49 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

lightly, on 06 March 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Thanks for the informative fact Abramelin,  your one smart bird  
i didn't know that there was NO genetic evidence, in North America for the Solutreans .
One thing i find interesting is that , as far as i know , there has been  zero evidence of Clovis culture found in Alaska, which is supposed to be the route by which they travelled?  That makes me wonder more about a Coastal entry into the Americas   from Asia.      ( i won't mention water craft  )

Ask Cormac if you don't believe me.

He made it very clear to me there is no genetic evidence of ancient Europeans visiting ancient America.
*snip*

Then all theories end.

Edited by libstaK, 07 March 2012 - 12:45 PM.
unnecessary rude comment

[cormac mac airt]

lightly, on 06 March 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Thanks for the informative fact Abramelin,  your one smart bird  
i didn't know that there was NO genetic evidence, in North America for the Solutreans .
One thing i find interesting is that , as far as i know , there has been  zero evidence of Clovis culture found in Alaska, which is supposed to be the route by which they travelled?  That makes me wonder more about a Coastal entry into the Americas   from Asia.      ( i won't mention water craft  )

Hello lightly,

In support of what Abramelin was saying, no, there ISN'T any genetic evidence of Solutreans being in North America. What one finds, in an attempt to claim otherwise however, is the mention of MtDNA Haplogroup X as if that alone supports the Solutrean hypothesis. It doesn't as X2a and X2g are known to have existed/do exist in North America and both are of Asian origin.

As to the Clovis culture, we're now starting to see evidence of a pre-Clovis culture having existed which would mean that the Clovis-first scenario is no longer tenable.

cormac

[lightly]

cormac mac airt, on 06 March 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Hello lightly,

In support of what Abramelin was saying, no, there ISN'T any genetic evidence of Solutreans being in North America. What one finds, in an attempt to claim otherwise however, is the mention of MtDNA Haplogroup X as if that alone supports the Solutrean hypothesis. It doesn't as X2a and X2g are known to have existed/do exist in North America and both are of Asian origin.

As to the Clovis culture, we're now starting to see evidence of a pre-Clovis culture having existed which would mean that the Clovis-first scenario is no longer tenable.

cormac

Howdy cormac,  oh i believe you and Abramelin...  I suppose one of these days i'll actually have to learn to make some sense of that genetic alphabet soup you keep offering up     .. and yup.. i'm somewhat aware of and  loving the Pre Clovis stuff.   thanks you guys.

[Swede]

lightly, on 06 March 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

  Thanks for the informative fact Abramelin,  your one smart bird  
i didn't know that there was NO genetic evidence, in North America for the Solutreans .
One thing i find interesting is that , as far as i know , there has been  zero evidence of Clovis culture found in Alaska, which is supposed to be the route by which they travelled?  That makes me wonder more about a Coastal entry into the Americas   from Asia.      ( i won't mention water craft  )

Hi Lightly. Just to add a bit and possibly somewhat muddy the waters. First, am not sure if you have read the following article. It goes into a bit more detail than the first one presented.

http://www.independe...ca-7447152.html

To provide some elaboration: Both Stanford and Bradley have quite valid credentials. Bradley, in particular, is well accomplished in lithic analysis. None the less, their initial presentation was met with qualified critique. One of those who provided a detailed critique was Lawrence Straus (2000). Two of the more telling factors that Straus presented were that 1) There would appear to be no indication that the Solutrean culture was involved in, or heavily reliant upon, the procurement of larger mammalian aquatic resources. In fact, the only potential indication of the utilization of such resources is a single phalanx ("finger" or "toe" bone) from a common seal in a stratum associated with the Solutrean occupation in Altamira cave. As Straus suggests, this could be related to scavenging. Thus, we would not appear to have a culture involved in the maritime activities (or technologies) that Stanford and Bradley would suggest.

Another of the aspects that Straus presents is the artistic element. The sophistication of the "cave paintings" of Altamira is widely known, yet there would not appear to be any parallel for this form of artistry in North America.

As noted in the article above, the tusk and projectile point were recovered during scallop-dredging operations. While there could prove to be an association, one must keep in mind the rather myriad sets of natural processes that could account for the apparent association.

With the above said, the analysis of the 1971 recovery in regards to a French lithic source is of interest. Have not yet read the analysis report but, if correct, this would likely connect the source to the Santonian formation as per Hamilton and Emory (1988).

A couple of additional notes:

Current research would tend to indicate that Clovis technology originated in the southeastern United States.

There is documentation for at least one haplogroup (M) that was present in North America circa 5000 BP that, subsequent to this time, appears to have gone extinct. This is a haplogroup with an Asian association and the recovery was in British Columbia. None the less, it does illustrate the potential for groups to have at one time been present, yet are no longer represented in the current Indigenous genetic pool.

Can go into more detail, but enough for the moment. Just some factors to ponder.

.

[lightly]

Hi Swede,  thanks for posting the very interesting article.   And for correcting me  that Clovis culture is believed to be native to South eastern U.S. ...        Love the  info on the pre Clovis finds...   gotta GO!

[libstaK]

Enough with the bickering and commentary on members love lives - which has been edited now - back on topic folks

[lightly]

Swede, on 07 March 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

Hi Lightly. Just to add a bit and possibly somewhat muddy the waters. First, am not sure if you have read the following article. It goes into a bit more detail than the first one presented.

http://www.independe...ca-7447152.html

To provide some elaboration: Both Stanford and Bradley have quite valid credentials. Bradley, in particular, is well accomplished in lithic analysis. None the less, their initial presentation was met with qualified critique. One of those who provided a detailed critique was Lawrence Straus (2000). Two of the more telling factors that Straus presented were that 1) There would appear to be no indication that the Solutrean culture was involved in, or heavily reliant upon, the procurement of larger mammalian aquatic resources. In fact, the only potential indication of the utilization of such resources is a single phalanx ("finger" or "toe" bone) from a common seal in a stratum associated with the Solutrean occupation in Altamira cave. As Straus suggests, this could be related to scavenging. Thus, we would not appear to have a culture involved in the maritime activities (or technologies) that Stanford and Bradley would suggest.

Another of the aspects that Straus presents is the artistic element. The sophistication of the "cave paintings" of Altamira is widely known, yet there would not appear to be any parallel for this form of artistry in North America.

As noted in the article above, the tusk and projectile point were recovered during scallop-dredging operations. While there could prove to be an association, one must keep in mind the rather myriad sets of natural processes that could account for the apparent association.

With the above said, the analysis of the 1971 recovery in regards to a French lithic source is of interest. Have not yet read the analysis report but, if correct, this would likely connect the source to the Santonian formation as per Hamilton and Emory (1988).

A couple of additional notes:

Current research would tend to indicate that Clovis technology originated in the southeastern United States.

There is documentation for at least one haplogroup (M) that was present in North America circa 5000 BP that, subsequent to this time, appears to have gone extinct. This is a haplogroup with an Asian association and the recovery was in British Columbia. None the less, it does illustrate the potential for groups to have at one time been present, yet are no longer represented in the current Indigenous genetic pool.

Can go into more detail, but enough for the moment. Just some factors to ponder.

.

    In my rush to get out the door this morning.. i forgot to also thank you for your informative post  (above)   including the possible French lithic source .  
      Upon reading bigtroutak's original post and link, i  considered the possibility of the tusk/projectile find being happenstance.
     I'll have to 'google'  the Altamira cave Paintings.  They may be widely known, but not this widely.    Indeed, Great stuff to ponder!

[Bella-Angelique]

Scots have a little X haplos also, maybe 12%?
Only other X haplos group I know of.

Edited by Bella-Angelique, 28 April 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[Bella-Angelique]

The genetic evidence that you are looking for is the X haplos group from the area of what is I think now is southern Russia.
The Iroquois Native Americans are about 25% X haplos, a now extinct group of ancient Europeans.
Interestingly, in the entire Western Hemisphere only the Iroquois worshiped a supreme female deity, the Great Mother, rather than a supreme male deity.  

So the geneticists are ahead of the game in tracing the path.

[cormac mac airt]

Bella-Angelique, on 28 April 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

The genetic evidence that you are looking for is the X haplos group from the area of what is I think now is southern Russia.
The Iroquois Native Americans are about 25% X haplos, a now extinct group of ancient Europeans.
Interestingly, in the entire Western Hemisphere only the Iroquois worshiped a supreme female deity, the Great Mother, rather than a supreme male deity.  

So the geneticists are ahead of the game in tracing the path.

Actually no, as X2a is not European in origin. Neither is the other subgroup found in the Americas, X2g.

cormac

[Harte]

libstaK, on 07 March 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Enough with the bickering and commentary on members love lives - which has been edited now - back on topic folks

Damn!  I missed it!

Now I'll never know about ol' Abe's libido.

Harte

[hammerclaw]

There's no genetic evidence in Europe for Solutreans, either, just artifacts and other indirect evidence.

[DieChecker]

Swede, on 07 March 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

HAs noted in the article above, the tusk and projectile point were recovered during scallop-dredging operations. While there could prove to be an association, one must keep in mind the rather myriad sets of natural processes that could account for the apparent association.

Right. That trawler could have pulled up a 2008 Obama presidential poster, a Model T tire, and a 11th century Chinese boat anchor out of the bay, and none of those would necessarily be connected either.

Edited by DieChecker, 08 July 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[DieChecker]

hammerclaw, on 08 July 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

There's no genetic evidence in Europe for Solutreans, either, just artifacts and other indirect evidence.

Solutrean is not necessarily a People. It is more likely just a technology. Just like with chariots, swords domesticated cattle and alphabetic letters, neighboring tribes will quickly adopt technologies that work. There might have been two or three genetically different Western European groups using the Solutrean stone tools.

[HollyDolly]

There is nothing to say that ancient man couldn't have come to North America  from both the east and the west, the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and landed here in the distant past. There may also be native americans  who have asian or european blood mixed in their dna, but these people haven't been tested. I'm hungarian on my  mom's side, and german on my dad's.However, ancient peoples moved around due to weather ,food or other catastrophes seeking new lands. There maybe mongol or other asian blood on my mom's side,as well as turkish and whatever racial group they belong to due to their invasion of that part of the world.
With my dad's side, there could be Visogoth, ostrogoth, or other germanic tribes mixed in with the bavarii  and suebi blood,( his relatives live mainly in Bavaria, and some cousins are in the old kingdom of Swabia,now called Baden Wurttemberg) and who knows, maybe even some roman or etruscan,since the Roman Empire and it's armies were everywhere in those days.I just can't understand why main stream scientists refuse to look at the fact that ancient man wasn't stupid and that they traveled.They settled down,and sometimes these men  married local women.It's like they have blinders on.There have been egyptian mummies found with cocaine in them, and in the pacific Northwest  the remains were found of a man,who was more european than native american. Little is ever mentioned of this find.They have found mummies in the area i believe of the Gobi desert  that  had reddish hair, and were caucasians, not asians.