Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

Is "The Solutrean" Really Just About a Boy and His Dog?

8/8/2017

5 Comments

 
Faithful readers of my blog may remember several posts from 2016 and 2015 (here and here) about the production of a movie titled The Solutrean. My interest in the movie centered mostly around the question of how much, if any, of the storyline would revolve around the central claim of the Solutrean hypothesis (that Late Pleistocene Europeans colonized eastern North America). I was also interested in the film for the possibility that we'd get a good cinematic treatment of life in the Upper Paleolithic.

The trailer for the film (now named Apha) was released in mid July. I've watched it three times and haven't noticed anything in it that screams "boat trip across the Atlantic ice." I also haven't been left with much hope it will be a good cinematic treatment of life in the Upper Paleolithic.  

Here is the trailer: watch it yourself and then we'll discuss.
I see all the things you'd expect to see in in a "caveman" film: campfires, a saber-toothed cat, mammoth-skull houses, people flintknapping in a circle, etc.  The lifeway depicted seems focused on hunting terrestrial large game, with one scene showing our Solutrean friends attempting some kind of bison hunt by throwing spears into an amazing precise line in front of the charging herd. (It's hard to tell if the intent of the hunt was to drive bison over a cliff -- the cliff appears to be about a mile high, so . . .). 

Apparently something goes awry with the plan, as the protagonist gets tossed over a cliff and separated from the group. He is then chased by wolves and befriends one that is injured, creating the first human/canine bond and forever changing the world (hence the title Alpha). 

To my eye, what's shown in the trailer is unexciting. The actors look like A-listers who need a bath, and the scenery looks more like the sterile CGI landscape of 300 and The Phantom Menace than the real natural world shown in films like The Black Robe.

​I give the trailer a score of three bored yawns (out of five, not ten).
5 Comments

"The Solutrean" Reportedly WILL Visit the Americas

2/21/2016

29 Comments

 
PictureThe standard illustration of Solutrean tools (Musee d'Archeologie Nationale).
Back in September, I wrote this short post about the announcement of an upcoming film called The Solutrean. I have a Google Alert set up for "Solutrean," so when there's a press release about the movie it shows up in my inbox. I also have a Google Alert set up for my own name, just in case. I hope no-one is getting me confused with the Vicar of Baghdad or Nebraska Cornhusker's guard Andrew White III. Those are the Andrew Whites that make the news routinely.

A story two days ago seems to answer the question of whether The Solutrean will have anything to do with the Solutrean Hypothesis with a big "yes:"

"Inspired by the idea tossed around by some folks that Europeans settled in North America over 20,000 years ago, the movie . . .  tells the Ice Age set story about a hunting trip the goes bad, and the tough journey home that follows." 

And in this story:

"Specifically, the title “Solutrean” is a nod to a hypothesis written by scholars who believe that Europeans settled America somewhere around 20,000 years ago."

It sounds to me like they're writing from the same press release.  So the film is, in at least some way, about the Solutrean Hypothesis.


I'm interested in the Solutrean Hypothesis (the idea that Upper Paleolithic peoples from western Europe colonized eastern North America sometime during the period 21,000 to 17,000 years ago) for a couple of different reasons.  First, as a scientific idea, it relates directly to questions about the peopling of the New World and the earliest hunter-gatherers in the Eastern Woodlands. Like many other archaeologists, I'm open to possibility but remain unconvinced and unimpressed by the positive evidence that's been put forth so far (e.g., the Cinmar biface, the other bi-points reportedly recovered from Chesapeake Bay area, the genetic data, etc.).  There have been reports of the discovery of Solutrean assemblages in sites with good context in eastern North America, but (as far as I know) those reports have been thus far limited to stories in the popular media (this story in Popular Archaeology, for example -- edited since I wrote about it here). I can't speak for others, but real publication of those sites is something I'm eagerly awaiting.

Not everyone is as skeptical as me. Some professional archaeologists apparently are convinced by what they've see so far, and it's pretty clear that the Solutrean Hypothesis has a strong following among non-professionals. My sense from comments I get on this blog is that many of you out there feel that the burden of proof has already been satisfied.

I disagree, obviously, and I think the contrast between how professionals and non-professionals generally view the Soloutrean Hypothesis and the strength of the evidence for it illustrates a good degree of daylight between how professional archaeologists and the public at large evaluate ideas about the past. I've been accused of "attacking" the Solutrean Hypothesis because I have expressed skepticism about the evidence, when, in reality, such skepticism is a basic, fundamental part of the process of doing science. Critical evaluation of positive material evidence is absolutely essential to the whole endeavor of understanding the past. I'm not sure when the Solutrean Hypothesis became so sacred and beloved that it was no longer permissible to ask questions like "what is that artifact really telling us?" or "what is the basis of that assertion?" News flash: those kinds of questions are never out of line. The Solutrean Hypothesis is far from being settled science. And, even if does turn out to be correct (i.e., the null hypothesis of "no North American visit by Solutrean-age peoples from Europe" is falsified by a good site), the door will never close on asking pertinent questions about the evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

So now that we know that The Solutrean will indeed consciously embrace the Solutrean Hypothesis. It's a movie, of course, not science.  But it will be interesting to see how the characters and story of The Solutrean engage and reflect both the scientific and non-scientific parts of the story of the Solutrean Hypothesis. What will the Solutreans look like? Will they encounter any other peoples in their journeys? Will they drop the Cinmar biface while traversing the Atlantic Shelf? 

​We shall see.

29 Comments

Probable Lead Actor for "The Solutrean" is White Guy

11/13/2015

2 Comments

 
PictureKodi Smit-McPhee: is this the face of "The Solutrean"? (Photo : Getty Images/Michael Buckner)
Another mention of The Solutrean popped up in my news feed this morning, announcing that Australian actor Kodi Smit-McPhee is nearing a deal to star in the "Ice Age-set survival thriller:"

"Smit-McPhee will play a young man who must cross miles of dangerous, weather-whipped territory to reunite with his tribe."

In a previous post, I wondered if that "dangerous territory" included the New World. Today's stories aren't any more specific than the original ones, but do mention that the story is "set 20,000 years ago in Europe."

In another previous post, I discussed the results of recent genetic analyses that suggested Paleolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe (including Solutrean peoples) were relatively dark-skinned compared to western Europeans today.  

At this point there's no way of knowing what The Solutrean will bring to the table. I would love to see a film about Paleolithic Europe that made a real effort to get the details right and present a vision of the past that is as accurate as it is compelling (i.e., more like The Black Robe and less like 10,000 BC).   I'm hoping The Solutrean is not a film just about a bunch of people who look like modern, white Europeans doing brave things.  Filming is scheduled to start soon.


2 Comments

Haplogroup X2a and the Peopling of the Americas

11/7/2015

13 Comments

 
If you're interested in how, when, and from where people first entered the Americas, you should be aware of a new paper by Jennifer Raff and Deborah Bolnick titled "Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas? A Critical Re-Evaluation" (PaleoAmerica 1(4):297-304). It is a concise, clear, and largely non-technical essay discussing what the presence of mitochondrial Haplogroup X2a in Native Americans might be telling us about the pre-Columbian migration of populations across the Atlantic. 

The answer is . . . (drumroll): not much.
PictureMap showing geographical distribution of Haplogroup X among living populations (Wikimedia Commons).
Haplogroups are genetic populations that share a common ancestor.  The common ancestry of mitochondrial haplogroups is defined by differences and similarities in mitochondrial DNA, a kind of DNA that is contained in the mitochondria of cells.

Haplogroup X is found in living populations in Europe, west Asia, and northern North America.  Studies in the late 1990s began to ask whether the geographic distribution of Haplogroup X among living populations was telling us something about the origin of at least some New World peoples. A widely-read 1998 popular article titled "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans" (Science 280(5363):520) helped popularize the idea that peoples from the Near East or Europe contibuted to Native American ancestry.  This idea was very popular among Mormons looking for evidence of a migration of Near Eastern peoples to the New World several thousand years ago (it is regarded with less enthusiasm now, especially after the publication of genetic data from Kennewick Man: see this blog post, for example).  

The distribution of Haplogroup X has also been proffered as evidence by proponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis (the idea that Paleolithic peoples from Europe migrated to eastern North America around 20,000 years ago). In a 2014 paper ("Solutrean Hypothesis: Genetics, the Mammoth in the Room," World Archaeology 46(5):752-774), Stephen Oppenheimer, Bruce Bradley, and Dennis Stanford argued that

"The mtDNA X2a evidence is more consistent with the Atlantic route and dates suggested by the Solutrean hypothesis and is more parsimonious than the assumption of a single Beringian entry, that assumes retrograde extinction of X in East Eurasia." (from the abstract)

Raff and Bolnick's essay strongly challenges that interpretation, concluding the following (page 301):

"We remain unconvinced by the arguments advanced thus far in favor of a trans-Atlantic migration prior to 1500 cal yr BP or so. As we have discussed, X2a has not been found anywhere in Eurasia, and phylogeography gives us no compelling reason to think it is more likely to come from Europe than from Siberia. Furthermore, analysis of the complete genome of Kennewick Man, who belongs to the most basal lineage of X2a yet identified, gives no indication of recent European ancestry and moves the location of the deepest branch of X2a to the West Coast, consistent with X2a belonging to the same ancestral population as the other founder mitochondrial haplogroups. Nor have any high-resolution studies of genome-wide data from Native American populations yielded any evidence of Pleistocene European ancestry or trans-Atlantic gene flow."

This is an interesting case where, I think, interpretations based initially solely on genetic information from living populations are and will continue to be refined as data are added from prehistoric remains.  Genetic data from living populations are great for formulating hypotheses, but they don't actually provide direct evidence about the past -- that has to come materials and skeletons that are actually from the past.  Whatever story is "true" has to be consistent with all lines of evidence.  Raff and Bolnick (page 301) mention that there are currently no genetic data from Solutrean skeletal material -- I hope someone pursues that in the near future.

As a final aside: it's a bummer that every single paper I discuss in this post is behind a paywall. I can get to them through my university library access, but the public generally can't.  A lot of people out there who are not professional academics are interested in these issues and it's a shame we can't make our work more openly available to them.  The Raff and Bolnick paper is a great example, I think, of an essay on a technical issue that is written in such a way as to be palatable to a non-technical audience (and when it comes to genetics, I include myself in that audience).  I hope that their paper can somehow be made open access so anyone and everyone can read it.​

Update (11/7/2015):  A copy of Raff and Bolnick's paper can be downloaded from Jennifer Raff's Academia.edu page.

13 Comments

Hey "Popular Archaeology:" Here Are Some Corrections To Your Solutrean Hypothesis Story

10/17/2015

16 Comments

 
PictureScreenshot of "The Iceman Cameth" as published October 2, 2015 in Popular Archaeology.
The Fall 2015 edition of Popular Archaeology contains a story about the Solutrean Hypothesis titled "The Iceman Cameth" by Patrick Hahn. I've seen the story (dated October 2) pop up in a number of groups that I follow online. It contains several obvious errors, including a particularly important one in the first paragraph.  I would have thought someone would have pointed them out and/or corrected them by now, but that doesn't appear to have happened.  So here you go.

This is the first paragraph of the story:

"In his laboratory at the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., Dr. Dennis Stanford hands me a slab of brown plaster.
 It’s a replica of a bone fragment – from a mastodon or a giant ground sloth – the original having been dredged from the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay. On the slab is an etching of a mastodon, placed there by some unknown artist long ago. By itself, the find is a truly remarkable one. But more than this, the artifact, dated to a staggering 22,000 years ago, is now part of a growing body of evidence that could overturn everything scientists once thought they knew about the peopling of the Americas."

The first sentence might be correct.  The rest of the first paragraph, however, is wrong.  

Unless I missed something, there is no 22,000 year-old mastodon carving from Chesapeake Bay. The author has conflated the carving of a mammoth on a piece of fossil bone from Vero Beach, Florida (dating to about 13,000 years ago), with the 22,000-year-old mastodon remains that were purportedly dredged up from the mid-Atlantic continental shelf along with the Cinmar biface.

This is not a trivial error: it conflates a discovery that is accepted (Vero Beach) with one that is much less so (Cinmar), casting the case for the Solutrean Hypothesis in a more favorable light than is deserved based on the evidence.  

As far as I know, no-one really doubts the veracity of the Vero Beach mammoth carving: it appears to be a genuine artifact that dates to at least 13,000 years ago (i.e., when mammoths became extinct).  It could have been produced by Clovis or pre-Clovis peoples.  It's pretty cool, but it hasn't been dated to 22,000 years ago and doesn't "overturn everything scientists thought they knew."  If you want to read some scholarly work on the Vero Beach carving, here is a 2011 paper by Barbara Purdy et al. from the Journal of Archaeological Science.  

To say the Cinmar biface doesn't enjoy the same level of acceptance as the Vero Beach carving is putting it mildly. The Cinmar biface, a bi-pointed stone blade that resembles a Solutrean laurel-leaf point, is said by its supporters to be about 22,8000 years old by virtue of its association with radiocarbon-dated mastodon remains. Both the point and the mastodon remains are said to have been dredged up from the continental shelf some years ago. The reported circumstances of discovery of the Cinmar biface have been strongly questioned (you can read a June 2015 paper by Metin Eren et al. in the Journal of Archaeological Science here; you can read Darrin Lowery's response to that paper here; and you can read what I wrote about the whole affair here).

The conflation of the Vero Beach carving (a well-accepted artifact) with the dates and location associated with the Cinmar biface (a much more controversial artifact) is an important mistake.  The Cinmar biface is one of the key pieces of evidence put forward by proponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis. The Vero Beach carving is not. Not a great start to the article.

Moving on.

This is paragraph fourteen:

"Archaeologists have found evidence of human habitation antedating Clovis by thousands of years, including sites on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay.  Tools associated with these sites have a distinctly Solutrean look."

This paragraph, again, mixes something that most archaeologists accept (the reality of a pre-Clovis occupation of eastern North America) with something that has been asserted but not yet demonstrated to the satisfaction of most of us (that there are actual Solutrean sites on the east coast).  More clarity would been helpful - what sites are we talking about here? Presumably, the article is referring to the Miles Point and Oyster Cove sites which were discussed by Lowery et al. in this 2010 paper in Quaternary Science Reviews (and this 2012 Washington Post article).  The artifacts described from Miles Point (reportedly found in sediments of pre-Clovis age) don't look particularly Solutrean to me, and indeed that paper does not suggest any Solutrean affinity (the word "Solutrean" does not appear in the paper). You can read a critique of the evidence for the Solutrean Hypothesis and the data from Miles Point and Oyster Cove in this 2014 Antiquity paper by Michael O'Brien et al.  If there's a paper somewhere that makes a case for the Solutrean affinity of the lithic assemblages from Miles Point or Oyster Cove (or other sites) on typological grounds, I haven't seen it.

PictureArtifact images from the Popular Archaeology article. The top image shows Solutrean artifacts. The bottom two are labeled as "Clovis points." They're not.
Moving on.

The article includes an image of some Solutrean artifacts followed by two images that are supposed to be Clovis points.  Neither of the artifacts represented as a Clovis point actually is.​

The first "Clovis point" is apparently 
an artifact found in Mexico near the Tepexpan skeleton. It's possible it's a preform for a fluted point, but it clearly isn't a finished Clovis point.

The second image, also not a Clovis point, is apparently a biface from Nicaragua.  The image can be found on Wikimedia Commons, where is described as "NOT A CLOVIS TECHNOLOGY."  

​It's pretty easy to find images of actual Clovis points, so I'm not sure why the Popular Archaeology story chose to use non-Clovis artifacts as examples of Clovis.  In terms of their shape, the artifacts shown at least superficially resemble Solutrean laurel-leaf blades far more to the untrained eye than actual Clovis points.  But they're not Clovis points.  And they're not Solutrean artifacts.  So why are they in the article?

Strike three.

Neither the Solutrean Hypothesis nor the evidence associated with it is really very complicated. I have no idea what the editorial process at Popular Archaeology is like, but the significant errors and omissions in this story don't inspire a lot of confidence. 

I was compelled to write this post because one of the readers of my blog (a non-archaeologist) asked me about this article in particular.  He wanted to know what I thought of Popular Archaeology.  I think there's some room for improvement.

Is it just me? Am I missing something? Let me know if I've gotten anything wrong: I'll gladly correct what I've written.

16 Comments

Will "The Solutrean" Visit the Americas?

9/16/2015

2 Comments

 
A story about an upcoming film titled The Solutrean popped up in my news feed this morning. According to the piece, the film will be

"a visually striking epic-adventure . . .  It has to do with a hunting expedition gone awry and a young survivor’s quest to brave the inhospitable and dangerous conditions to find his way back."

My first reaction was to wonder if the young hero's adventures will have him visiting the Americas. Will we see North Atlantic currents carry him away along the pack ice? Will the "inhospitable and dangerous conditions" be provided courtesy of Native Americans? In other words, will the film engage with the central idea of the Solutrean Hypothesis?

My second reaction was to wonder if the Solutreans in film will be depicted as very light skinned, even though recent genetic evidence suggests their skin tone was darker than modern Europeans?

Connected to those was my third reaction: a conflicted mix of excitement and dread.  I think a lot of professional archaeologists will agree with me when I say there really aren't that many good movies that deal with our subject matter.  Movies can have a powerful effect in shaping the public's perception about both what archaeologists do and what the human past was like.  We love to watch movies that put flesh on the bones of things we think about every day, but we're often disappointed in what we see. 

I hope The Solutrean makes some good choices.  No word on when it's slated for release. Casting has begun and the film will be shot in Iceland and Canada.
2 Comments

What's the Solutrean Hypothesis Worth?  About $10k per "Laurel Leaf"

6/2/2015

21 Comments

 
It may or may not surprise you to learn that two of the artifacts identified as Solutrean laurel leaf bifaces in a 2014 paper by Dennis Stanford and colleagues are currently being hawked for sale on the internet for $20,000.  A post on a Facebook page titled "Solutrean-American and Indian Arrowheads, Artifacts for Sale" makes the pitch:

"For sale--the only Solutrean-American continental bi-faces (2) available for sale in the world. Dating to approx 23,000BC, these blades were recovered from the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay by scallop dredge.

Offered now for $20,000--the price will only go up as more evidence mounts.

My friend, the late Mark Small obtained these by trade and it wasn't until after his passing 8 years ago that we learned what these were. I talked the widow into showing the collection at the Gwynn's Island Museum a few years ago. Dr Stanford and his team from the Smithsonian were there to present a casting of the Cin-Mar blade to the folks who donated the original to the Smithsonian.

Upon seeing these, a request was made to loan them to the Smithsonian, which was done. The results are that the Solutrean Hypothesis rests upon these and other blades like them found in recent years on shore and off on the continental shelf--and they were made by peoples coming from France at the height of the ice age."


That post (dated September 25, 2014), was followed up by another (May 6, 2015) that gives more details of how the points came to be included in Stanford's Solutrean work:

"The [M]ark Small examples were discovered by Dr Stanford and his team at the Gwynn's Island Museum during his annual visit to ID and examine others' collections. I induced Mark's widow to bring the collection, then held by her son for safe keeping. The collection showed up, under his care, as piles of arrowheads laid upon sheets of foam, one atop the other. Her son had rifled every case open....but that's another story. Amidst the mess, Dr Stanford grasped the significance of these two pieces, his then fiance marveling over the smaller examples' evident resharpening trajectory, and the colors of the material isteld--both pieces are rhyolite. Casts made by Michael Frank were used at the Paleo conference in 2012, where thousands of archaeologists examined their displays. These are considered significant to the evidence supporting the Solutrean Hypothesis, and they reside in my hands for now--anyone wishing to examine them need but make arrangements with me to come here."

The sale of the purported Solutrean artifacts is apparently being handled by Trimble's Tavern Antiques in White Stone, Virginia. David Stone Sweet is listed as the contact person, and I'm guessing he's the one responsible for the Facebook postings and the posts (by "Stone") about the points on this forum. 

The points being offered for sale are shown as (a) and (e) in Figure 5.10 of Stanford et al. (2014:90; available here and here).  The discussion of the points in that paper is limited to the following: 

"A large knife (Fig. 5.10a) made of quartzite was dredged from the bottom of Mopjack Bay near Norfolk, Virginia. Use-wear studies suggest that it was not hafted, but rather it was hand-held. A heavily resharpened biface (Fig. 5.10e), was also dredged from Mopjack Bay. Like the Cinmar biface, this tool was made of  banded rhyolite and was used as a hafted knife."
(Stanford et al. 2014:90).

The "Mark Small's Artifacts" page on Facebook also has the points for sale.  The price is the same, but the provenience story is a little different:

"The Pair for $20,000 These are possibly the only known American Solutrean blades offered for sale in the world!

These are the real-deal, rare as hen's teeth and the identification of these is without question--note these two blades in the case of points directly under Dr's Stanford and Bradley's hands in the third pic. Dredged from the Chesapeake Bay near Haven Bar Bouy and the ancient Paleo-channel that outlets there from Milford Haven.

The bay is at it's deepest, 150ft--the deepest bay in the world.
Shown in Dr Stanford's Exhibit at the conference are these two blades along with detailed pen and ink sketches showing flaking patterns, and a map showing approximate find locations."


The story posted by "Stone" on this forum has a bit more detail:

"Mark Small found several on [Gwynn's Island] off that point, and Pleistocene fossils turn up on that stretch of now swiftly disappearing sand. leeward of that island is Milford Haven, an ancient drainage of the Piankatank and Queens Creek systems that carved a channel to some 6 miles out during times when the lands were dry. That paleo-channel reaches to the old banks of the Susquehanna River, then at some places only a mile wide and some less. The two blades in my hands now came from below the edge of the banks of that channel--they were recovered by scallop dredge."
Picture
Based on that description, it sounds like the find spots should be associated with a submerged channel stretching from Milford Haven to the submerged channel of the Susquehanna River. There's no mention of Mobjack Bay (that's the correct spelling, not "Mopjack").  I don't see a submerged channel from Milford Haven in bathymetry data for that section of the bay.  Stanford et al. (2014:Figure 5.9), show the locations of the artifacts in the central part of the channel, southeast of Mobjack Bay but miles from Milford Haven.  There is a deep submerged channel associated with the York River south of Mobjack Bay, and it is into that area that Queen's Creek actually empties.  I couldn't find a location for a "Haven Bar Buoy" mentioned by the seller of the artifacts.

PictureLocations relevant to the provenience of the "Mopjack laurel leaf" points indicated on bathymetric map of Chesapeake Bay. Bathymetry data source: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/chesbay/chesgeo.html
The hodge-podge of information that's out there about the "Mopjack laurel leafs" leads to a set of questions similar to those surrounding the Cinmar biface: where and when were these artifacts actually found?  who actually found them?  what, if anything, do they actually tell us about a "Solutrean" colonization of the New World? 

If the information provided by the seller of the points is accurate, Mark Small (deceased at the time the points were shown to Stanford) did not find the points himself but got them through trade.  I haven't located any other details about who originally found the points or how we know anything about where and when the points were found (other than "scallop dredge").  We are told that the collection containing the points was taken to the Gywnn's Island Museum specifically so that Stanford could look at it, and the seller's description makes it clear that Stanford's endorsement of the points
in the collection is an important part of the story now attached to them.  Stanford's interpretation and publication of the points as authentic New World Solutrean artifacts appears to be the sole criterion for attaching an extraordinary monetary value to them.

So what's the Solutrean hypothesis worth?  To people invested in the monetary value of authentic "Solutrean" artifacts from eastern North America, quite a bit. To the rest of us . . . you'll have to decide that for yourself. 

Also: Chesapeake Bay is not the deepest bay in the world.  That honor goes to the Bay of Bengal, which just squeaks out a win over Chesapeake Bay's 150' with a maximum depth of 3 miles. Pesky details.


References Cited: 

Stanford, Dennis, Darrin Lowery, Margaret Jodry, Bruce A. Bradley, Marvin Kay, Thomas W. Stafford and Robert J. Speakman.  2014.  New Evidence for a Possible Paleolithic Occupation of the Eastern North American Continental Shelf at the Last Glacial Maximum.  In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf, edited by Amanda Evans, Joe Flatman, and Nicholas Flemming, pp. 73-93.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
21 Comments

Shots Fired in the Battle Over the Cinmar Biface . . . But Does it Actually Matter to the Solutrean Hypothesis?

5/31/2015

43 Comments

 
PictureThe Cinmar biface featured on the cover of Stanford and Bradley's (2013) book. Image source: http://smithsonianscience.si.edu/2012/01/new-book-across-atlantic-ice-the-origin-of-americas-clovis-culture/
This week, Darrin Lowery responded to questions raised about the circumstances of the discovery of the Cinmar biface, a bi-pointed stone tool that resembles, at least superficially, artifacts made and used by the Solutrean peoples of Upper Paleolithic Europe.  The point was reportedly dredged up in 1970 by a scallop boat named the Cinmar (hence the name) operating off the Atlantic coast of North America, and associated with mastodon bones that were radiocarbon dated to 22,760 +/- 90 RCYBP (UCIAMS-53545).  The Cinmar biface has assumed a prominent place in the debate about the Solutrean hypothesis (the idea that Upper Paleolithic peoples from western Europe colonized eastern North America sometime between about 21,000 to 17,000 years ago), even gracing the cover of the 2013 book about the idea by Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley, its two main advocates.

The circumstances of the Cinmar discovery were called into question in a paper by
Metin Eren, Matthew Boulanger, and Michael O'Brien titled "The Cinmar Discovery and the Proposed Pre-Late Glacial Maximum Occupation of North America," published in the Journal of Archaeological Science (JAS) in March of this year.  Eren et al. questioned the history and details of the find, focusing particularly on inconsistencies and omissions in the various accounts of the discovery.  The JAS is a high profile venue, and the paper by Metin et al. generated a significant amount of discussion among archaeologists interested in the peopling of the Americas.

Full disclosure
: I consider Metin Eren a friend of mine.  We have some overlapping research interests, and have occasionally exchanged emails and papers.  I think we've even had beers together at one or two professional conferences.

I should also say that I'm very skeptical of the Solutrean hypothesis. 
The claim of a trans-Atlantic colonization of North America during the Last Glacial Maximum is an extraordinary one, and I have seen nothing so far that convinces me it is correct. I'm not alone.  The Solutrean hypothesis does not enjoy widespread support among North American archaeologists for a number of reasons (see this 2014 exchange for some summary arguments).  Unfortunately, it has captured the imaginations of some ugly elements outside of the professional community, serving as the basis for white supremacist and neo-Nazi fantasies about the importance of white people to North American prehistory.  That's not the fault of the developers and proponents of the idea, but it's a social dimension to the Solutrean hypothesis that is nonetheless worth being aware of and keeping an eye on.

After reading through both the JAS paper and Lowery's self-published response, I can't say much has changed for me.  The discussion about the circumstances of the Cinmar discovery is an interesting one (especially if you like to see an argument), but it's a debate about the details of a single discovery that, in my opinion, doesn't have the power to "prove" anything either way. Despite its appearance on the cover of a book and a charged exchange about the credibility of the artifact and those who are interested in it, the Cinmar biface doesn't really matter. 

Let me explain what I mean by that.

On the one hand, what if the case for the Cinmar biface is materially flawed and you just have to throw it out?  Eren et al. ask several pointed questions about the discovery, any one of which could potentially sink it as a reliable piece of evidence. Maybe we can't be sure it was in the same dredge load as the mastodon bones, or maybe we can't be sure the artifact was even recovered at sea.  So maybe the Cinmar biface means nothing in archaeological terms because we just can't trust it. 

But, on the other hand, what if everything about the Cinmar discovery is "best case scenario" for the Solutrean hypothesis? Let's the say we can be sure the point was dredged up in 1970 in the same immediate area as some mastodon remains - what does that actually get us? The "association" between the point and the fauna (on which the age estimate is based) is still incredibly weak, leaving us still with just a single stone point largely without context.  Is that the kind of "site" that will change anyone's mind about something as significant as the first colonization of the Americas?  I don't think so, and history agrees with me. Think about the sites that have been pivot points in our acceptance of alternative ideas about prehistory in the western hemisphere: L'Anse aux Meadows, Monte Verde, Folsom . . . those were all sites with clear evidence that falsified an existing model. Proponents and skeptics could stand there together and look at the deposits and have a meeting of the minds about what they meant.  That's never going to be the case with something like the Cinmar biface.  A point that "resembles" a Solutrean artifact with a provenience of "same dredge load as some mastodon bones" is not at the level of a site like Monte Verde - not even close.  Under the most charitable reading it doesn't have the power to move the needle on acceptance of the Solutrean hypothesis.  By itself it's just not a game changer.

What would be a game changer? Proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis are going to have to find, excavate, and document a real site: good artifacts in good contexts with good dates. Period. If the hypothesis is correct, those sites should be identifiable.  The Cinmar biface was made from an inland raw material source, so there should be some sites on dry land with clear evidence of a Solutrean occupation.  All you need is one. One good site trumps dozens of finds of purported Solutrean or Solutrean-like artifacts with poor or no context. 
Think about how many sites with "associations" between stone projectile points and extinct fauna were dismissed in North America prior to the acceptance of the antiquity of humans in the New World demonstrated by careful excavations at the Folsom site.  The Solutrean hypothesis will ultimately need something similar.

The burden of proof in this situation pretty clearly has to be on the advocates of the Solutrean hypothesis: it is impossible to use material evidence to prove that Solutrean peoples did not make it to North America (
just as we cannot prove they are not currently orbiting the sun in a teapot). The falsifiable hypothesis in this case is that there was no colonization of North America by Upper Paleolithic peoples from Europe.  That's what would need to be proved wrong. Does the Cinmar biface, even under the best of circumstances, do that?  I would say no.  And I would also say that eliminating the Cinmar biface as a piece of evidence doesn't "disprove" the Solutrean hypothesis. Basically, I think that with or without the Cinmar biface the Solutrean hypothesis remains an idea based on an assemblage of circumstantial evidence, none of which at this point appears to be critical to whether the hypothesis is viable or not.  I think the Cinmar biface would not change that equation for me even if I had plucked it from the dredge myself.  It's just not enough.

Other than it's relevance to archaeology, the Cinmar discussion is interesting because of the speed and openness with which it's taking place.  The JAS paper was published open access, so it's available to everyone. Lowery published his response less than two months later on Academia.edu (again, available to everyone).  I'm not sure if there's a precedent for this sort of thing - we may be watching something new.  It will be interesting to see if the discussion continues and, if so, at what pace and in what format. 

Even though I don't think the Cinmar biface is as crtitical to the viability of the Solutrean hypothesis as it has been made out to be, I do welcome the vigorous questioning of evidence.  I think it tells you something important about where the debate about the Solutrean hypothesis is at the moment: it's a lot of energy expended over the minutiae of an artifact that greatly diminishes in perceived importance if a single "good" site can be located.  That's what I'll be watching for.


ResearchBlogging.org
Eren, M., Boulanger, M., & O'Brien, M. (2015). The Cinmar discovery and the proposed pre-Late Glacial Maximum occupation of North America Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.03.001
43 Comments

Does the Fan Base of the Solutrean Hypothesis Change if Upper Paleolithic Europeans Weren't White?

4/5/2015

34 Comments

 
The Solutrean hypothesis is the idea that Upper Paleolithic peoples from western Europe colonized eastern North America sometime during the period 21,000 to 17,000 years ago.  The idea is based largely on the purported similarities between Solutrean chipped stone technologies and those related to the later Clovis horizon in North America.  The idea does not enjoy widespread support among professional archaeologists for a variety of reasons (see this 2014 exchange for summary arguments).

While most archaeologists aren't impressed, the Solutrean hypothesis does have fans outside of the academic community. Predictably, it is very popular among white supremacists, who are fond of the idea of the original settlers of the continent being of European rather than Asian heritage. The Solutrean hypothesis is part of the white supremacist fantasy presented in the novel White Apocalypse by Kyle Bristow.  The Solutrean foundation of America is also a key component in the rhetoric of neo-Nazi John de Nugent:

"The enemy of truth has a big problem with the issue of the Solutrean whites being here first and then the red man genociding him, for the whole story is didactic and instructive for white people today. It is the story of the first whites to build a great culture, and how they were crushed and died in slavery and agony after they became a minority in their own country." (source)

More discussion of the white supremacist embrace of the Solutrean hypothesis can be found in this blog post by Jason Colavito.

But what if those Solutrean people weren't actually white?  Some new research that was presented at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists conference in St. Louis last week suggests just that:

"The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes--SLC24A5 and SLC45A2--that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

If correct, that would mean that the Upper Paleolithic peoples of Spain and France - our friends the Solutreans - had dark skin. Does that put
a chill on the love affair that white supremacists and neo-Nazis seem to have with the Solutrean hypothesis? 

The quote above is from a news story on the Science website -- I'm not aware that the primary work has been published yet.
I'll look forward to reading it when it is.
34 Comments

    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly