Talk:Solutrean hypothesis

Lets Discuss Genetics and Logic, Here
Does the absence of European markers in one geographically Western, Clovis era man (Anzick-1) inherently "disprove" the possible fragmentary presence of early EU man on the continent? Of course it doesn't. Following that logic, Norse colonization of the Americas is all a big myth as there is no genealogical record of their presence among Canadian first nations people (even though there is all manner of inarguable, archaeological evidence).

With current (and meaningful) archaeological discoveries on the pre-Clovis issue clustering almost entirely in the mid-Northeast of the United States and being unarguably WAY pre-Clovis (per strata), Anzick-1 does not make the assertions some people think. The 'genetic refutations' of Solutrean have been tangential at best, agenda driven at worst and they all operate from the premise that an isolated population must have made a universal, genetic contribution to Clovis in order to have existed at all. The genetic question itself is a critical one, one that deserves robust discussion and the article does, in fact, contain just such a discussion, however the statement that sequencing remains from Anzick-1 'disproves' Solutrean is not a valid statement going on logic alone. I say this as someone who is mostly Solutrean Neutral, Cinmar point neutral and skeptical of the 1971 flint point found in VA that was French originating (it was found in proximity to early American European population, such people kept things around as curios). There's a lot to debate about Solutrean Hypothesis or archaic European man in North America. Anzick-1 does not disprove it. Can we stop saying that, please? LoverOfArt (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue of genetics was introduced by Stanford and Bradley when they implied that the X haplogroup found in concentrated populations of North Eastern indigenous peoples was evidence that they carried DNA from an ancient European source, even though the X Haplogroup IS NOT unique to Europeans. Furthermore, the Norse colonization theory is backed up by actual physical artefacts found in North America so I don't see how you're contrasting these two very different migration theories.--47.157.27.56 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the article doesn't reflect the sources accurately? If so, what do you suggest. Are you familiar with WP:NOR? Doug Weller (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rote logic isn't 'original research'. The cited sources are indeed accurate reflections of what was said. The tricky part is that 'what was said' is 1) patently ridiculous and at a bare minimum, 2) WP:Undue Weight is seriously in play by constantly belaboring the absence of European genetic footprints in an infinitesimally small sample size as being conclusive disproof of Solutrean, which it absolutely is not. This topic suffers from severe agenda-mongering on both sides, between the toxic racial identity issue, not to mention the cognitive inertia of 'status quo'. We can strive to make it neutral, but we have to be on guard with agenda driven types. While this article isn't quite as bad as what we see on other hot button articles like "Race and intelligence", it's still undoubtedly being edited by some people who are more interested in 'the message' rather than the science LoverOfArt (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetic Evidence against a Paleolithic European Contribution to Past or Present Native Americans
From PaleoAmericaA journal of early human migration and dispersal Volume 6, 2020 - Issue 2"

Modern and ancient genomics have recently ignited new debates in the field of peopling of the Americas, sometimes bringing up some odd scenarios. One of those is the Solutrean hypothesis. We argue that not only is the archaeological evidence supporting it rather tentative, but also it is not possible to reconcile what is known about the genetics of past and present Native Americans with the occurrence of a transatlantic dispersal during the late Pleistocene." Doug Weller  talk 07:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Characteristics
So, what I have gathered from Dr. Stanford's hypothesis is that bifacial blades are an innovation only attributed firstly to the Solutrean culture with Clovis Point using a similar flaking technique, but with the Clovis Culture existing after the disappearance of Solutreans in Europe, Stanford concludes that this specific flaking technique was carried down by a said group of Solutrean sea-fairs who suddenly decided to scale along the Atlantic ice sheet, via rustic rafts or boats, and luckily landing on the east coast of North America? Okay, I give more credence to humans figuring out ways to travel long distances no matter which direction, BUT how is it that he concludes that flaking techniques are wholly unique to a specific culture? When you look at artefacts of ancient cultures that have been uncovered in recent decades you find pottery, bow and arrow, boats, spear darts, musical flutes, and spear throwing/rock throwing technologies that all bear similarities but there is very little evidence that these technologies were handed down by some premiere culture as a point of origin. For example, the Jomon culture in Japan is often attributed to being the first culture to have pottery, but that doesn't mean that the Jomon introduced the concept of pottery to other continents does it? To me this is the biggest caveat of the Solutrean Hypothesis, not the idea of ancient Proto-Europeans somehow reaching the Americas.--47.157.27.56 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * While speculating about how and when humans may have traveled from one continent to another can be fun, anything added to a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from reliable sources. A corollary to that is that we may not add any material to a Wikipedia article that is original research. That policy states, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." So, we have to go by what reliable sources say. We do have to put things in our own words to avoid violation of copyright, but what we write in an article cannot go beyond what the sources say. One thing I have learned over the years in Wikipedia is that what I remember learning about a subject sometimes does not hold up well when I seek out reliable sources to cite. For a subject like this article, it is best to have reliable sources lined up before making or proposing substantive changes. - Donald Albury 16:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but I think I digressed in my point in that it seems that the counter-point by professionals who disagree with the hypothesis is that they seem more receptive to the idea of origin points of technology (bifacial blading) and where it was passed on down to (Solutrean culture to Clovis culture) than they are more against the ability of Solutreans traveling and landing in North America. My own opinion is that A) They never made it to North America and B) their bifacial flaking technique, while innovative, isn't something so native to one culture that other human cultures could have never figured out a similar technique resulting in an uncanny resemblance. --47.157.27.56 (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are to be used for discussions on how to improve the article. If you have suggestions for improving the article which are supported by reliable sources, please present them. Your personal reasoning and opinions are not relevant, except to the extent that you can cite reliable sources that make the same points, and you do not give those points undue weight. - Donald Albury 14:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

New Documentary (2021)
I think you will find this CBC documentary both entertaining and enlightening! CBC Nature of Things: Ice Bridge (2021) Mysterious artifacts turning up in Chesapeake Bay bear an inexplicable resemblance to those from Ice Age Europe. Two archaeologists attempt to prove the crossing occurred 20,000 years ago. Blockhouse321 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't live in Canada, so I can't see the documentary. However, the weight of the evidence and the opinions of experts is most definitely not in the favor of the Solutrean hypothesis. One of the arguments against the Solutrean hypothesis is that there appears to be a 4,000 year gap between the existence of the Solutrean culture and the Clovis culture. 4,000 years is a long time to explain if one culture is postulated to have directly influenced another. It's the time between the present and the days when Ur was the largest city in the world and Abraham was a sheep herder. How do the proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis explain that? Smallchief (talk)
 * They once stated that about the Flat Earth. Please, try to keep an open mind. Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please recognize the principle of weighing evidence to determine probabilities. The evidence is more than 90 percent against the Solutrean Hypothesis. The documentary you mentioned was made in 2018 and was widely debunked by experts.Smallchief (talk)

Also, that is not a new doc. It first aired in 2018.&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect edit summary about a living person
you wrote "Making sure this is archived, as the author quit and started a band, and I'm not sure how much longer it will be online." Although Andy White isn't editing his blog now, he remains an active professional archaeologist with music his hobby. He didn't quite anything. Would you please make a WP:Dummy edit to correct this? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I must have mis-heard somewhere.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)