Across Atlantic Ice The Origin of America's Clovis Culture

[Mojave]

Not too expensive. Due out in January 2012.
Pre-order at:
Across Atlantic Ice : Dennis J. Stanford and Bruce A. Bradley - University of California Press

[ghost recon]

Cool, thanks for the heads up.

[homestyle]

I'm really looking forward to hearing the whole case for this. Thanks for the link.

[paleo_joe]

Are those torches and pitchforks I see in the distance? LOL.

[uniface]

That will be the Book of the Year, the way Collins' Clovis Technology was.

[oklasodak]

I can't wait to read this because the little snippets I've seen on TV about this theory don't convince me all that much. Anyone else find Stanford's correlation between the Solutrean and Clovis points to be a bit far-reaching? I hope the book helps me to see what he sees.

[Mojave]

Originally Posted by oklasodak

Anyone else find Stanford's correlation between the Solutrean and Clovis points to be a bit far-reaching? I hope the book helps me to see what he sees.

Not far-reaching to see a correlation to me. The conclusions drawn from it are need of better understanding at least for me personally.
I posted this because I endeavor to remain open and objective and I have nothing but utmost respect for Bradley and Stanford. But naturally being the type to question (or argue from some people’s perspective) I see some potential “issues.” Clearly there are many similarities between Clovis and Solutrean points. Clearly there are MANY similarities between the technologies and MANY other aspects about the two “cultures.” I do not question that at all. But there are similarities between Solutrean and other PaleoIndian artifacts from regions of WESTEN North America that don’t really exist in the EASTERN North America. That was the reason I posted the poll with data Bradley gave me permission to use. (http://arrowheadology.com/forums/what-world/8893-pop-quiz.html)
I think it is important to understand (unless I am wrong, this is just my opinion) that the term “Solutrea” represents more of a time period rather than a point style. We Americans think in terms of a specific point style. When we hear the term “Clovis” we think of a specific group of people in a specific time period defined by a VERY specific projectile point type. Solutreans existed for thousands of years whereas Clovis probably not more than few hundred. Naturally there are many variations of artifacts made and used by these Europeans. There is no such thing a difinitive “Solutrean Point.” There are many – and they are very wide-ranging in style. I don’t think (again IMO) that is a stretch to expect similarities between technologies and other cultural aspects between people from all over the planet generally between 10,000 and 20,000 years ago. Human populations were very small then.
Anyway, to say there is some “connection” between Solutrea and Clovis to me is a no-brainer. Of course there is. But to go from that to saying it is proof they crossed the Atlantic vs. Beringia is where I scratch my head. Many people want to believe this because they want to prove the Clovis point was invented in the Eastern US (my observation). The problem is the dates for the end of the Solutrean era in Europe pre-date Clovis by 5,000 years. To me that long a period doesn’t compel me to believe they came from the east. 5,000 years is quite enough time for the influences and technologies to go eastward across Siberia and Beringia, or from somewhere else to South America for that matter. And yes, there is at least anecdotal evidence that those could have happened too.
5,000 years is a loooong time. Personally I hope they are right and look forward to the research and understanding. But a bit of healthy skepticism is good.

[uniface]

When there's no direct proof available, you look for indirect probability indicators in the bigger picture.

All other things being equal (and they never are), technological progress is incremental and cumulative.

"Fluting" is basically edge-to-edge thinning used longitudinally and stopping short in a hinge. That being the case, it's overwealmingly more likely that the iconic Clovis point with its channel flake (flute) was cooked up by people who were already using bifacial lanceolate points, had the concept of coast-to-coast thinning understood, and were on top of the procedural details involved than that Og the Caveman got tired of using flakes bashed off chunks of flint one day and invented the whole technology from scratch. No matter how theoretically possible, it just doesn't happen that way.

Clovis from Solutrian is another way of saying "it takes money to make money." The people in the best position to come up with an improvement on something (and thus, most likely to pull this off) are those using the something to begin with.

YMMV

[Mojave]

Interestingly Uni, I agree with a lot of what you posted. Particularly this:

Originally Posted by uniface

"Fluting" is basically edge-to-edge thinning used longitudinally and stopping short in a hinge. That being the case, it's overwealmingly more likely that the iconic Clovis point with its channel flake (flute) was cooked up by people who were already using bifacial lanceolate points, had the concept of coast-to-coast thinning understood, and were on top of the procedural details involved than that Og the Caveman got tired of using flakes bashed off chunks of flint one day and invented the whole technology from scratch. No matter how theoretically possible, it just doesn't happen that way.

One thing I’d like to add from what I have observed the “flakes bashed off chunks of flint” were not all that different from the channel flakes bashed off bifaces. I don’t see it (necessarily) as a new technology, just a slightly modified application of the same technique – longitudinally applied when the lateral extent was no longer sufficient. They made blades from cores and they made blades from bifaces. The bifaces WERE cores until they were exhausted to the point they became projectiles. But all this is purely conjecture on my part based on my own personal observations and interpretations though.

Back to the original question though, it is clear there are similarities, call it connections, progenetations (I just invented that word), or whatever, between SOME solutrean points and Clovis points. But there are similarities between other Soultrean types and types found in early contexts in western North America (while NOT in the eastern US). Like I’ve previously posted many pictures of Solutrean points that look sooo similar to Hasketts and other early western stemmed points.
So, given the roughly 5,000 year gap I think it is at least worthy of consideration that:
A. The earliest Americans came across the Atlantic bringing remnants of some Solutrean technologies.
B. The earliest Americans came down from Asia (coastal or inland) bringing remnants of some Solutrean technologies.
C. The earliest Americans came across from somewhere to South America bringing remnants of some Solutrean technologies.
D. The earliest Americans were already here (through any of the above routes) when Solutrean influences were introduced (through any of the above routes).
I still struggle making the leap from the observed “regional/continental” similarities in technologies to specific migration routes. I can take any of the above possibilities and make “compelling” arguments for each.

Originally Posted by uniface

When there's no direct proof available, you look for indirect probability indicators in the bigger picture. All other things being equal (and they never are), technological progress is incremental and cumulative.

As you said “All other things being equal (and they never are)”,…well they aren’t. Again we agree.
Analyzing similarities between SOME Solutrean stuff and eastern Paleo-Indian stuff is great, but not if you draw conclusions while ignoring similarities between OTHER Solutrean stuff and western Paleo-Indian.
Just my thoughts. Don’t mean to argue – it is just my troublesome penchant for avoiding myopia and trying to not take someone else’s opinion as truth, even if they are much smarter than me…
Perhaps this research will clear it up for me. I really hope it does.

[uniface]

One thing I’d like to add from what I have observed the “flakes bashed off chunks of flint” were not all that different from the channel flakes bashed off bifaces. I don’t see it (necessarily) as a new technology, just a slightly modified application of the same technique – longitudinally applied when the lateral extent was no longer sufficient.

Not. creating the preliminary "fluting nipple" necessary for channel flake removal distinguishes these from common edge-bashing.

The 14C business I belabored elsewhere last night.

Consider now, in your inimitably non-myopic manner, that the whole laundry list of similarities are similarities that show up in comparing only 0.00001% of each's output.

(!)