Ice Age Discovery of America:the Solutrean Hypothesis

[RON20406]

The use of boats in discovery is legendary. Now, the latest evidence of the discovery of North America has been attributed to native Europeans, not the Asians who crossed the Bering Strait 10-13.5k years ago. It is based upon the latest archeological evidence found along our Eastern seaboard of Solutrean artifacts that pre-date the Clovis culture. Hope you find some interesting maritime history here. Good luck and good sailing, Ron
en.metapedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

 

[kpgraci]

I've been convinced this was the case for some time now, it makes sense that sea-faring northern Europeans would have made it to North America by island hopping along the edge of the ice cap. I'm sure they weren't aware it was a new continent, but then not even Columbus knew that. There is little doubt that Asians did cross the land bridge, but there is controversy over who is responsible for Clovis technology, it seems to be based on contemporary European technology but then why was it discovered so far west? Trading perhaps. Man's movement into the New World is equivalent in magnitude to his departure from Africa into Asia and Europe. We just don't like to stay put, I guess. With the loss of frontiers to conquer I worry about the fate of mankind. you see what happens when we get too many of us packed into one place...loss of the individual, rise of the collective.

 

[higgs]

North America had already been discovered long before Europeans got here.

 

[rpwillia]

This thread needed a photo!

North America had already been discovered long before Europeans got here.

NT

 

[PaulK]

Nice idea, hopping down along edge of the ice in a kayak for a few thousand miles, but there seem to be lots of foggy areas and gaps in this theory. I wonder about distinct developments: if you give any two guys the job of making arrowheads with rocks, even if they're thousands of miles apart, eventually they'll figure out the best rock to use, and the easiest way to chip the pieces effectively. And the two will be remarkably similar: Clovis points. It's not rocket science- it's physics.

Of course there remains the skeleton in Washington state that police sent to a forensics lab to find that it had a pre-Clovis arrowhead embedded in it. Scientists are still trying to figure out whether he was Ainu (Native American) or something else - possibly Caucasoid. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

 

[RON20406]

North America had already been discovered long before Europeans got here.

Higgs, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, it is contrary to the latest scientific archeological/anthropological evidence. If you Google "Kennewick Man," it will provide you with a beginning point and hopefully lead you to further countless examples of European presence in the Americas before the Bering Strait migrations. It may not be fashionable in our PC world, but the "Native American" genesis theory is being replaced with a different model: the European discovery of North America and with the aid of skin boats. Best, Ron

 

[Ross]

We had the prehistoric settlement of the western hemisphere and we had a modern settlement of the western hemisphere. There is adequate evidence that the people of the western hemisphere had links to both the far atlanic coast and the far pacific coast. I rather suspect that much, if not most, the the evidence of the earliest settlements on the fringes of the oceans are long ago lost to rising sea levels at the ned of the last ice age.

 

[Mike1956]

Beg To Differ

I am a history buff too, and I know for a fact that the 'Soultrain Hypothesis' is a record of events coinciding simultaneously with the 'Motown Era'.

 

[Tom J]

There are some theories that propose that there was an ancient civilization in the mid-Atlantic region that influenced trade and culture on both sides of the Atlantic. I was involved in several expeditons to the North Bimini coast that explored this possibility. Over a period of several years, we made three trips, one with magnetometer and sonar, another with remotely piloted vehicle, and finally with deep water divers. On each trip we became more convinced that there was significant evidence of a past civilization down there. Electronic records, video and still pictures show what look like ruins of roads, foundations, etc. The divers all said that their first-hand impressions were even more convincing than the pictures. Unfortunatelly, the scientists back at the lab weren't as impressed as we were. The investigation is on-going, however.
Something to think about.

 

[PaulK]

I am a history buff too, and I know for a fact that the 'Soultrain Hypothesis' is a record of events coinciding simultaneously with the 'Motown Era'.

And what about the Beat Generation? :dance:

 

[Steve Morris]

The beat generation

And what about the Beat Generation? :dance:

It goes on.

 

[rpwillia]

Somewhat related - video is interesting

The Warship "Sword" Found Off Öland

See longer high resolution video:
http://tv.expressen.se/nyheter/inrikes/1.2533533/se-dykarnas-egen-film-fran-vraket

The map below shows the location of another Swedish warship (Mars) sunk in 1564 in another large battle with the Dutch, also off Oland.

[Good sidescan sonar is now cheap and available to anyone, so many wrecks are suddenly being found. Also, recreational divers can now go deeper with modern equipment. So archeologists have become very concerned about looting and salvage destroying valuable sites before they can be studied.]

Explorers have found the warship Sword off Öland. The ship sank in 1676 - the same day they discovered the warship Crown (Kronan) [that sank in the same large battle with the Dutch].

- It will be interesting to see what condition the Sword is in, says marine archaeologist and the Crown expert Lars Einarsson.

Behind the find is an underwater research team led by Carl Douglas of Deep Sea Productions, which conducts [diving?] in the Baltic Sea.

The warship Sword was found in March last summer, according to filmmaker and journalist Malcolm Dixelius, representing the wreckage looking company. According to Dixelius, actions include looking at the guns in order to identify the Sword.

"Bring ye well preserved"

The story goes that the Sword sank on the same day as the warship Crown on June 1, 1676. The Sword was sunk by a Dutch fire ship. A witness at Oland saw the warship ignited and the stern exploded.

- That is in good agreement with the wreck on the bottom. The bow is well preserved. One can see the gun ports with cannon in. But the stern is missing, says Malcolm Dixelius.

When the ship sank over 600 men and 86 guns followed it down into the depths.

The Sword is more than 70 meters deep east of Öland. Dixelius would not reveal the location yet, but says that the ship rests "on the boundary between international and Swedish waters." The position is very important because the find belongs to the state if it is on Swedish territory.

- If the authorities determine that it is in Swedish waters, we must reveal the position. There is no common ground yet, and we avoid any time to state its position to prevent looting. That's partly because we have not talked about the find until now, said Malcolm Dixelius.

The depth of an obstacle

Marine archaeologist Lars Einarsson, who researched the royal ship Crown for many years, hopes that it is possible to examine the Sword closer. But he sees the depth as a major obstacle.

- All shipwrecks are time capsules. It would be interesting to investigate how it was built, the cannons that are left, and what equipment was on board. But it is the same depth as in March, more than 70 meters, so it can be difficult to access for the divers, says Einarsson.

According to Lars Einarsson, it is well documented what was on board when the ship sank in terms of equipment and number of guns. However it is not known whether there is any treasure of gold on board, as there was on the Crown.

- At the Crown, we found two gold treasures and three caches of silver. The silver weighed 70 kilograms, says Einarsson.

 

[PaulK]

The Warship "Sword" Found Off Öland

See longer high resolution video:
http://tv.expressen.se/nyheter/inrikes/1.2533533/se-dykarnas-egen-film-fran-vraket

The map below shows the location of another Swedish warship (Mars) sunk in 1564 in another large battle with the Dutch, also off Oland.

Talk about culture shock! There I was in 15,000 BC, and suddenly it's 1564.

 

[Witzend]

Extremely cool Ray!!!
I wonder what species of wood was used?
Scraping ones gloves across the cannon to reveal it's markings probably would make the professionals cringe.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[RECESS]

There are sites in South America that have settlements that are 30,000 years old. They also have deep water fish remains in the waste pits of the villages showing the people were sea going cultures.

Europeans were late to the show.

 

[RON20406]

There are sites in South America that have settlements that are 30,000 years old. They also have deep water fish remains in the waste pits of the villages showing the people were sea going cultures.

Europeans were late to the show.

The sites that you mention in South America are from Brazil and could date to 50,000 BP. However, the skeletal remains show an archaic morphology with greater skull thickness and teeth and were not modern humans. The theory is that they orginated in Africa and were closely related to pre-homo sapiens that followed the westerly ancient human migrations. However, on the other coast, in Monte Verde, Chile, the oldest settlement of human habitation has been found dating to around 14,000 BP. There have been no skeletal remains but rather evidence of habitation and a human footprint. It is important to know that among contemporary professional anthropologists/archeologists the term "paleo indian" does not refer to race, (Mongoloid, Causcoid, etc.)but rather to the earliest human inhabitants of North and South America who made their living by hunting and gathering. Therefore, Kennewick Man, although exhibiting decidely pronounced Causcasoid features would nonetheless be classified as a paleo-indian and your reference that "Europeans were late to the show" has no validity. The latest evidence shows North and South America experienced migrations from both the East and West and the earliest remains in South America were pre-Homo Sapien and the oldest in North America-Kenniwick Man, the Spirit Cave couple in Nevada and other numerous sites are morphologically Causcoid. This causes much consternation among most indian tribes in America since it confounds and dispels their belief that they were the original people. However, Science will not be silenced. The story continues to unfold. Best, Ron

 

[RECESS]

I am a card carrying Indian. Yes, federal card. Both my wife and I have several lines that go back on the rolls. I am a member of a large tribe and I know very few people that have a problem with the fact that people migrated to the Americas. Not sure how you speak for American Indian tribes?

You reference a Wiki article? Really?

If you understood the body of evidence that is being massed to support the Pacific Coastal Theory, I think you may understand that what is currently known shows that a European migration is much less likely than a Pacific Islander migration being in the Americas earlier. The "validity" of the Pacific Coastal theory is much better than the conjecture that you have posted. It is important to remember that the actual evidence of any of these theories is sketchy at best and is much a case of connecting the possibilities than anything else.

Based on how you "discussed" Viking exploration in past threads, I am not holding out for a very in depth discussion here. These theories are shaped almost monthly by new ideas of how the pieces might fit together. I spent a good amount of time studying Historical Geology and Anthropology. Anytime I hear people putting forward theories as facts, I know what I am dealing with.

 

[RON20406]

Recess, I would like to address several of your statements since they are clouded with emotion and very little science/fact. Firstly, I never claimed to speak for the Indian tribes and cannot understand why you have made this claim. I speak for myself and do not represent any group. Secondly, you mention my "Wiki" article as if it is erroneous and the only existing source for the discussion. That is patently absurd and five minutes in a library or on a computer will reference hundreds of sources which state the same information. It is not my intent nor desire to provide a bilbliography for every statement discussed. Thirdly, I never referred to a Pacific Coastal theory as my main point but rather an eastern route that followed the ice sheets across the Atlantic from Spain/France (Solutrean-the title of the blog)-referring to the the culture and the artifacts produced by them. And, these findings along the eastern seaboard pre-date all finds on the Pacific Coast and the Southwest. These findings are not "sketchy" as you have said, but documented by mainstream professional anthropologists/archeologists. Fourthly, your intimation that I have not provided an in-depth discussion of the Viking finds, or this matter as well, is invalid since the object of these blogs is to open the door to new knowledge and discussion, not to write a lengthy doctoral thesis on a given subject. Few here would tolerate such arrogance. Also, you mention that these are "new ideas" and that I represent "theories as fact." The first part is true and the second is untrue. It is new ideas that drive science much as Galileo did when he rejected the flat earth theory and risked excommunication and possibly death from the Catholic Church. And it is these same theories that once challenged and proven by the scientific community become fact much as we all now believe that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Finally, when people are close-minded, Civilization suffers. We must be prepared to allow discussion, debate, ideas and theories to evolve for this is how we have transitioned from upright walking apes to Man. Best, Ron

 

[RECESS]

Recess, I would like to address several of your statements since they are clouded with emotion and very little science/fact. Firstly, I never claimed to speak for the Indian tribes and cannot understand why you have made this claim.

There is no emotion in my post and here is you claim.

This causes much consternation among most indian tribes in America since it confounds and dispels their belief that they were the original people.

Please site the "consternation" you have researched? This just sounds like a knee jerk statement from someone that has no background with Indian tribes. I have a lot of experience with tribes, both in membership and academic projects. I am unaware of a problem that you say exists. Migration is a constant theme in the history of North American tribes. Most tribes can show how their tribes migrated and took cultural aspects from other tribes. I am unaware of the tribes that fret over being the first tribe in the Americas.

I speak for myself and do not represent any group. Secondly, you mention my "Wiki" article as if it is erroneous and the only existing source for the discussion. That is patently absurd and five minutes in a library or on a computer will reference hundreds of sources which state the same information.

You chose a wiki article, not me. If you choose the weakest form of information on the web, you chose it.

It is not my intent nor desire to provide a bilbliography for every statement discussed. Thirdly, I never referred to a Pacific Coastal theory as my main point but rather an eastern route that followed the ice sheets across the Atlantic from Spain/France (Solutrean-the title of the blog)-referring to the the culture and the artifacts produced by them. And, these findings along the eastern seaboard pre-date all finds on the Pacific Coast and the Southwest.

The artifacts you speak of are said to be 13,500 years old in North America. They challenge the Land bridge theory of a long time ago. They absolutely do not pre-date archaeology sites in North America. In Texas there are sites 15,500 years old. Perhaps your light reading has overlooked this.

Artifacts from the Texas site led by Michael Walters

There are much older sites in South America, but that has been established for many decades.

These findings are not "sketchy" as you have said, but documented by mainstream professional anthropologists/archeologists.

I did not say sketchy, this seems to be a tactic of yours in these threads, to use quotation marks for something nobody has said. I did say you present things as fact when they are theory. Your own very weak wiki article presents all the findings as theory.

Fourthly, your intimation that I have not provided an in-depth discussion of the Viking finds, or this matter as well, is invalid since the object of these blogs is to open the door to new knowledge and discussion, not to write a lengthy doctoral thesis on a given subject.

The theories are not new, they are actually quite dated. The idea of a multiple migration routes using both land and sea routes have been around for many decades. The way you post is actually very counter to achieving a decent dialog with people that have actually studied in these fields. You tend to use very inflammatory words directed at people that you disagree with. That would never cut it in a field that is full of very diverging theories from very credible sources.

Few here would tolerate such arrogance.

I can only think this is about your wanting to find theories that support that Europeans were the first to be in the Americas when that is not something that people in the field describe. I think what you are missing is that they theorize that the Clovis points came from Europeans. Something I do also think happened. It does not say they were the first to be here. Again, way too many sites in North and South America.

Also, you mention that these are "new ideas" and that I represent "theories as fact." The first part is true and the second is untrue.

The theory you have been presenting is not new. I said that these findings change almost monthly, what you have here is a theory that has been around for decades. There are much newer sites that present newer theories based on more recent artifacts.

It is new ideas that drive science much as Galileo did when he rejected the flat earth theory and risked excommunication and possibly death from the Catholic Church. And it is these same theories that once challenged and proven by the scientific community become fact much as we all now believe that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Finally, when people are close-minded, Civilization suffers. We must be prepared to allow discussion, debate, ideas and theories to evolve for this is how we have transitioned from upright walking apes to Man. Best, Ron

That all sounds well and good. I really do not see what it has to do with this discussion. You are looking and reading about archaeological sites and then discussing the artifacts in isolation. You have to have these things in alignment with the historical geology and the cultural expanse of the people from this time. If all of these things do not align, it is a theory that needs much more evidence. I do believe you enjoy the reading you do on this subject. I just question your ability to make sense of the totality of all the findings put together.

I would love to discuss the waste pits that have been discovered because they have much more details as to the lives of these early people. I find that would be very hard to do with someone that has formed a predisposed opinion about what the present finding are, without really knowing what are the present findings.

 

[JohnS]

Seems this thread has only the very slightest tangential relevance (if in fact any) to sailing. Should it be moved to one of the off topic forums?