fact, entire technological, material culture and ritual complexes can spread through adjacent populations, independent of colonization. The late prehistoric archaeology of California, or the Northwest Coast both exhibit this. In California much of the northern state reflects a broadly uniform material and ritual culture which multiple linguistic populations p[articipated in prior to historic contact. The Northwest Coast shows a similar spread of material culture reachin from southern Alaska, south along the Pacific Coast to Northwestern California, with dentalium shell used as a medium of exchange throughout that range. So, a technological distribution is not at all necessary evidence of a single population.
The real take away, IMHO, that despite what looks like an immense amount of data, 1) it is not that much data when you are trying tunderstand around 20,000 years or more of prehistory, and 2) we don't know much at all when you accept the reality of the immense canyons of missing information. Unlike the science of archaeology, prehistory is mainly story telling, based on tiny glimpses of what might have happened once upon a time.
Thank you for your service.
Early Human Settlement of Northeastern North America - Parsons Island
Charcoal collected above this in-situ biface produced an age estimate of 17,133 ± 88 14 C yr BP or 20,525 ± 341 cal yr BP. Jonathan C. Lothrop,Darrin L. Lowery,Arthur E. Spiess &Christopher J. Ellis
'Currently there are no working hypotheses that handles the available evidence efficiently'. Except the one discussed above....White Sands even fits nicely into that period. The thing about most people digging into the Solutrean hypothesis is that they only pay attention to the American finds without knowing much about the Solutrean period at all. They don't even know the correct period which is from 28 to 16 thousand cal BP.
Proffessor Bradley was ridiculed for saying the Solutrean is that old but he is absolutely correct. Just ask the Spanish archeologists. So that means 12 thousand years of Solutrean 'time' for them to cross an ocean. They experienced disastrous events in that period giving them every reason to migrate elsewhere. Such as volcanic winters dropping temperature during the already coldest of times. And we can all put to rest the idea that there was not enough sea ice for an ocean crossing. At certain times during that 12 thousand year period there would have been enough ice to walk back and forth between continents 10 times over. After the last super volcano eruption people in Europe also fled and reached Sardinia by boat...as evidenced in Corbeddu Cave. The charcoal dated there is around 25,600 cal BP. Those people were either Solutrean or Epi Gravettian. The Solutrean hypothesis fits right in with that.
It is a perfectly fine working hypothesis on people arriving in America. If people would simply stop misrepresenting this hypothesis...desperate to debunk it...they could learn a thing or two from it. Nathaniel here did a better job than most but he is still far off....and repeating false claims about the hypothesis and the Solutrean period in Europe.
@@forestdweller5581 We have the evidence Solutrean or Epi Gravettian sandstone slab City in Northeastern Ohio under 10 feet topsoil, Government knowingly Permitted dump ! LOL
I believe settlement happens in waves
One group across the bearing straights, another group from the Pacific, group from Europe. Humans love to explore.
Two of my favorite archaeology channels teaming up! Great video!
Being a scientist by training and profession, and having long been interested ancient American culture (and, incidentally, living about 1.6 km from the Anzick site) what I find particularly interest is that the Solutrean hpothesis
was actually presented as a testable hypothesis. That meant it could be tested, with some rigor, and either either falsified or accepted (but never actually proven, of course). And, then, how the subsequent studies actually did support an alternative hypothesis. Your treatment and presentation was informative, balanced, and well-done. Actually, the whole resultant body of work generated by the Spolutrean hypothesis is one the best really clear-cut discrete examples of archaeology being truly a science, I have seen. This joint presentation was really good, playing off both narrator's strong points. Nicely done, gentlemen!!! Thanks!
That's mostly because people's eyes glaze over when we get into the hard science part of archaeology, so we usually leave that stuff out of our public education material. Even this is SUPER stripped down.
@@NathanaelFosaaen
I personally think the Solutrean Hypothesis is unlikely. Even if it is an intriguing possibility. And a remote possibility at that. Unfortunately some unsavory individuals latched on to it. To be followed by the knee jerk political correctness response about racism. And predictably Native Groups responded with talk that it was all about justifying dispossing them. In response to the whole question l have several questions
1) How many lithic cultures worldwide post or pre Solutrean developed very similiar stone working techniques.
2) What are the time frames similiar stone working techniques relative to Solutrean.
3) What type of blue water boat technology did exist or could have existed during the Wisconsin/Wurm Glaciation. I know that the terms Wisconsin and Wurm are obsolete but the still act as a convenient place holder in terms of era. Plus a lot of people might not be familiar with terms such as MIS 2 or MIS 4) Why is the highest concentration of Clovis artifacts in Eastern North America. More specifically in the Delmarva Peninsula area. Is this due to a higher percentage of excavation for building purposes. Due to Late Wisconsin environmental conditions.
What could prove a Solutrean presence of any sort in North America.
1) Genetic evidence. First is there any genetic information as to the origins of the Solutreans. As l recall Stanford thought their source vm population was Northwest Africa. Even if they were not derived from a recent migration out of North Aftica they would have been from the Hunter Gatherer population that occupied Europe at the time.
2) Lithic evidence. This would require finding stone tools of the proper type. In undisturbed datable soils. And most importantly of stone that could be traced to quarries in the region occupied by the Solutrean Culture.
#1 would be hard given the general lack of skeletons connected to early occupation. #2 is possible but not probable.
Having listened to a number of talks by Stanford ty here are a number of points he brought up. One is a stone tool which I believe is from Meadowcroft. The stone has been traced to a quarry on the coast of Labrador. How does anything that sources from Labrador wind up in Pennsylvania during a Glacial Advance. Either we are completely wrong about ice coverage or it implies boats. The second is a stone tool found as a surface find in the Jamestown area. A stone knife traced to a known Solutrean quarry. First what are the odds that any English settlers from Roanoke onwards were using stone knives. And they just happened to be using stone sourced in Southwest France. If the knife is Native made it has to date from the pre contact period. And if it how did they get the stone. Possible ballast stone from a European wreck? Or is there a source of stone in the region that is chemically indistinguishable from the one in France.
Two of my favorite channels teaming up!! Fascinating subject, glad you two cleared some of that up.
Great content y'all. Appreciate the commitment to proper analysis. Nice collaboration from two of my fav creators.
Great collaboration of the two of you! Thanks!
Great Collaboration!! Would love to see more of these. Very interesting!!!
I appreciate that you have approached this with respect for all involved. It pained me to see the ad home I'm attacks that Stanford was subject to. Thank you.
This video made me hungrier than I would have anticipated 😂
Excellent work you two! I appreciate the framing that this hypothesis isn't as totally wild or racist as it seems on its face, but also the discussion about why it doesn't make sense after it drove so much good research.
That's how actual archaeologists tended to talk about it.
It is becoming part of the long and proud history of archeological/paleontological hypothesises (what's the plural form of hypothesis?) that started out as serious academic theories but were then abandoned only to get picked up again by pseudoscientists.
Thanks for what has to be the most thorough address of the Solutrean Hypothesis on UA-cam since Stanford; that I can find.
Though I’m a Solutrean “Fan Boy”, I appreciate the thoroughness, as opposed to outright dismissiveness, which only fans my paranoia more than answering any real questions.
I can’t fault you for “keeping hope alive”, but it’s a closed case unless there are findings that warrant reopening the case and reconsidering the hypothesis.
Thank you gentlemen for covering this. I have been looking for more than conspiracy information about this topic for a while & this is exactly what I wanted lol.
I love it when two channels I follow make a video together and a great one at that keep up the good work guys and thank you
I clicked so fast for this collab, and the topic is just a bonus.
Loved this, you two are both fantastic. I've always been intrigued by the Solutrean Hypothesis and for a while found merit in it but more recent scholarship has given me reason to doubt its usefulness with things like you've presented here. One thing I do enjoy about it still is that if anything it has produced more research and scholarship on both sides leading to more discoveries and understanding, and after all isn't that what a good hypothesis is supposed to do?
Oh wow! I love Ancient Americas stuff. Great to see you guys working together
Fantastic video, gentlemen. I love the collaborative effort. Excellent work👍
Much appreciated!
The collab I’ve been waiting for
Thank you both for sharing the results of your research.
This was awesome. Excellent collaboration
Glad you enjoyed it!
I keep reading the title as The Soultrain Hypothesis.
We should all be so fortunate!
So I'm not the only one. I also sing it to myself to the tune of the O'Jays' _Love Train._
The Soultrain Hypothesis proposes that the first migrants making their way into the Americas sung an ancient version of Soultrain as they traveled. No evidence of this exists or could really exists but archeologists unanimously agree that it would be really cool if it were true.
Source: Me just now making it up for the joke.
Oh, no. The Lost Ancient Funky Technology theorists have arrived.
Hilarious gonna use it ...
Great video! I haven't heard this hypothesis before and very interesting. I like that you look at all the evidence and it's very respectful. Also, kudos on the team up. AA is another favorite of mine. Keep up the good work Nathanael!
Coincidentally, I had heard about it for the first time just earlier today prior to seeing this video pop up.
This is a brilliant break down of the facts and I appreciate the non emotional form of presenting them. Plus your partnership worked wonderfully, thanks for your time and effort. 💯
Dude I need that paper on the phylogenetic (phylomemetic?) relationship of Clovis and Solutrean lithic material! I’m an evolutionary biologist and just seen the figures blew my mind! I need the doi, please, I wanna impress my doctoral adviser 😅.
Kudos on the good work! Excelent video 🎉🎉
It's in the book Across Atlantic Ice. You can find it on Libgen
@@NathanaelFosaaen thank you so very much!
You can also find an excellent paper on researchgate testing the hypothesis about blade/core technology and the similarities between Clovis/pre Clovis/Solutrean. It' s open access.
@@NathanaelFosaaenhave you ever heard of Robert sepehr?
One thing I think gets overlooked by people opposed to the Solutrean Hypothesis is the fact that currently there are tons of people who can make flint tools in styles other than those of the culture into which they were born. For example, EVERYONE currently making stone tools is doing so in a style other than the non-stone age technology in which they were raised. As such, it would be possible for a single individual with a Solutrean point to make it to the East coast and either demonstrate the technology or trade the point to someone with enough know how to reverse engineer it. At that point (pun) the Solutrean tech can travel across the whole of North America without any additional individuals coming over.
Clovis as a "culture" is really just a technology. It could be a single culture spanning the entirety of North America or it could be thousands of individual cultures who've all gained access to the same material technology and are producing their version of the latest iPhone -- a much better tool than what they had been using and it gets adopted by everyone who comes across it.
There's just the slight issue that Clovis only appears about 6000 years after the Solutrean material culture disappears, so unless that single man survived for 6000 years and also somehow cross the North Atlantic alone with stone age technology this isn't really possible.
Also like your second paragraph is just a description of what a material culture is. There's a reason why archeologists use the term material culture, or technological complex, and not just culture, because the two aren't the same thing.
@@hedgehog3180 If you think about how slowly ideas and people would be moving around back in those days, 6000 years really isn't that long a time gap. Plus, the timeline is only based on the finds we have and the gap could actually be a lot shorter.... but we don't have the evidence to show it. Just like we've only recently discovered those very old footprints in the desert southwest, and are revising the timeline of human habitation, we could turn up something new tomorrow that'll completely rewrite our understanding of the Solutreans and a thousand other things.
@@threeriversforge1997
And evidence could currently by under a couple hundred feet of salt water.
@@mpetersen6 Yep. The scientific community makes a lot of assumptions. They might be very educated assumptions based on the evidence we have, but it's very very slim evidence.
There is another point (1) about today's flint knappers. They are copying historical items that they have examples that they have seen. Techniques they have read about or seen demonstrated. They are not copying styles or techniques that they have not seen or have no knowledge of.
1) No pun intended
what an excellent combination of talents in archeological science communication.
I hope you two do more collaborations!
Excellent and sympathetic review of a popular, interesting, unsuccessful hypothesis. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great to see you two working together!
Thank you both for exploring this topic. I appreciate that you are not destroying anyone’s hopes about a possible Solutrean influence, only that it is becoming increasingly unlikely, and the more dna evidence we have, the less likely it seems to be. I applaud your objective critical approach, it is refreshing to see, cheers!
Awesome collaboration! Thank you both.
Excellent collaboration an video. Very nice assimilation and presentation of facts n findings..
What a great adressing of the topic. I have seen so many unknowledgable people on the internet and in the other medias adress the Hypothesis out of hand as Eurosupremacist and leave it at that. As you acknowledge, many non-academic proponents do indeed take that view. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with the idea honestly. Which you both do.
Best short-form analysis of the hypothesis I've seen. I totally agree with the conclusion.
I'm glad you did this because it helped me understand it a little better. I've been around long enough to have been aware of the Solutrean hypothesis when it was still pretty new. I thought I had seen the late Dennis Stanford talk about it on video and say that it was no longer as hopeful as it had been because of new DNA evidence. It made me sad for him and his colleague.
One of the reasons the Solutrean Hypothesis always interested me is because when I was a kid there was a diehard insistence that paleolithic people didn't know about or use boats. Since all young boys and a few of the girls I knew spent time trying to make things float during warm weather, I thought they were wrong. The last fifty years or so has made a dent in the boat viewpoint. And there are those interesting sites such as Monte Verde.
Do you have that video of Dennis Stanford?
@@ATOQ777 I'll think about it. I think it was before I got rid of the cable. A year or a few before he died.
@@kitefan1Thank you
@@ATOQ777
There are videos of Stanford out there on the web. The question is if the site owners kept the material available. I would think the idea of a migration from Southwestern Eurasia around the Iberian Peninsula is highly unlikely. The possibility of a small number people from the region winding up in North America after a summer of hunting seals along the fringe of the ice is a possibility. Even if a remote one. One thing l think that could prove any Solutrean presence in North America is an artifact found in a datable soil layer. An artifact tracable to a known quarry used by the Solutreans.
That’s the danger of individual archaeologists getting so stuck on their theory. People can become personally invested in their theory. The real talent is to accept when evidence doesn’t support your theory and be willing to look elsewhere. Even negative evidence is still helpful as it crosses off the list one possibility and helps to narrow down the truth.
The pinned comment thread is insane idk how you were so patient with that person 😭
I thought this was a very good episode, informative. I remember reading the text book that was attributive to the theory, and noticed the similarities as well back in the early eighties. Much appreciation for the breakdown.
I remember discovering this hypothesis around 2015 and was forever intrigued by it. Great video!!
Thank you Nathanael...looking forward to seeing your next installment...especially the cache contents. Cheers 🥂
The BBQ plot twist has convinced me.
Great presentations. You two really worked well together!!! Here is another hypothesis - Maybe the Solutrean did make it to North America 5000 years earlier but then abandoned their sites or migrated south during a cold period. It was only later that an early indigenous archeologist found a Solutrean cache of projectile points and said "Wow these are really neat and so much better than what we have. Lets learn how to make them".
So much expanding mind. Collaborations are CRAZY!
love the collab, 2 great channels!
Thank you for your work, actually pretty good.and and thorough.
Epic colab you guys! That was awesome
Very good. Many insightfully presented.
Can you guys explain the Chesapeake bay site?
Or are we going to ignore that being older than clovis?
Also using genetic data of people clearly of different region to say Solutreans didn't make it to America is kind of weird.
Of course the indigenous of central and western US are not going to be sharing genetics with eastern natives that we have very little genetics data on comparatively
Well done gentlemen. Facts and hypotheses only, I love your work.
Really enjoyed this! Something I had heard about and was wondering about.
Clovis points have a stem. Solutrean points, proclaimed to be so identical, don’t have a stem. Clovis points are nearly always fluted on both sides. Solutrean points lack fluting. They might not have been used the same way either, ei one a projectile point vs the other a knife. I think usage is debatable.
Two unrelated cultures can produce similar materials if they live a similar lifestyle. Independent invention can happen. My understanding is that the blades are the only real material culture that is even remotely comparable between the two societies and they aren’t quite as identical as people make them out to be. There is also a timing issue. Solutreans existed around 22kya and went away around 17 Kya or so. Clovis doesn’t start until around 13,500. So migrating Solutrean peoples would have had to stop making those iconic points for some 3-4ky and then pick right it right up again in Clovis. That’s just completely unrealistic. Solutrean people were a warmer climate culture most identified with southern France and into Spain and Portugal and occupied inland areas with some access to coastline areas. They were not a cold climate adapted culture capable to surviving a journey skirting the frigid arctic. Nor is there any evidence of them being an ocean going culture. There’s only limited evidence of boat usage and that was not ocean capable. We aren’t talking anything remotely like Viking boat technology. More likely boats for crossing rivers or lakes. And it’s limited evidence of even that. Plus no blue water ocean going animal material remains have been identified with Solutrean culture. They weren’t hunting fish that occupy seas away from the coasts. They just weren’t traveling out to sea. Lastly, the final word is Anzick-1, the only Clovis associated burial ever found (and in Montana at that). The DNA is distinctly of Asian origin with no link to Europe.
One more point. The entire Solutrean hypothesis smacks of a teleological bias. It’s suggests a society more adapted to a Mediterranean life style would have had a reasonable expectation that the western hemisphere landmasses existed, or that they would have also had a reason to go there risking an arctic climate and environment which they would not have any experience with. They would not be following any animal herds from Europe to the Americas because there was no bridging there. Just no reason for them to go. All of these expectations are completely satisfied for a bearing land bridge migration. Cold weather adapted hunting societies following game herds using the grasslands land bridge leads people right into Alaska without any of the teleological problems. They happened to get there by circumstance and not by intention or design. Plus the costal route down the bearing bridge coastline and the Canadian coastline were likely not ice locked making boat travel easier. Boats traveling the northern most Atlantic (against the direction of the North Atlantic currents by the way) would have encountered more stretches of open water, more ice locked coastline with little to no land game animals. It just would have been dramatically harder to approach North America from Europe. That the Vikings could do it is not surprising as they had the boat technology, that they were a maritime culture, that they had deep blue water hunting experience, and were cold climate adapted. All the things that lead to successful voyages for them but which the Solutreans completely lacked.
But ultimately with the dna evidence It’s really an open and shut case.
Excellent guys, very well presented.
This theory does have a strong potential. There have been several recreations of ancient Atlantic voyages, The Brendan voyages and the Ra Expeditions by Thor Heyerdahl come to mind. And the ancient voyages describes by Herodotus where Phoenician ships circumnavigated Africa. Indeed, there is no Ocean on the planet that cannot be crossed by primitive boats; a 40-60 foot dug out canoe can travel around the world
I’m reading about the full moon and disseminating phase associated with the Solutrean and the Magdalenian period. I’ve never heard of either so here I am, trying to weave. Great video, I really appreciate the pictures and percise details 👍🏼
I read a book by this title many years ago, so when I happened across your video, I clicked, I 👍🏻 I subscribed
What a GREAT collaboration! Very happy to see this. I'm really grateful to Ancient Americas for the policy of not showing remains of Native folks out of respect. I'm a non-Native person who cares about that issue very deeply, and am grateful.
Hello there. This is fascinating. I’m definitely here for the wisdom that’s presented. I’m into kayaking and rock hounding around the creek beds around where I live. I just wish I didn’t wait until my mid-40’s to begin learning.
New sub here👍🏻
It could be seen as somewhat ethnocentric to think that two separate and isolated groups couldn't have come up with similar strategies in tool making on their own.
But that's not a very scientific way of thinking is it? Just because something CAN be interpreted or seen a certain way doesn't mean it should. Whining about and accusing people of ethnocentrism doesn't actually mean anything in regard to the truth of a hypothesis and is just an unscientific way of trying to get people to stop talking about something.
As Nathaniel says In in the video, archaeology is not about what could have happened. It’s about trying to find out what did happen.
@@alexdunphy3716 If you make the claim that the appearance is explained by Europeans doing it, and yet have insufficient evidence for that claim, it could very well be regarded as Eurocentric. To rob whole cultures of their own cultural achievements, and then to credit them to Europeans, and to do so without sufficient evidence, is deeply problematic.
@@FightXScience-wh6kx"Deeply problematic" 🤡
I don’t think it’s a matter of the techniques being uniquely advanced, in which case the assumption would be ethnocentric. Instead, it’s about weighing the probabilities of a particular set of uncommon techniques being developed and converging independently.
Nice study, I congratulate you. You should also take into account that X mtdna is close relative of A mtdna, possibly younger than A mtdna. I think A, X mtdna are paralel to P, Q, R ydna. P1 is altaic siberian ydna and ancestor of both native american Q and central asian and european R similar to A is older and X is younger maternal linage of same separation to east and west from siberia. Because, A mtdna is found inside turkic, siberian people as also found in native americans. If we take into consideration, X is related to A mtdna and found both in Turkey (west) and America (east) originated from siberia. So, everything is getting clear in my mind. Thanks and regards!
This is like a good Avengers movie. A crossover inside the UA-cam archeology universe.
Great job, guys!
Glad you enjoyed it!
The genetics not matching can easily be explained. About 12,000 YBP north America saw massive flooding, the "black mat" layer of massive fires, and the extinction of fauna over ~100 lbs, including (but not limited to) mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth, camel, horse, saber toothed cat, short faced bear, and many others. It seems that such an extinction level event would have also wiped out people (who tend to be over ~100 lbs), especially if the depended on the hunting of prey animals that are also over 100 lbs in size. Then, in the years following, north America could easily have been repopulated by siberian and western eurasian peoples migrating across from the north west of north America. So, ancient stone tools buried in caches or left in caves could still be found, while the genetics would not exist in current populations.
Either way, it's an interesting and thought provoking hypothesis. All good science comes from keeping an open mind, looking at new evidence, making new hypotheses, testing against evidence, "lather, rinse and repeat."
This isn't a bad hypothesis in principle, but the fact that we have pre-Younger Dryas human DNA from Paisley Caves that is directly ancestral to modern Native American peoples demonstrates that no such human extinction event occurred, and the cultural continuity from the pleistocene through the holocene also demonstrates that no such extinction event happened for humans.
@NathanaelFosaaen
Uh, I'm not following your logic. Do you think that just because DNA from paleoamericans have been found prior to Younger-dryas, this means no cataclysm event occurred? That doesn't seem to make sense.
So in Indiana I've found 3 Clovis points in a field with " pea gravel" and Willow leaf points. The field is in the area once known as the Grand Kankakee Marsh on a sand hill surrounded by black dirt. As I was told " pea gravel" is found where Glacier Cane areas. Another find inthis area has been 2 rat tail copper points. What do you think 🤔
Thank you for a fascinating dive into this. I had not heard of this hypothesis before, but you folks both laid out its contents and the evidence extremely well.
I definitely don't feel the hypothesis is white supremacist in nature, but instead a rather plain attempt at applying Occum's Razor to the lithic information we had. Its also good that we can rule it out with a healthy amount of certainty, though, because it makes the real story so much more interesting and shows just how ingenious our ancient ancestors were (ours as in all of humanity, as I do not claim any Native American decent).
To me, it feels similar to the fact that copper was worked around the great lakes, and that central america showed evidence of ceremonial use of iron, both of which were developed completely independently from metal working technology from the Middle East from which European metalworking technology developed. Iron working also seems to have sprung up independently in Sub-Saharan Africa as well, if I remember correctly. This is just a similar (but even more impressively intricate) example of that same technological convergent evolution.
Actually middle eastern metal working developed from European metal working as Bronze and Iron working were first seen in Neolithic European Farmer civilizations of the balkens and in proto-indo-european cultures respectively
You mean Occam's?
@@alexdunphy3716 copper working and iron working had multiple independent developments.
@@alexdunphy3716 I can see why you object to the criticism of ethnocentrism. Does metal working in the Balkans imply that metal working elsewhere originated there?
The bit about white supremacism is because it very quickly became popular with white supremacists. Their interpretation obviously didn't make sense and bore little similarity to the actual hypothesis but that's just how it goes with white supremacists since their worldview is fundamentally pseudoscientific. And of course now that the hypothesis has largely been rejected I'll bet that white supremecists will claim that this is somehow the work of the woke cabal or whatever their current antisemitic dogwhistle is.
While I am not going to dispute anything spelled out here, I will point out that everything we are told about the past (especially where it comes to humanity) demands that we ALL accept the idea that EVERYTHING is a product of co-evolution. Around the world we see stone works like Stonehenge, and we are told that ALL the cultures who erected these sites did so for the exact same reason-- astrological mapping or something like following the seasons. We are likewise assured that even though the people who constructed these almost sites had no contact with each other, and yet we see that a bit younger than the Stonehenge-type constructions we see (around the world) pyramids, and looking closer we see that there is a sort of polygonal construction method (where stones are set one upon the other without mortar, and featuring corners that interlock perfectly) in every place from Easter Island, South America, Egypt even in the islands of the South Pacific. Again we are assured that each culture sporting these building methods did not have any contact with each other. This is like seeing a Ranch Style ( a domestic architectural style that originated in the United States) house in places around the world like China, or Australia and not understanding that its being there is because someone who knew about Ranch style homes used that style to build their home. It did not spring up coincidentally around the world as we are expected to believe these other building styles did. When you look at the other things we we are told to accept as coincidental we see the same tortured logic being used to explain them. The dates on these ancient buildings, cave are (compare the newly discovered 9 mile long wall in South America and the cave paintings in Lascaux to see that they are not only of the same age, but depict much the same style of drawing and animals) and even tool marks (the same around the world) are not only the same age, (30,000 years), but use similar materials. Red Ochre is also used around the world in much the same way--especially when dealing with the dead. How can all of these things be coincidental? They can't. However, they could reset the entire history of Earth but perhaps this is being concealed for a reason.
An excellent examination and explanation as always but the mention of BBQ & a rib dinner really focused my attention.
He ruined my day with the garlic mashed potatoes reference as well. Now that's all I can think about.
Well their gentics could have been wiped out by a cataclysm of some sort too.
What is the style where a slightly curved flake is the entire piece (arrow point) and there is absolutely no flakes removed from the concave side? It only has 1 flake knocked off for the base, 2 for the sides and 3 or 4 for the point. 3/4 of an inch long by almost half. Pretty much diamond shaped with a flat bottom and only a suggestion of "wings" to tie to (not sure the term). Between the east coast and the Great lakes area. Solid tan and nearly transparent like a lighter beer bottle glass that is slightly milky.
It isn't anything like the grey flint I find that's got 70 to 100 flakes removed to finish it. It looks nothing like all the rest (dozens of points and scrapers), except the polished slate blade/scraper. That's kinda novel too, slate chest plates are not unheard of around here along the rivers.
If it helps more, the flakes of the sides meet in the center, so does one tip flake. The rest are just little nips close to the edge.
You guys get to it 17 minutes in. I'll leave it for the algorithm's sake tho.
Great video 👌 Love the collab.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This is fascinating. You kept it interesting with images. I do a lot of reading on the Archaic in North America and have just started making content because of this encounter lithic related materials. I aspire to make content like you. P.s working on a BA
I found alot of useful information here. I believe I'm in possession of artifacts from the preclovis overshot pieces. I have identified a settlement sight. Southeast Appalachia.
Tell App State.
Great job by both of you
19:08 I will say from a perspective of someone who works stone, once you have the idea to make a point with the flaking method, overshots can happen by accident with too much pressure or the tool angle. Once you do this a few times by mistake, I'm sure they learned how to harness that to their advantage. So like you said, these two culture groups likely had no contact.
20:18 - 20:48 Another thing to point out, regarding convergent evolution, is the different peoples working stones the same way in different places at different times, are working with very similar materials for a prolonged period. Remember, the Eastern coasline of North America and the Western Europe were just a single landmass before the Atlantic Ocean formed. These rocks that 2 different cultures an ocean apart were working were once the same rocks, not an ocean apart because said ocean is younger than the rocks in question.
I love this channel
Personally I think there were multiple waves of migrations. The American continent was known and there was trade across the atlantic and even via pacific. The Eskimo are a good example of a people that live on the edge of thie ice and were more than capable with basic tech to make the trip.
Personally I think the groups may have met and perhaps taught others and it spread like wildfire with Clovis.
I think if they had other artifacts that were similar we could surmise that the Solutreans did indeed make it to N America. The tool kits are a good start.
This needs more research. I am an armchair history nerd and actually have found a small clovis stash which I gave to the state. Ever aince I have been obsessed.
The stone actually is likely similar because at one time europe and north america were connected so you may see similar stone tools when the same kind of stone (with even a shared source) is used.
When North America was joined into Pangea the East Coast was up against North Africa.
I believe, and Gravettian also, I have collected both from collections some over 100 yrs old along the east coast. For the last12.years, the book is a wakeup call Rember Toper dates 50,000 years ago. Great videos thank you very much Nathanael. .
Even Al Goodyear doesn't think his 50,000 cal BP dates at Topper are legit. Neither does David Anderson, or anyone who actually worked there.
I would like to recommend Dr.Darrin Lowery work on ResearchGate , Parsons Island and other . He has very great knowledge of this subject and should be mentioned with the Solutrean hypothesis. He would make a great addition to a interview on your channel. Thank You Nathanael , I try to keep a open mind on this subject. The Upper Paleolithic is a important part of our History.
I've got one degree of separation from Lowery and I'm privy to some group emails with him and colleagues on the eastern bipoint phenomenon. I referred to his work several times when I was doing background reading for this episode.
Cue C Monty Burns guys !
OK, seriously question, There are a LOT of Clovis sites in and around Florida's, yes ?
What about french flint found by jamestown farmer?! I seen in another documentary of solutrean tips
It wasn't found by a Jamestown Farmer, it was found while excavating a historic farmstead. People have been collecting stone tools for hundreds of years, especially farmers in Europe. There's no reason to believe it was made in the Americas at all.
@@NathanaelFosaaen YA COVER IT UP LIKE THE SMITHSONIIAN WHAT DID LINCOLN SAY ABOUT GIANTS?? THERE EYES GAZED ON NIAGRA JUST LIKE OURS
@@NathanaelFosaaen giants who built the mounds
Lol. Lincoln was buying into a completely false idea that was popular back in the 19th century. Giants aren't real. Regular-sized people built the mounds. Don't be ridiculous.
21:01 The feature common to Magdalenian and Clovis, _"the pebble paved floors are __20:52__ interesting but the Solutreans never made __20:54__ them as far as we know that's a later __20:57__ Magdalenian feature"_ ... well, would fall within the years from 2693 and 2644.
It would also fit within the lifespan of a single early post-Flood artist.
Great video. Thanks.
Nice work guys. I love the idea of ancient, heroic migrations but I prefer to let the evidence convince me (or not).
We call that "being an adult."
This is fascinating and I think maybe in 20 years we’ll be closer to the truth. I think the bog bodies having no genetic relatives and having 1000 years of habitation, evidence for Vikings in America, the footprints in New Mexico, the mammoth carved monuments at the bottom of the Great Lakes, the bluefish caves in Canada. I think it’s time someone tried to synthesize all that with the Clovis data. Polynesian influence in South America but not north? Seems everyone picks their own little piece of history, ignores everything else and says here’s how people got to America. Would just love to see someone try to paint an actual picture of what was going on here 25k years ago.
The journal PaleoAmerica deals with much of this stuff.
@@jackrifleman562 I’ll check it out! Thanks!
Exactly- and not to mention the mound builders and the red head cannibal 😮
I gave you a like, even though I misread the title. I thought this was about the Soul Train hypothesis, with Don Cornelius.
My theory is that because geologically the americas and europe share some similar stone types and working the same type of stone would cause one to make similar choices in working the stone without any contact.
How do they explain the distribution of Clovis points? Maybe I missed something but to me it seems it was more established on the East Coast and moved out westward. It seems like a beachhead when you look at the map...
There's really not much to explain. By the time Clovis points were invented, the continent had already been inhabited for about 10,000 years. The eastern part of the continent is full of fertile river systems that attract lots of people so you end up with more clovis representation in the east than you do the west.
@@NathanaelFosaaen But why are some of the oldest also in the east? Decades ago I helped briefly with a dig on the DelMarVa peninsula and we were told the oldest Clovis points were all on the eastern side of the Mississippi and the oldest of the oldest was in the mid Atlantic area.
@richjageman3976 I don't understand the question. They're oldest in the east because the tradition was probably invented there. Like I said in the video, the pattern is one that moves northwest from the southeast.
@@NathanaelFosaaen The question should have been worded better and was only partially for you. If as many others elsewhere stated that Clovis point proved the only prehistoric peoples came from Siberia why does it not match their stone tech and the most numerous and oldest are on the opposite side of the continent and more closely matches others? I rewatched the video without outside interruptions here and have a better understanding.
@@richjageman3976 Ok. Yeah Clovis has nothing to do with Siberia. Right on there. people had already been living in the continent interior for thousands of years before the Clovis technological complex was developed and it appears to have been invented in the eastern woodlands.
Hyped for this
There are other arguments that can be made for either of those cultures such as a single group from either did make it the cashes could be previously repaired blades or a cashe that had been used repeatedly although I'm sure someone has already thought of that and made that argument
What about the X haplogroup being present in 35 to 50% of the Ojibwa people of the Great Lakes region?
Wrong kind of X haplogroup. European X is X2b, c,and d. American X is X2a and X2g.
Thanks for the clarity.
Do you have any more insight on the dating of X2a splitting from X2? Reidla et al, 2003 finds it to be ~18000 YBP and the Altaian X2e is much more recent ~6700 YBP@@NathanaelFosaaen
Would you be willing to weigh in on another subject? I watched a video recently where an archeologists was skeptical of the White Sands footprints for various reasons. One reason bothered me a little. He was skeptical due to lack of material evidence that would date to the same 23k time period. Material evidence such as a camp site, fire pit, lithic material etc. He also said that the ancient lake in the area was alkaline. Here is my problem: If the ancient lake was alkaline, it wouldn't be a good place to set up camp in the first place. What if the people who left the footprints were simply passing through, perhaps on a journey, and didn't leave any material evidence behind? Perhaps they camped several miles away while on their journey and that evidence hasn't been found yet. Wouldn't it be a little premature to discount the age of the footprints based on his assumption? Thanks!!
His gripe is asinine. They're footprints with embedded single-year organic material. Not everything gets preserved, contemporaneous campsites included.
@NathanaelFosaaen -- Interesting!! Thanks for the reply. Another thought occurred to me. If these footprints do indeed date 21k to 23k years ago, White Sands is quite far inland from the Pacific coastline. My thought is thus, if Native Americans then came by boat, probably in small numbers originally, it would take awhile for them to eventually migrate that far inland from the coast. I mean, why would they? It would seem more likely that once they settled in the coastal regions and their numbers increased sufficiently, then they would venture out. This would take considerable amounts of time. Does that imply a much earlier date for their original arrival?
@ironcladranchandforge7292 the Colorado River takes you from the Pacific all the way inland, and white sands is just across the continental divide. Those footprints weren't of the first people to get here for sure.
@@NathanaelFosaaen -- Excellent, thanks!! I'll leave you alone now.😁
Nice! I love Ancient America!
I'd leave the zigzag on the bone rods out, unless there is a progression of attachment technology shared through time. It may just be a widespread solution to the problem of point fixing. It comes from ancient pre-human tradition and tech, and very well may be coincidence owing to not ever being forgotten despite migration. We were pretty good at passing things along before writing could cross generations of non-related separate populations. Our survival depended on it.
The opposite was done (onto the shaft itself) going back to Neanderthals and between then and now, it may be the only surviving examples of cross hatch to increase the surface area for an adhesive in non humans.
Knowing for certain with half of something is difficult anyway.
It was a blended adhesive too, wax and rosin.
thank you for the video
Too bad you couldn't get Bruce Bradley to come on your program to counterpoint your argument He's an incredible archaeologist and would be a great asset to be able to have his point of view in this discussion.
Having seen the point and the mastodon bones that were dredged from 400 feet of water on the South side of Norfolk Canyon, when the ocean was 420 feet below present I am going with the 23K years for the oldest point in Virginia. The odds of dredging the point and mastodon bones in the same dredge selection and not associated together is virtually what, virtually impossible? You should see some of the privately gathered points I have seen found in situation on some of the very small islands in the upper Chesapeake Bay definitely pre Clovis and having been found along with Clovis.
2 questions. one is outlandish but im still curious. How could all this connect and relate if say instead of saying that ancient western europeans went to eastern america, that western europeans and eastern americans were disseminated from say greenland. Yes I know greenland has been an ice cube for at least 100k years, and they had to come from somewhere but human migration is full of back n forth and criss crosses and is messy, and greenlqands ice has 'changed' its age before.
2nd question. is it possible that there is a specific prey item in the north atlantic that may necessitate these types of similarities in hunting tools?
Where do unifaced granite points from the New England area fit in ? Is it Clovis or Folsom learning how to work harder stone ? Is it before that ? Lithic ?
I've never heard of that. Do you have a source?
@@NathanaelFosaaen ya, me. I live in MA. I'm not a scholar but I specialize in collecting granite and other hard stone artifacts from around my area. It's a unifaced style for the most part but not always. Quartzite is another seemingly preferred material around here . Any thoughts on this ? You can see some of my collections !
@@AncintArt2ndColony
*_"ya, me"_*
So, you found some rocks, and you think they look like spear or arrow points?
And no archaeologist has ever found such things?
{:o:O:}
See for yourself . I've videos on the matter. And are you saying no archeologist has ever found a unifaced point made of granite ! I must be special.
@@AncintArt2ndColony
*_"are you saying no archeologist has ever found a unifaced point made of granite"_*
No, I though that's what you were saying.
{:o:O:}
Truly fascinating. I wonder" without the accusations of Eurocentric supremacy, would the Solutrean Hypothesis have been subjected to the same degree of *urgent* scrutiny? In other words, it seems that in this case an objection born out of an ideological premise was actually stronger that a purely technical argument as a motivating factor in stimulating futher research on the topic.
The eurocentric issues weren't really a big thing until many years after the hypothesis had permeated academic circles. That whole thing was the product of white supremacist writers misusing the hypothesis in bad faith. That's about when academics got really loud about our objections in the press. Within published academic material we were already objecting pretty hard based on the merits.
The very people who proposed the hypothesis went out of their way to encourage critical examination of it and specifically pointed out what should be done to confirm or reject the hypothesis. So like given that why wouldn't archeologists go out and try to examine it right away? I mean it was an interesting theory that hit at just the right time where it could be given the scrutiny it deserves and in rejecting lots of interesting things were learned.