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

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
Matt
6/2/2015 01:58:16 am

Sooooo, there's basically no real provenience for them other than "somewhere in the Chesapeake Bay...maybe"?

Ken Sassaman had a great editorial about precisely this kind of thing back in vol. 79(3) of American Antiquity, dealing with the analysis, publication, and subsequent high-dollar sale of the Vero Beach carving (some of the same folks at the SI were involved in that too if I recall correctly).

Sassaman concluded in that case that it was likely a violation of the SAA's Principles of Archaeological Ethics, specifically Principle 3, because it contributed directly to the commercialization of artifact:

"Given its lack of context, finite interpretive potential, and questionable age [it] does not manifest the scientific heft that warrants its publication under threat of its commercial exchange. Because there was never any assurance that this object would be transferred to a public repository, its publication in American Antiquity would have been a clear violation of Principle 3."

Reply
Darrin Lowery
6/2/2015 03:06:27 am

The only thing that these bifaces really tell you is that the biface form (i.e., bi-pointed) is extremely rare in the Chesapeake region, which is contrary to the December AMERICAN ANTIQUITY article by Boulanger and Eren.

By the way, the deepest spot in the bay is -174 feet (located off of Kent Point...the southern end of Kent Island). The depth only appears on a few bathymetric charts....but if you use a depth finder and go over the region, you'll get a reading deeper that -150 feet.

By the way, David Sweet (sp.?) the guy who is marketing these two bifaces! Told us at the Gwynn's Island event that Small got these two examples from dredgers (not scallopers) from the Mobjack Bay area.

The bi-pointed biface form is rare is extremely rare in the region. According to Boulanger and Eren, the examples we illustrate are terminal Archaic in age. As such, these terminal Archaic biface forms should be relatively common (considering that I have found literally thousands of Susquehanna points)! I have also found and documented hundreds of terminal Archaic sites in the Chesapeake region and I have never found a "Boats Blade" as defined or illustrated by Dena Dincauze in her treatise on Archaic cemeteries in eastern Massachusetts. As a comparison, I have also found or excavated 58 fluted points and fragments. But, I have not found a single Boats Blade....from the many terminal Archaic sites in the region. Interesting! What it means??? You got me!

Reply
Andy White
6/2/2015 11:16:27 am

Hi Darrin,

Do the inconsistencies in the stories about the provenience of the "Mobjack" artifacts bother you at all? Or the fact that they're now up for sale after being identified as laurel leaf bifaces?

David Sweet
11/3/2015 05:26:20 pm

I have always stated Haven Bar Buoy, and bay scallops are dredged (bay max depth 150"), just like those offshore at the Cinmar site (240" depth), and much deeper still off the Grand Banks (1470' depth for that species of ocean scallop)

Trust me, NO ONE was ever going to offer to buy said artifacts from facebook (clue-fb is the largely bottom of the barrel of the artifact collecting/sales world.

It did serve me well to publicize these points...and as I hold a contract with Mark Small's widow to manage the sale of the collection (it's her property and she may dispose of it as she wishes)

As the instrument of that contract, and of her will, my obligation begins with getting the most for what she has. I had to fend off one miserable pos to keep her from being ripped off, and have done my utmost to study, identify and understand each typology represented in the collection--and what an amazing array of types!

Point of fact: I knew Mark since the 10th grade, hunted with him since the early 80's. We made, often in jest, commitments to one another should one of us pass first...I never thought Mark would go so young.

I sought to protect his widow's interests and kept at her to let me manage the collection, even introducing her to a 'friend' who turned around and trashed my name to her so many times in effort to weasel the collection from her for a fraction of its worth.

Fact is, I talked the widow into bringing the collection to the GIM in the first place, hence the avalability of these first two blades to Dr Stanford--I arranged that, convincing the widow to allow it against her own judgement.

Her own son tried to steal one of the from her, claiming only one was sent and returned. I persuaded the widow to challenge her son over it by threatening a call to the Smithsonian AT MY INSISTENCE.

Subsequently I found that several artifacts could not be typed by what I was familiar with or could sufficiently research.

I bought and have read thrice now, Across Atlantic Ice; I sent a set of photo's of these mystery points to Mike Frank, and his reply stunned me. he in effect stated they appeared identical to Solutrean material on his tables in the lab.

FACT IS--if I had not interjected myself into the management of this collection, nothing in it would have ever been seen or properly recognized, much less fully credited to their finder, Mark Small

Now, let's get down to brass tacks--I received no reply to two emails sent to Dr Lowery containing the photos of the subsequent four points discovered and suggested by Mike Frank to be important finds. Dr Lowery even purchased artifacts from me and yet would not reply to my inquiries.

No effort has been voiced by any professional regards seeing these or the previous two larger blades. I have always been willing to facilitate the Smithsonian and Dr Stanford's efforts--I believe in the hypothesis, and I've worked to try to understand as much as I can--to be a credit to my handling of these artifacts.

Collectors have voiced open hatred of me for being too studious, too well informed...professionals want to denounce me for promoting the sale of an elderly widow's last belongings of her late husband.

If anyone things I do not have deep feelings about this, it is likely because none of you were actually bold enough to ask me...until now.

...and let me state again, for all who didn't listen the first one hundred times--HAVEN BAR BUOY

Andy White
11/3/2015 07:44:18 pm

Where exactly is Haven Bar Buoy? Is it anywhere near Mobjack?

Bob Jase
6/2/2015 01:34:44 pm

Damned shame they are asking so much for these - they'd fit perfectly into the dybbuk box on got on Ebay

Reply
Darrin Lowery
6/4/2015 10:38:04 pm

Andy,
Sorry for my delayed response, but I’ve been conducting fieldwork on some Atlantic coastal islands. You asked me two questions! I will provide you with a response (see below).

Your questions were “Do the inconsistencies in the stories about the provenience of the "Mobjack" artifacts bother you at all? Or the fact that they're now up for sale after being identified as laurel leaf bifaces?”

My response would be “both”! But, do you know what bothers me more? You just advertised links and brought to the forefront the price of the two artifacts being offered for sale by David Sweet! In my mind, that’s commercialization! These two specimens have been on his obscure website and offered for sale for over a year….with no takers! Currently, if you do a Google search on the CINMAR discovery, your blog is now #5 on the list. So you took an obscure (artifact sale offering) and brought to the front and center (relative to a Google search). Ooops, you just violated the SAA Principle #3 relative to its code of Archaeological Ethics! Do you want to be the “president” or “vice president” SAA Principle #3 Archaeological Ethic code violators club? Now, of the of course, my aforementioned comment was in jest!

It does illustrate a “fact” that I would like to make. You cannot talk about the archaeological record without directly or indirectly “commercializing” the value of comparable or culturally affiliated specimens! I will illustrate an example from my own experience! Years ago (early 1980’s), I started to collect post-Civil War Sharps buffalo rifles (I was anxiously anticipating the return of buffalo back to the Delmarva Peninsula…just kidding)! At the time, you could find a good descent Model 1874 Sharps Sporting rifle for about $3000.00. Then in 1990, Hollywood made a movie, which highlighted the use of a Model 1874 Sporting rifle. The demand for these rifles increased almost immediately and a $3000.00 specimen in 1982, suddenly jumped to $15,000.00 specimen. Needless to say, I stopped collecting post-Civil War Sharps buffalo rifles! The question being, what do you think a scholarly academically-oriented book on “Clovis Lithic Technology” or “Folsom Lithic Technology” does to the demand, commercialization, and value of an isolated Clovis or Folsom point? I think I know the answer and it would be analogous to the example listed above.

Over the years, I have met a gamut of avocational archaeologists and collectors! For every ten good folks, there’s usually a bad one. However, with a little coaxing and effort you can sometimes turn a “bad one” into a “good one”. With respect to your attempt to “whip up” the CINMAR issue, you have “slipped” and inadvertently “commercialized” the artifacts for sale by Mr. Sweet. Maybe you should get on the “horn” and see if you can coax him into being a good one. You know what, you'd probably learn something relative to the archaeology of the Mobjack Bay area. Based on the number of comments and links, you’ve clearly got a lot of time on your hands. So why don’t you put it to good use! You also might want to get out and do some fieldwork in South Carolina….it’s that time of year! Again, I do apologize if my statements come off a little "snarky", that's not what I intended!

Cheers,

Darrin Lowery

Reply
Andy White
6/4/2015 11:08:44 pm

Hi Darrin,

I take your point that talking about something online makes it easier to get information about it - that would be the point of talking about it. I don't presume that you put your Cinmar document online so that no-one would look at it?

I'm aware of the complexities of using private artifact collections for archaeological research. I think it has to be done in order to address many relevant research questions (I don't believe I could have done my dissertation work without looking at private collections, for example), and I think a lot of good can come of it. There's also the chance that bad things can happen. Those intricacies and unknowns are something we have to try to navigate the best we can as professionals.

If I thought my post would contribute to the monetary "value" of the Mobjack bifaces, I wouldn't have written it. Several things affected my decision. First: I think, if anything, the information in my post casts doubt on the stories behind these artifacts - such doubt does not enhance value but would presumably have the opposite effect. Second: I think anyone who might have been interested in purchasing them probably already knew about the offer - it was advertised in multiple places. Third: I don't think many archaeologists (perhaps the primary readers of my blog) were aware of this dimension of the story. On balance I thought it would be useful to write the post, so I did. I didn't say anything untrue or accuse anyone of being unethical. If you know of inaccuracies in what I wrote, please let me know and I'll address them.

Mike Morgan
6/8/2015 10:46:42 am

Oh c'mon, admit it. You are actually Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper using Darrin Lowery's name, right? :-)

David Sweet
11/3/2015 07:09:36 pm

I hold a contract in my hands --I am become the intsrument of that contract. I have an oft'spoken obligation to my deceased best friend and a contract beholding to his widow.

I have executed my office with complete honesty and in that regard, I take only 20% for the work I do on her behalf--that equals to $180/month for 22 months...do the math and you can see I have not bolked nor shorted the widow in any way. I do this because I bound my honor to the task.

If you or anyone else has an axe to grind with me, be aware of these facts:

I asked the widow to bring the collection to the GIM in the first place.

I arranged the loan of the two blades identified to the Smithsonian--and had to compel thwe widow to go a round or two with her son who tried to claim there was only ONE blade.

I had to fend of a so-called 'friend' who blatantly tried to rip the widow off--had her at one point hiding artifacts under her bed from me--and I've been close to the widow since she married mark over 20 years ago...you know the pos I'm talking about...

I studied my butt off to identify everything I could, to fairly represent it for the best outcome for the widow, and to present four more artifacts for Dr Stanford's consideration...

And no one has even bothered to ask me if they might see them in-hand....

Thanks for replying to my emails abouty these four points--Kevin explained that one to me....

I couldn't even get jack hranicky to come see them--so much for the professionalism in the profession.

My door is open to anyone wishing to see these artifacts or any other in the collection--and if there is something about me ya don't like, remember this--I didn't see Dr Stanford's nor yours, nor the Smithsonians' name on the contract I hold with the widow

--so just who do you think I should be responsible to?

By contract I have upheld my obligations faithfully and to the best of my abilities TO THE WIDOW

Brad Lepper
6/7/2015 06:41:31 am

Hi Andy, To quote Battlestar Galactica, all of this has happened before and it will happen again. Stanford was part of the team that authenticated the Vero Beach mammoth engraving (Solutrean art in America?!) -- perhaps prematurely. With that endorsement, it subsequently sold for enough $ for the person who claimed to have found it "to be moderately comfortable" (http://www.veronews.com/news/indian_river_county/spotlight/vero-bone-with-ice-age-etching-is-sold-to-an/article_bc289b44-91ca-11e2-ada7-0019bb30f31a.html). The same guy has since found another carving, which was trumpeted on American Unearthed (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/america-unearthed-update-florida-fossil-hunter-speaks-out-about-ancient-art-and-huge-profits). Of course I can't be too critical, since the Burning Tree mastodon, which I helped to excavate and study, subsequently was sold by the owner -- thankfully to a museum (in Japan), but the sale has contributed to the commodification of artifacts and fossils in a way that breaks my heart.

Reply
Dennis Wallace
4/2/2020 07:03:30 am

F you Brad you cover up piece of human excrement !
Brad is involved in a huge ancient paleo city cover up in Ohio
he should be stripped of any Archaeologist accreditations

Reply
David Sweet
11/5/2015 03:40:21 am

I'll add one more comment for Dr Lowery--

You purchased artifacts from me--a pair of Cupp points--and as I see it, you are not one wit better than anyone else seeking to commercialize artifacts

Your expressed angst over the Solutrean artifacts obviously isn't about selling or buying--it's about the price tag

Sadly, pointing fingers isn't a solution, just so much pretentious drama.

The real issue is the odorous pretense of being a professional under the banner of opposing the commercialization of artifacts while buying artifacts at the same time

How about figuring out how to use a third party fund-raiser org to obtain and donate artifacts to the institutions desiring them?

--basically it's getting someone to do your dirty work for you so you can pretend to be of pristine character while glowering over someone upholding a contract to benefit the widow of his best friend

Dr Lowery, why won't you even speak to me?

You've taken it upon yourself to speak about me--but clearly you won't speak TO me

Your actions speak for themselves, Dr Lowery--people who live in glass houses ought not be casting stones


Reply
Charles Ray link
2/7/2016 10:10:15 pm

Andy White: "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."

I'm throwing the BS flag on that snarky, accusing jab. I don't see where the sale of these two artifacts puts a price tag on the "Solutrean hypothesis" any more than the sale of Clovis points puts a price tag on the "They all came through Beringia and only Beringia hypothesis." There have been literally THOUSANDS of Clovis points sold over the last several decades since the original finds; does that mean that every sale of a Clovis further impugned the "Only through Beringia hypothesis" -???

Validation of the "Solutrean hypothesis" does not hinge on these two bifaces, much less whether they were/are sold as legally owned private property or wind up in a museum or other institution. That's non sequitur, to say the least.

David White: "To the rest of us . . . you'll have to decide that for yourself."

I've decided for myself that it's intellectually dishonest for some of the "rest of (you)" sanctimonious illuminati to impugn the hypothesis on the basis of these two bifaces at all, much less that they've been offered for sale.

Reply
Andy White
2/8/2016 06:16:41 am

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the comment. I think you've got my point backwards: without the Solutrean hypothesis, the two "Laurel leaf" bifaces are not worth much on the artifact market. If they're not Solutrean, I'm pretty sure the price drops way way down. Therefore it is in the interest of those who hope to make money off of these things to keep the Solutrean hypothesis viable.

I agree that these isolated "Solutrean" artifacts (these two bifaces as well as the Cinmar biface) don't make or break the hypothesis. They're suggestive at best. What is required to disprove the null hypothesis of "no Solutrean visit to the Americas" is an actual site. I've said that many times.

Reply
Charles Ray
2/8/2016 06:48:29 am

The fact remains that you conflate the price tag and the provenance of the two points with the validity of the "Solutrean hypothesis". If you want to rail against (1) perceived evils of commerce in antiquities, (2) the validity of these two particular points as far as their provenance (along with possible discrepancies in same) and evidence of the "Solutrean hypothesis, or (3) the validity of the "Solutrean hypothesis" itself, you can do so without the sneer smear. As others have pointed out, your attack is non sequitur and transparent, your protestations of innocence notwithstanding.

Perhaps you should take a lesson from Bernie Sanders; at least he knows how to make the smear "artful". You, not so much.

Reply
Andy White
2/8/2016 10:04:11 am

No, I don't "conflate" the price take with the validity of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is valid - it's a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be valid without being "accepted." I think that's the case with the Solutrean hypothesis. The points have no real value unless they are accepted as authentic Solutrean points found in North America. The people trying to sell the points have an interest in presenting them as authentic, provenienced Solutrean artifacts. And the proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis have an interest in gathering evidence (in the form of authentic, provenienced Solutrean points). I see that as an interesting situation. If you don't that's up to you.

Reply
Bill Wagner
2/11/2016 09:15:02 am

In the world of abstract ideals, artifacts should not not be bought and sold like commodities.

In the world of abstract ideals, there is liberty and justice for all.

In the real world, however, institutions struggle to curate the artifacts they are burdened with already, and the ivory tower pontiffs are unable to come up with any viable alternative to private ownership-slash-curation.

Private ownership of old master paintings, sculptures, Cremonese violins and other objects of virtu has a track record of working well. There is no reason in principle why artifacts should be the exception.

Unless, of course, it's territoriality -- who gets to control and play with the toys . . .

Reply
Normandie Kent
1/6/2017 12:55:47 pm

It's obvious that Native Americans were making laurel leaf spear points along with the pre-Clovis, and Clovis points. There's a better chance that a subset of the Pre-Clovis people who were big game hunters, and deep sea fisherman and seafarers made the trip across the Atlantic to Southern Europe and taught the cave art people how to Make their laurel leaf bi facial spear points, intermarried with them and became the Solutreans. That's why we find Native American admixture and Haplogroups Ydna Q and C, and Mtdna X in Europe in The Mesolithic and probably in the upper Paleolithic. In America we find no European haplogroups in pre columbian remains.

Reply
Cody
1/31/2019 08:20:16 pm

I need some help please. I think I have have a mind blowing find here in Illinois. I believe I've found one of these solutrean leaf blades. I have pictures I'll send but so fare even experts around here don't even know what to say. Ctrpowerstroke@gmail.com

Reply
Dennis Wallace
4/2/2020 07:12:13 am

We have discovered a huge Paleo city in Ohio that has not been completely destroyed, by artifacts it appears more gravettian than
solutrean Brad Lepper ohio history connection is in on the cover up
refusing to view or acknowledge the prolific paleo site so the state of Ohio can permit a landfill ! how do I know
I own part of the End Moraine the city is on !

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    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