Talk:Solutrean hypothesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edits

"Difficulties with this hypothesis include the challenges of crossing the Atlantic with the technology of the time as well as a temporal gap of millennia between the apparent end of the Solutrean culture and the earliest discovered Clovis tools."

I'm deleting and/or changing the italicised because both have been dated to 17,000 years ago. Also, if you take into acount the possible inacuracy of the Cactus Hill dating, it could have overlapped by even more. It seems POV to assume that just because they onyl overlapped by a little it couldn't have happened. It's certainly not a difference of millenia. --Lophoole 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why it read apparent end of the Solutrean culture and the earliest discovered Clovis tools - not including possible transitional pre-Clovis sites such as Cactus Hill or Meadowcroft. I was merely describing the critics' most common arguments against the theory.

You're right that it is POV to completely exclude the possibility because of a gap in the archaeological record. Any founding groups of N/W European origin, if they existed, were likely small in number and would have left fewer sites. As with species in the fossil record, transitional types would have been fewer in number as well. It doesn't mean they didn't exist - we just have to identify them. The fact that a significant portion of the coastlines, along which humans often migrate, has been underwater for millenia. And who knows what type of early settlements lie under present human settlements today. Twalls 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Links needed

Whoever started this article needs to provide supportive links.--64.79.127.126 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several references; more can be posted, surely. Twalls 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting addition

I'm removing the following text until further evaluation. There may be something that can be gained from it, but I am not sure the whole kit and caboodle belongs in this article. Twalls 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation and blatant falsification of work by a former archaelogist (Frank Hibbens)have historically led to the popularization and wide acceptance of innacurate data as factual, lending ideological support for the solutrean hypothesis. Unfortunately his innaccuracies and falsified data continue to go on being quoted as supporting evidence for the solutrean theory, when they have now been duly shown as falsifications.

In a 1936 expedition in Sandia Cave, a cave in the Sandia Mountains, experienced archeologist Wesley Bliss excavated the Sandia Cave and reported his findings to University of New Mexico project head Dr. Brand. Another student Frank C. Hibben who was not involved in the intial excavation, but rather later work in the cave; he later reported to have found the famous Sandia spearpoint beneath a layer of material dating greater than 25,000 years old, along with the bones of camels, mastadons, and prehistoric horses. However the bones(carbon dating from 14,000-20,000 years ago (16,000-14,000 BCE) and together with his innacurate identification of the historical sedimentary layers and the published notes of Bliss and others in reference to the poor layer integrity and contamination associated with rodent burrowing, the supposed spearpoint from the suggested 25,000 year old sedimentary layer was erroneously reported by Hibbens. Ref. A Chronological Problem Presented by Sandia Cave, New Mexico. American Antiquity, 1940a 5(3):200-201. Ref. Sandia Cave. Correspondence in American Antiquity, 1940b 6(1):77-78.

Frank Hibben's publication of the Clovis point as dated older than 25,000 years ago is used as some of the strongest evidence for the existence of a pre-folsom man in north america(as contended by the authors of the controversial Forbidden Archaeology). However, his papers were false representations of the initial excavation work of Dr. Wesley Bliss, who noted the proper layers, and the poor layer integrity in areas, among other findings that were eroneously misconstrued and reported by Frank Hibbens to meet his theory. Dr. Bliss did not find any of the spearpoints in the layers reported later by Hibbens. It is now believed that the spearpoints were not as old as was originally reported by Hibben, and it is believed that Hibben's sloppy work and false testiment to man's history in North America has greatly hindered the accuracy of our understanding of prehistoric north america. Frank Hibben's was generously rewarded for this false work, which assisted him greatly in starting his famous and impressive career, supported by the University of New Mexico. However a coverup of the errors in Hibben's work ensued for 60 years, until it has finally been openly acknowledged and reported. Ref. The Mystery of Sandia Cave. New Yorker, 71(16):66-83

Solutrean hypothesis does not claim Europeans were "first"

Thomas Paine 1776, you have not made the case for Europeans arriving "first" other than citing the title of a LiveScience article. The title was written by the author of the article, not the proponents of the theory. The Solutrean hypothesis simply does not address the chronology of any other possible population routes to the Americas, and other sites (such as Monte Verde I) are completely outside the scope of the theory. You're attempting to introduce an exclusionary element as a feature of the theory, when there in fact is none. As I have pointed out to you on the discussion page for Indigenous peoples of the Americas several times, the Solutrean model does not speak for or against earlier migrations via other routes. If you maintain that the Solutrean theory also explicitly excludes other routes, please provide citations from the literature, not the title of a newspaper article or TV show. Twalls 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have worked out a compromise which includes my earlier edits to the last section in the article. "The hypothesis suggests that peoples from south-western Europe may have been among the earliest settlers in the Americas at some point during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)."Twalls 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect citation?

I've moved this citation from the main page to here because it claims to be from Nature but does not seem to be. First, the URL is not Nature, but appears to be class notes for a utexas class or something. Second, the page has two articles, one from New Scientist and the other from an unidentified source. Googling on the title and name "Steve Conner" seems to indicate that the article is from the newspaper The Independent. The page does contain one footnote reference to Nature, but as far as I can see, the citation, while claiming to be from Nature, is not. But I could be wrong, so I'm moving it here so it can be addressed and corrected. And by the way, I've nothing against this hypothesis, I have only just now heard of it. I just noticed the bad reference is all (citation below). Pfly 03:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Conner, Steve, Science Editor, (03 December 2002).Does skull prove that the first Americans came from Europe? Nature, (vol 425, p. 62). Retrieved on August 12, 2007.

Thanks for that, Pfly. You're right, the page consists of two reposted articles as part of course materials of an anthropology course called Indigenous Mesoamerica. Silvia Gonzalez has done quite a bit of work in the field, and turned up some very interesting things, but I'm not sure if it falls within the scope of the Solutrean hypothesis. Some of her finds may lend credence to the notion that long-headed, dolichocephalic European types came to the Americas prior to those of direct Asian descent (I think that's what Thomas Paine 1776 is getting at), but this encompasses other routes (namely, via north Asia) than the Solutrean theory does. This, however, is another topic (however compelling) and may be treated better elsewhere than here.

The Solutrean hypothesis is not brand new, but it is one of several currents of thought that pose serious challenges to the "Clovis first" dogma. However, it is a moot exercise to argue anyone was first; one can only speak of the earliest discovered remains. We have no idea who was "first" because the first migrations were likely so small in number, that evidence of them is difficult if not impossible to locate. Twalls 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From my (very) cursory look at the Solutrean hypothesis, it sounds interesting. There are certainly shortcomings and problems with the Bering and Clovis dogma theory. But one difficulty that comes to mind for any theory proposing an important European ancient migration to the New World is that proponents will have an uphill battle to fight thanks to several centuries of somewhat similar, now-rejected theories, often with racist baggage (such as old claims about the Hebrews, Welsh, Irish, and so on, must have come over, as evidenced by the monumental mounds and pyramids and so on, which the native Americans could not conceivably have built themselves!). These kind of old and long discredited ideas make it easy to blindly dismiss any theories of significant pre-Columbian European influence in the New World. I admit my first reaction upon hearing the Solutrean hypothesis, via Paine1776's edits, was along these lines. But reading more, it sounds like there might be something to it, maybe. In any case I agree on the difficulty of demonstrating "first" occupation. Pfly 07:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Research shows a Beringian entry for a single founding population

This is quite a long title for a section heading. I think this merits inclusion, but it is interesting to note that the researchers involved took the Solutrean hypothesis seriously enough to consider its implications in their study. Still, their study is limited to the samples surveyed, not any populations whose lineages may have since perished without adding to the Native American gene pool (hypothetical Solutreans, Luzia's people and so on). Twalls (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is long, is there a standard I should follow? I just thought it was clear.

There is also Achilli A, Perego UA, Bravi CM, Coble MD, Kong QP, et al. (2008) The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American MtDNA Haplogroups: Implications for Evolutionary and Disease Studies. PLoS ONE 3(3) and[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=PLoS%20ONE%5Bta%5D%20AND%202%5Bvol%5D%20AND%20e829%5Bpage%5D&doptcmdl=[Abstract]Beringian standstill and spread of Native American founders.]--Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find where in the article it says anything about the Solutrean hypothesis. Paddy Simcox (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't but it discusses some of the same issues -- I've mentioned them here because people might be interested.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, there's NO EVIDENCE that Solutreans have Haplogroup X DNA

Absolutely none, considering that there is no physical evidence of Solutrean artifacts, culture, or dwellings ANYWHERE in North America. Instead, we have a far-reaching assumption that just because a little under 3% of modern day Europeans have the X gene then that somehow validates a Solutrean connection?

Also, the Haplogroup X2 gene is more prominent in the Middle-East and parts of Asia than it is in Europe, yet Dr. Stanford links Spain/France as the geographic "link" genetically, while invoking his idea of Solutrean/Clovis point development as being interrelated.

This truly sounds more like Junk Science and Historic Revisionism with Eurocentric intent. Conversely, I don't think it's outrageous or even Eurocentric to suggest that Paleothic peoples from Western Europe made it over here and mingled with Asiatic migrants in N. America, but Stanford's proposition disregards evidential science and instead opts for logic based on "his" assumptions.--208.54.15.251 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't base judgements on the flawed popular presentations of the theory. It does not depend upon actual Solutrean artifacts or dwellings or art from Europe being found in the Americas - the hypothesis concerns the spread of the toolmaking style and its later influence on Clovis. The model does not require the mass migration of Solutreans across the Atlantic, bringing every aspect of their culture with them and preserving it in the New World, but instead small bands of settlers bringing their toolmaking technology with them. The techniques went through slight transitions and spread to other populations in North America from East to West, eventually becoming the Clovis style.

Also, it's a hypothesis - a proposed, tentative solution - not a statement of absolute fact. "Eurocentric intent" is certainly not the motivation behind the scholarship, and that is quite an unfair claim.

It also doesn't depend upon the presence of Haplogroup X in the Americas, but the presence of X does indeed open a question in its favor - via which route did it get there, and when? One cannot expect the remaining X in Europe and the Middle East to be identical to X in the Americas - it isn't, and no one claims this. Could X have come to the Americas through Asia? Maybe.

Also, the genetic makeup of modern-day Europe is quite different than it was 15-20,000 years ago - the Magdalenian culture replaced the Solutrean, suggesting a population shift, and waves of migrants repopulated Europe when agriculture spread from the Near East, not to mention what other shifts may have happened in between.

Regarding your statement that Solutreans show no evidence of Haplogroup X DNA -- is there any paleogenetic analysis at all of remains associated with Solutrean culture? I'd love to know. Twalls 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed. inasmuch as the presence of X2a favours a second wave of immigration to America, it is independent support of the hypothesis. It's still just a hypothesis, but hardly "junk science". If X2 is found both in Europe and in the Near East, I daresay a migration route from the Atlantic fringe is rather more plausible than one beginning in Marocco. There is, however, a certain possibility that X2a reached America already with the Bering straight immigration. X2a doesn't prove anything, but it sort of enhances the plausibility of a hypothesis argued on archaeological grounds. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, X2a doesn't strengthen the Solutrean hypothesis in any way. Morocco, by the way, is not in the Near East. It's quite a way away and in fact is on the Atlantic coast! The archaeological grounds for the Solutrean hypothesis are thin (which is one of the reasons its advocates use the term hypothesis). Dougweller 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the discussion the recent studies mention a probable Asian entry route for X. Thus, the section could be titled simply "Recent genetic research" or just placed under the mtDNA Haplogroup X section since it relates to the Solutrean hypothesis in the context of Haplogroup X. I don't think we need to call it X2A (it was recently renamed), as that is being overly specific. Twalls (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

MtDNA Haplogroup X Redux

This looks like OR to me. Some references seem vital if it is to stay in. Can someone please find some or does this need deleting? Also - the link [1] looks obsolete to me, no mention of X2a and a map with an arrow coming from western Europe, which I think is misleading/wrong. Delete? Find better links?--Doug Weller (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the specifics, maybe even the broad aspects, of MtDNA analysis, but let's assume that Solutreans did cross-over and intermingle with the Asiatic nomads who arrived via the Bering Straits. That being assumed, how is it that only this small strain of DNA (X2) be the ONLY remnant marker left behind by those Solutreans who intermarried with their Asian cousins? Wouldn't there be more DNA markers/strains in common found in the native populations in N.E. America today? Also, the posted information on the main page states that X2 is found in about 3% of "other" native (Asian-origin) aborigines in Central and South America. Just because the concentration of X2 is smaller there is it presumed that they aren't part of this heritage or is it saying that Solutreans landed in South America as well? What about the spear-point analysis down there?--208.179.153.163 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

11 IS THERE EVIDENCE OF SOLUTREAN DNA???

Since the Haplogroup X is considered physical evidence, where is the DNA sequence of a Solutrean to show that they carried this genetic marker? Wouldn't that be a requirement when building this hypothesis, or at least linking such a disparate element between Native Americans who carry this marker to those who carry it in both the Middle-East, Central Asia, as well as small contingencies in Europe?

I also notice from the Genetic study linked to the article that not all Europeans carry the X marker, specifically Northern, North East, and East Europeans, with the exception of people on the Orkney Islands. Maybe the report is mistating something?--98.119.174.110 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't X, it's called X2 I believe, and is not found in Europe to the best of my memory and knowledge. We have no Solutrean DNA in any case. dougweller (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Shandong Project

"In 2005, our project identified a few bifacial points which feature the “flute” flaking technique, widely present in North America. If proven to be a true flute technology, similar to the Clovis technique of North America dated to 12,000 – 11,000 BP, it presents additional evidence of the technological connection between Old World and New World." [2] dougweller (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Read your article. This is indeed very interesting as it not only lends credence to Clovis' origins in Asia, it directly contradicts Dr. Stanford's claim that there is/was no evidence of Bifacial points in Paleolithic Asia. I assume that Dr. Stanford will have to adjust his hypothesis?--96.247.83.190 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MtDNA Haplogroup X section contradicted by supported "link"

I just read the portion regarding MtDNA Haplogroup X, and the article/link itself does not "conclusively" argue that there is a link between Solutrean culture from Europe and Paleo-Indians. Also, the article states that the Group X strain can also be found in Mongolia, so it can also be argued that this distinct DNA sequence can also derive from the Siberian passage way.

The bottom line is that more work has to be done on "MtDNA Haplogroup X" in both Asia, North America and Europe. --71.177.84.72 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that the strain in Altai area was a relatively recent arrival. But thanks for pointing that out -- I'll have to have another look at the link or at least ID the study that shows evidence of a more recent arrival of X in that area (around 5KYA) from the West and that it was equally distant from both European and American varieties of X. On the other hand, although X is not found in Siberia or Western Asia, we can't say it wasn't present in the past - populations die out, migrate or are assimilated, or just are not captured in sample groups. In any case, more work has to be done on X, as you say. Twalls 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"More work has to be done" - this ending statement from the Article should have been the article's title. No fault of your own for including it since it does relate to the genetic origins for ancient Americans. What I find more interesting is that the Haplogroup X marker is present in 25% of the NorthEastern tribes, but only 4% of present day Europeans. It almost makes me believe that Solutreans weren't that closely related to modern day Ibero-Franconians yet closer to Ojibwe/Algonquians. --96.229.67.221 23:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding mtDNA haplogroup X read from the work of Derenko and his people; see [3] One of the most important statements from this work; "he network further suggests that the Altaian X haplotypes occupy the intermediate position between European and American Indian haplogroup X mtDNA lineages". This shows the haplogroup X found in Native Americans is related closest to the Altaians of Siberia! If this haplogroup X was allegedly "European" it should be Europeans who are the intermediary between Native Americans and Altaians; but again this is not the case as it is the Altaians who are the intermediary between Native American and European haplogroup X different haplotypes. Also this link of Derenko & co. shows that the Altaians of Siberia have began to mix with others only very recently, so the Altaians inter-ethnic admixture is estimated to be less then 5%. Also the Altaians have only done this little bit of recent mixing mostly with Kazakhs and Russians. Haplogroup X has not been found in the Kazakh people, and it has only been found in Russian people in an extremely low frequency (only 3 out of 336 Russian subjects tested, which is significantly less then even 1%). In addition the Mongoloid Altaian people of Siberia have all the haplogroups present in Native Americans in addition to the mysterious haplogroup X; that is Altaians have haplogroups A through D (A-D) which are the most common Native American haplogroups and the Altaians again have haplogroup X also making them the best candidate for the haplogroup X present in a small amount of Native Americans. Lastly the Derenko & co. research notes how Y-chromosome DNA tests on Native Americans has shown that the majority of Native American Y-chromosomes are linked to common ancestors the Native Americans have among Siberians: namely the Kets and the Altaians of Siberia. Again all this info is in the ncbi article:[4] --Historylover4 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Clovis TO Solutrean migration hypothesis?

Greetings, I was reading Professor Jack Forbes' "American Discovery of Europe", and he discusses the Solutrean Theory at some length, speculating that the reverse migration (from Labrador to Europe) was much more likely. Is this page the proper one for such a note? I have the book and am happy to summarize and footnote his remarks. Joel J. Rane (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hypothesis vs. Theory

I reverted the blanket edits by Testy as they were hastily done and swapped out the word hypothesis for theory throughout the entire article, even in actual citations that use the word "hypothesis." However, the page is still residing under "Theory". Testy, a move like this should really be discussed first as 1) there are many pages that link here and 2) a hypothesis is not the same as a theory, and the Stanford-Bradley proposal is much closer to a hypothesis. Twalls (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The authors do not call it a theory. See [5] for instance, where they refer to 'Solutrean Solution". Or Bradley, Bruce and Dennis Stanford 2006 The Solutrean-Clovis connection: reply to Straus, Meltzer and Goebel. World Archaeology 38(4):704-714. "Solutrean-Clovis Connection" is even clearer as to its meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The proponents do seem to be careful about that, even though others may refer to it as a theory. I think the page should reside under Solutrean hypothesis, and have Solutrean theory redirect there. Twalls (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would like to gauge editors' views on changing page name back to Solutrean Hypothesis, with Solutrean theory redirecting here. Twalls (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree! "Theory" is much more substantial, please read the discussion of the word "theory" under "evolution" which explains why the phrase "just a theory" is misleading... Joel J. Rane (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article as it currently stands come across as a piece written to disprove the Soultrean hypothesis, as opposed to an encyclopedia article presenting information about the theory itself. Undue weight seems to be given to various random studies, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.67.84 (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

French flint dagger

It appears that this was added by someone who hasn't read the book but relied on the media. As I understand it, it was found under a clay chimney base. Stanford thinks it is unlikely it was brought over in modern times, but this can't be ruled out which is why he isn't asserting it as a 'smoking gun'. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug, the media report is The Independent newspaper, which in Wikipedia terms is a reliable source. From my reading, the two edits that you removed are supported by the RS. You cannot simply remove referenced material from Wikipedia based on your own opinion. If you have another RS, e.g. the book, that contradicts the Independent report, then that is something we need to take into account, but I don't see the justification for removal based on solely on your own "understanding". Dlv999 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In archaeology context is everything, and the report in the Independent, a favorite of mine, is out of context. Do you really think that we should ignore what Stanford says in his book? RS isn't everything. Without the context this is misleading. If it was cited from his book without the context (of the bit of the book it is in) it would be just as misleading, do you agree with that? Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a copy of the book and you want to add the context, by all means do. My issue is that you haven't added the context you have removed the reference to the dagger entirely. Dlv999 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it is out of context. As I said, it is a form of cherry picking. It's not NPOV. And we aren't in a rush, it can all be in the article in good time - nothing is lost by waiting, and if we don't wait we are misrepresenting the situation by omission. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

I believe we should not have the two images of tools. I'm not sure why these were chosen, but it's better to have the various disputants' descriptions of the arguments rather than images chosen by editors. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is with having both sets of tools, as they are both relevant to the article. Having the image does not mean we have to remove the descriptions of the arguments. Do you have a specific issue with the chosen image or do you oppose an image of the solutrean tools entirely? Dlv999 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose using any images of tools. I don't see how we can objectively choose which ones are appropriate for a debate about a relationship between them. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

New Evidence Supporting the theory

1. several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast.... the newly-discovered and recently-dated early Maryland and other US east coast Stone Age tools are from between 26,000 and 19,000 years ago - and are therefore contemporary with the virtually identical western European material.
2. Chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.
3. Another key argument for Stanford and Bradley’s proposal is the complete absence of any human activity in north-east Siberia and Alaska prior to around 15,500 years ago. If the Maryland and other east coast people of 26,000 to 19,000 years ago had come from Asia, not Europe, early material, dating from before 19,000 years ago, should have turned up in those two northern areas, but none have been found.
4. Some genetic markers for Stone Age western Europeans simply don’t exist in north- east Asia – but they do in tiny quantities among some north American Indian groups. Scientific tests on ancient DNA extracted from 8000 year old skeletons from Florida have revealed a high level of a key probable European-originating genetic marker. There are also a tiny number of isolated Native American groups whose languages appear not to be related in any way to Asian-originating American Indian peoples.

Source [6]

Seems like there is justification for inclusion in the article in some form or other. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The article you're referencing comes from the recent promotion/release of Dr Stanford's book which hasn't really been peer-reviewed by professional archaeologists in the same filed as Stanford and Bradley. All talking points you listed are mentioned in the article but nothing independently referenced from the book has been provided, or again peer-reviewed by scientists. In summary, it seems highly irregular for so much "evidence" to have been discovered but not peer-reviewed and then to be submitted into a retail book for laymen audiences it appears that Dr Stanford purposely wanted to avoid cross-examination of his carbon-dating, DNA analysis, and tools he apparently has discovered. --108.0.214.9 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Independent is excellent but it reads as though they are using a press release, and there is no context or criticism or mention of other research.

The French flint for instance. Stanford admits it isn't in a secure context, so it could have come over in colonial times. The other problem is the 1971 identification of it as French. What I've read elsewhere is "Chemical analysis on chert is rather well-known to be difficult if not impossible due to the wide variety of inclusions that are present. The problem comes in that there has been no real or true "marker" found that is necessarily exclusive to a single chert source. Two chert samples known to be from the same source have been analyzed and appear to have widely different chemical signature, with one occasionally "appearing" to originate from a wholly different source. That said, it's an intriguing find but hardly conclusive. In reality, you can't even rule out local sources a great deal due to the wide variation in chemical signatures that can be present in the same source, let alone sources an ocean away. Only in certain cases where a given chert type is known to be relatively homologous is such an analysis really conclusive. Most cherts, however, are incredibly variable which makes this piece of evidence rather suspect."

Worse though is the bit about 8000 year old skeletons. These are the Windover skeletons. See this 2005 study [7]. "The characterization of one Windover sample as a member of haplogroup X is an interpretation by Smith et al. (1999) of one of eight HVS1 sequences reported by Hauswirth (1994). However, since none of the remaining seven sequences reported by Hauswirth exhibited CR sequences characteristic of any other Asian-derived haplogroup and might therefore reflect either contamination or sequencing errors, the assignment of one of those sequences to Haplogroup X was probably in error. Because haplogroup X is found in Europe at a frequency of about 3 percent, it is possible that contaminant DNA in the Windover sample was the source of this member of haplogroup X, which has otherwise not been reported from populations of southeastern North America (Malhi et al. 2001; Weiss and Smith 2003). Likewise, the characteristic CR mutations at np 16223 and np 16278 found in haplogroup X are also found without the associated restriction markers for haplogroup X. Thus, assessment of haplogroup X without restriction analysis is problematic."

Which doesn't deal with the question of which Hap X we are talking about here.

These things will hopefully be dealt with in any professional reviews. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

DLV999, how has Dennis Stanford concluded that there wasn't any human activity in ancient Berengia/Siberia 19,000 - 20,000 years ago. Is the the leading Paleo-Archaeologist for that region? Also, your DNA claim has already been challenged (per reference in the main article) by two different Genetic researchers. --71.177.174.138 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

obviously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.7.60 (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

New Supporting Genetic Evidence

Recent genetic studies may support the Solutrean hypothesis. This one shows a link between the ancient population of Europe and Native Americans:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112739952/native-americans-northern-europeans-dna-genetic-links-120112/

In addition, this study shows that there was a sudden change in European DNA 4,000 years ago:

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/04/why-did-european-dna-suddenly-change-4000-years-ago/

Perhaps this evidence should be incorporated into the "Recent Genetic Research" section. It could be introduced as, "In contrast, other recent studies might support the hypothesis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your first link does not contend any support for the DNA theory presented in the Solutrean hypothesis. Your second link has nothing to do with the Solutrean hypothesis and only addresses DNA changes that occurred some 6K-7K years ago in mainland Europe, well after the events presented in the Solutrean hypothesis. --98.119.14.141 (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lithic reduction

Is there a place in the entry to make a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_reduction? I really like the animation. And the article. Thanks. Risssa (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

the American continent?

From the entry: "The Solutrean hypothesis, first proposed in 1998, is an alternative theory about the settlement of the Americas that claims Europeans may have been among the earliest settlers of the American continent."

The American continent? Does this mean North America?

Risssa (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good question - because it touches directly upon the way one view the present analyzis of the human genome in ancient America.

A key issue - since the re-creation of Luzia - have been whether the tropical South-American indians have ancestors closer to the SE Asian islands, than to the NE Asian steppes - as in "Siberian emigrants". The last genetic results from the 12.600 year old male from Anzick, Montana (hg Q) are remarkably closer to the tropical than the (present) arctic tribes of the American continent. This means hg Q entered America during ice-time - while the Beringian immigrants had to wait to the end of ice-time (11.000 BP) before the northern route opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.223.36 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very interesting, thank you for including it. Did you see the article in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/science/tracing-ancestry-team-produces-genetic-atlas-of-human-mixing-events.html with map http://www.admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

I did change "American continent" to North American continent" but feel free to change it. Risssa (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This...

seems to pretty well disprove Solutrean: http://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276021092/ancient-dna-ties-native-americans-from-two-continents-to-clovis and this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html

174.21.121.176 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it does. Another recent article attributes the "Caucasian" characteristics of Kennewick man to the Mal'ta people of Siberia, who were essentially Caucasian and contributed 14-38 percent of the gene pool of American Indians. That seems to make it fairly clear that the Caucasian element of Indians came from from Asia across Beringha -- not from Europe and the Solutrean. The Mal'ta info comes from 24,000 BP which also may put a floor on the time of the earliest entry of people into the Americas.

I'll get around to adding this to appropriate articles -- or somebody else can take a crack at it. Smallchief (talk 22:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it that you have an ax to grind, "smallchief"? QuintBy (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ax, no. Weighing the evidence, yes. Giving the Solutrean advocates a fair hearing but not conveying the implication in the article that their opinion is credible to a large majority of experts and scientists. That would be grinding an ax.Smallchief (talk 12:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New Research

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.233.32 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding this text about Atlantic crossings ?

Dr. Hannes Lindemann successfully crossed the Atlantic non-stop in 1956 with a folding kayak (length 5 m, weight 27 kg). As a direct descendant of the original Inuit kayak this can be taken as a example what is possible for a single person in a very small vessel without help. According to statistics from the ocean rowing society the success rate for an east to west atlantic crossing goes up to nearly 90% and above when two or more crew members are on board. Additional stops on the ice make crossings even less difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.123.224 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't discuss the Solutreans we wouldn't add it, and also it would need to discuss the climate conditions during the Solutrean period, as what can be done today isn't what could have been done then. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the original pack ice hopping theory is wrong. It was made up as an easy/possible route, but there is no prove. They could have used the southern ice-free non-stop way also. No hunting and pack ice, but fishing and basking. With --> Folding kayak ~ Inuit kayak ~ Solutrean kayak <-- it's not only hypothetical. Maybe it's not the experimental archaeology Thor Heyerdahl did, but it's close. If a Solutrean kayak really looked like Inuit kayak, it could be the story of a Solutrean man crossing the Atlantik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.123.224 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they could have. They also could have built a rocket ship and flown that across the Atlantic. Unless there is some form of evidence, any evidence at all, we are merely engaging in idle speculation, not science.24.182.128.2 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the Cinmar biface (and some other recent east coast of North America finds) count as evidence? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Cinmar point certainly resembles a Solutrean laurel leaf much more than Clovis points, particularly with regard to the overall shape as well as the shape of the base. I'm not sure why it isn't included. The section on Characteristics could be expanded to include it - or perhaps a section on the eastern North America pre-Clovis finds could be added to round out the material the hypothesis rests upon. Twalls (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Request permission to remove last sentence

I am requesting permission to remove the last sentence of this article which goes as follows: "Moreover, the radiocarbon dates from purported pre-Clovis archaeological sites presented by Stanford and Bradley are consistently earlier in North America—predating Solutrean culture in Europe by 5–10 thousand years."

There is no citation given for this statement and - more importantly - it contradicts other statements in the very same article further above, such as: (Under the section headed "Characteristics") - "Solutrean culture was based in present-day France, Spain and Portugal, from roughly 21,000 to 17,000 years ago". Then two paragraphs below that (same section): "Clovis toolmaking technology appears in the archaeological record in eastern North America roughly 13,500 years ago".

If no reply is given here within 24 hours I will remove the last sentence as stated above.--197.229.109.211 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is one source for the entire paragraph. Perhaps it should be at the end of the paragraph. The authors summarise their comments with "In summary, if we are to believe that the technological similarities Stanford and Bradley observe between the Middle Atlantic and Iberia are historically related, we are forced to conclude, from their own data, that they appeared first in North America and then were transferred to Europe." Across Atlantic Ice gives new (and not generally agreed) dates for Solutrean. And note that the dates are about "purported pre-Clovis" sites, while you are looking at dates for Clovis sites. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Absence of human activity in Alaska prior to around 15,500 years ago

I request permission to add the following to end off the last section of the article:

Another important factor adding more credibility to Stanford and Bradley's theory is that the Maryland and other east coast people of 19,000 to 26,000 years ago could not have come from Asia via Alaska because of a total lack of evidence of human activity in Alaska before about 15,500 years ago. See citation 2 below from The Independent. --197.229.109.211 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's a 3 year old newspaper article. Newspaper articles often get things wrong (and the author has at least once), and even if this is correct we should be using archaeological sources and the most recent ones at that. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Something recent about the issue - [8] basically says that Beringia was occupied during the period in question, moving on to Alaska around 15000 years ago. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation 3 in the first paragraph of this same article is also a newspaper article and it's also about 3 years old. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/radical-theory-of-first-americans-places-stone-age-europeans-in-delmarva-20000-years-ago/2012/02/28/gIQA4mriiR_story.html)Additionally, every citation in the archaeology section except one is 3 years old, or older. What about citation 8 from the BBC, also 2012, so it seems you are grasping at straws.--197.229.109.211 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just to identify Stanford and Bradley as notable proponents, not an interpretation of archaeological reports. Citation 8 is not 2012, by the way. It's 2002 and simply mentions some of the findings in the Solutrean toolkit. There isn't anything controversial about it. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

2002 is even older than 2012 further illustrating my point - and it is from the BBC which is not that different to other mainstream news sources. Why do you not apply the same logic? and what do you mean there isn't anything controversial about it. Are you saying mainstream news / newspaper / radio sources are only credible if they refer to non-controversial facts? What are you trying to say and why are you trying to censor me? As I have shown your reasoning is completely illogical.--197.229.109.211 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is just the way we work, or should work. Why would we use a newspaper report instead of a peer reviewed article? And the fact that the Solutrean toolkit contained certain lithics isn't going to change. An interpretation of a find often changes. I'm assuming you aren't very familiar with archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

References

critical analysis of the Cinmar find

New paper. Open acess:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15000280

Looks like there are a bunch of issues with its claimed providence.©Geni (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Eren, Metin I., Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael J. O'Brien (2015) The Cinmar discovery and the proposed pre-Late Glacial Maximum occupation of North America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports: In Press.

"Until clearly and reliably addressed, the gravity of the discrepancies and factual inaccuracies presented above indicates that there is no evidence that the stone blade and the mastodon remains were associated or where exactly either was originally discovered. Going further, given the reported inconsistencies in the blade's history, there is no confirmable evidence currently available that demonstrates that it was even dredged up by the Cinmar. Thus, even in the event that the same, original underwater mastodon site is eventually empirically proven to be re-located at some point in the future, this re-discovery would not provide context for, or validate, the stone blade's association with it." Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims

also contains vague claims (weasel words as well as False Appeal To Authority fallacy): "The Solutrean hypothesis has generally not been well received or enjoyed wide acceptance. Many archaeologists have criticized the proposed similarities as insignificant and just as likely to be due to chance as to shared origins."

Those claims appear to be outdated, anyway, as new discoveries are still shifting the Scientific Consensus: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/12/us-science-native-americans-origins-idUSBREA1B1TS20140212

T

Yet one of those studies stated "In agreement with previous archaeological and genetic studies our genome analysis refutes the possibility that Clovis originated via a European (Solutrean) migration to the Americas". That's not a shift and it backs the statement that it has not beel well received or enjoyed wide acceptance. It's still a hypothesis with only minority support and a lot of evidence against it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppenheimer quote undue

Why are we including this in the lead? His is another fringe view, based on claims about X2A. However: The predominant theory for sub-haplogroup X2a's appearance in North America is migration along with A, B, C, and D mtDNA groups, from a source in the Altai Mountains of central Asia. and " Taking into account that C4c is deeply rooted in the Asian portion of the mtDNA phylogeny and is indubitably of Asian origin, the finding that C4c and X2a are characterized by parallel genetic histories definitively dismisses the controversial hypothesis of an Atlantic glacial entry route into North America."[9] And yet we have a statement by him saying there's no evidence. Doug Weller (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Further genetic studies by Oppenheimer et al. [2014] in favor of a Clovis-Solutrean connection:

Stephen Oppenheimer, Bruce Bradley & Dennis Stanford [2014] Solutrean Hypothesis: genetics, the mammoth in the room, World Archaeology, 46:5.

"Abstract

The Solutrean hypothesis for the origin of the Clovis archaeological culture contends that people came from south-western Europe to North America during the Last Glacial Maximum. This hypothesis has received numerous critiques, but little objective testing, either of cultural or genetic evidence. We contest the assertion that there is NO genetic evidence to support this hypothesis, and detail the published evidence, consistent with a pre-Columbian western Eurasian origin for some founding genetic markers, specifically mtDNA X2a, and some autosomal influence, found in ancient and modern Native American populations. The possibility that the inferred pre-Columbian western autosomal influence came more directly than through Siberia is not even considered in such studies. 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."

Link to paper: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00438243.2014.966273

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.71.251 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Cinmar etc

Using newspaper reports, especially those several years old, is usually not a good idea with articles like that. We need to see what the professionals have said about these. The decades old mastodon/tool find is a good example, see[10]. Does anyone disagree that to use this we need to report what peer reviewed studies say? This mentions the Delmarva claims but not Solutrean, do Bradford etc discuss it in a source we can use? Also WP:LEAD makes it clear that the lead is a summary of the article, it shouldn't contain anything significant not discussed in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, get hold of this. Doug Weller (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering: how do you propose we arrive at 'peer review' on a prehistoric hypothesis? Like evolution, it can never be conclusively proven, but for drawing a reasoned conclusion based on the evidence that we have (and the people in academia who will debate that). Stanford and Bradley stand awfully tall as far as their academic bona fides, which is why this hypothesis has an article in the first place. I'm going to seriously edit down the 'genetic research' subheading which is clearly wp:undue weight, if for no reason other than it doesn't begin to conclusively disprove Solutrean, even though its constantly flogged as being decisive by the agenda-driven types. LoverOfArt (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller is correct to trim out the speculative material from the summary paragraphs -- and the summary as he produced it gives due weight to the claims and refutations described in the body of the article. Likewise, Weller is correct that newspaper articles are not good sources for a scientific article.

However, I would like to see recent genetic findings put back in the summary paragraphs as I think these findings persuasively link part of the origin of American Indians with a Siberian culture, an indirect, but telling refutation to those who claim a European origin for the oldest Americans. Certainly, the genetic evidence is no more indirect than the evidence linking Solutrean with Clovis.

I wonder about putting in a section that describes the "Out of Europe" political component of this and similar articles. That would shed some light on the popularity of the Solutrean theory. Smallchief (talk 09:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your agenda here is crystal clear. Solutrean does not assert that Europeans were the genetic basis for modern Native Americans (anywhere), however the bizarre counter-assertion to Solutrean is that DNA sequencing of Anzick-1 inherently disproves the claim that Europeans were/may have been here before the peoples who came to make up current day NAs? It doesn't. As noted, following that logic, Vikings never visited North America prior to Columbus, either. Its a completely invalid premise. It's asserting that water is not wet because apples are not pears. I would almost wager a thumbtip that neither you nor Doug Weller have actually read "Across Atlantic Ice" but assuming good faith and assuming you both have, I'm left to wonder why you keep making these assertions about what Solutrean claims, given that the guys who postulated Soultrean in the first place were very clear in the book. If we are to ignore wp: undue weight on the genetic question here, then I'll go ahead and add that same information to the Norse colonization of the Americas article since we apparently now accept the absence of certain DNA in an indigenous group as being conclusive proof that nobody else was ever there during prehistory LoverOfArt (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Lack of genetic evidence concerning the Solutreans in the Americans doesn't disprove that they were here. But the fact that the American Indians appear to have been a genetic mixture of East Asian and the Siberian Mal'ta people is persuasive in proving that whatever immigrants who may have come from Europe to America did not make a contribution to the gene pool. That would include the Vikings -- who incontestably visited America but weren't here very long nor spread their seed widely.

Likewise, the fact that there are superficial similarities between projectile points made by Solutreans and Clovis people does not prove anything. Nor does it prove anything that apparently there were people living in both Europe and North America at the same time. Nor does it prove anything that a fishing boat allegedly dredged up a worked stone and a mammoth skull in the same load of mud. This is material that you want included in the article as "evidence."

A good example of circumstantial "evidence" cited in the article is the statement that the Solutreans made bone needles which might have been used to make skin boats -- and which, therefore, might have led to a maritime tradition which might have led to lengthy sea voyages which might have led to the Solutreans reaching America which might have led to the Solutreans teaching American Indians a stone-working technique. There's enough "mights" in that reasoning to populate a subjunctive zoo! To be clear, I don't think information about bone needles should be taken out of the article, but it should be balanced with dissenting information -- of which there is plenty.

You are asking us instead to include in the article circumstantial and peripheral information you believe is persuasive and exclude other information that you do not believe is persuasive -- and you are doing so by citing newspaper reports rather than scholarly articles.Smallchief (talk 01:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple things here. 1) The incontestability of Vikings having visited the Americas is based on what we can infer from Archaeological evidence. If someone with a Pro Columbus agenda really, really wanted to refute that, they could do the typical "Loose Change" strategy of blind denialism, open-ended questions and over-emphasizing trivial details to 'question' the evidence we have, but overall, cooler heads would prevail and it would be recognized as an invalid position. Solutrean is, likewise, based similarly on what we can infer from archaeological evidence... So explain to me why we accept the inference of Archaeological evidence for Vikings but not (the possibility of) pre-Clovis Europeans?

Secondly, please stop with saying "superficial similarities" as far as lithic technologies go. People of this era were not operating at the molecular level. They were knapping stone tools from available materials, into forms that were known to offer specific utility for specific tasks. Its not like these tools are 'superficially similar' but on some deeper level, otherwise different. They're aesthetically and functionally identical. "Superficial" in this context is a weasel word and I am deleting it from the article. LoverOfArt (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The archaeological evidence at L'Anse aux Meadows is much more than your "loose change" argument. It includes clear evidence of multiple structures. As for similarities, this is not the place to argue about them, it's not a forum. We simply reflect what the sources say. If it's in the sources, you can't delete it. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll check later to see if the word was added when the text was, and see if it's in the source. If not, it can go. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate editing with a tablet so this will be short. The idea that there can be no peer review for anything prehistoric. Is something I don't understand and won't argue. Magazines such as Antiquity etc are considered peer reviewed here. Newspapers a re not. Talk of agenda-driven so not helpful at all. And finally, sources must discuss this hypothesis as if not then we are doing original research. Doug Weller (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources

. I just found "On The Inferred Age And Origin Of Lithic Bi-Points From The Eastern Seaboard And Their Relevance To The Pleistocene Peopling Of North America"[11]: "After several years of multidisciplinary examination, it is now clear that the proposal that Solutrean hunter-gatherers crossed the Atlantic Ocean during the Pleistocene (Stanford and Bradley 2012; see also Bradley and Stanford 2004, 2006; Collins 2012; Stanford and Bradley 2000) is not currently supported in any scientific field (Bamforth 2013; Dulik et al. 2012; Eren et al. 2013, 2014; Eriksson et al. 2012; Fiedel 2012; Goebel et al. 2008; Haynes 2013; Kashani et al. 2012; Lepper 2013a, 2013b; Morrow 2014; O’Brien et al. 2014a, 2014b; O’Rourke and Raff 2010; Raff and Bolnick 2014; Raghavan 2013; Rasmussen et al. 2014; Shott 2005a, 2005b; Straus 2000; Straus et al. 2005; Surovell 2014; Westley and Dix 2008; Whittaker 2013)". And this looks like a brilliant source for several articles. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetic data does not support ancient trans-Atlantic migration, professor says

"Raff and Bolnick said in analyzing all recent genetic studies of the earliest Native Americans they didn't find anything consistent with a possible early trans-Atlantic migration. For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome. Michael Crawford, head of KU's Laboratory of Biological Anthropology and a professor of anthropology, was a co-author on that genetic project." [12], based on their open-access paper. See[13]. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Northern European genetics in modern day Canadian 1st Nations people, either... and we have way more than one isolated sample to sequence. Does that prove they were never here? Are we going to have 'Leif Erikson Truthers' now? LoverOfArt (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss the subjectand certainly not a place to make comments about "truthers". Doug Weller talk 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Its a place for discussion when you're making a case based on a specific line of reasoning which happens to be invalid. You don't need to be a geneticist to follow along with the rather simple concept of 'genetic record' and 'archaeological record', how something might be indicated by one but not the other. You're asserting that the absence of European DNA markers in Anzick disproves Solutrean. It doesn't begin to. Herein lies the problem with articles like this that propose a hypothesis that are rowing against agenda, in this case, anything that refutes SH being deemed 'credible' whereas anything that presents its counterpoints being written off as 'not credible'. We probably need mediation here. I don't think you're a productive presence in this conversation, green name or not. LoverOfArt ([[User talk:|talk]]) 06:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

LoverOfArtI'm not making a case, I'm suggesting a source. We can discuss the source, how to use it, where to use it, etc. We shouldn't discuss whether it is right or wrong or try to use (flawed) logical arguments. I'm not arguing against including the material I reverted, I'm saying that:

1. We need better sources

2 It needs to be put in the context of other discussions of the finds, not just slammed in the lead as though it was the last word.

3. It doesn't belong in the lead until it's discussed in the article. It would keep things together if you replied in the section where I discuss all this in detail.

I don't understand your odd comment about my green username. Loads of editors use colour in their usernames. 08:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

i agree. Inserting material from a newspaper into the lead and giving it such prominence is misleading and unbalanced. If Lover of Art would like to give a paragraph to this event later in the article, that's fine....And Lover's material if included in the article should be balanced by contrary material, e.g. no evidence of maritime tradition among Solutreans, etc.Smallchief (talk 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Lover's contribution as now written is misleading. The "Solutrean" tool found by the scallop dredge was not found in 2012, but in 1970. The evidence was that a mastadon bone 22,000 years old and the stone were found in the same dredge load of mud. That's interesting, but only that. It's not persuasive as evidence. If you find a mastodon bone in my back yard it doesn't mean I coexisted with a mastodon.Smallchief (talk 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Plus, I've moved and edited for accuracy the material Lover added to a more appropriate place. I'll locate a better source than the one now cited. Smallchief (talk 11:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Researchers may have been searching for the wrong genetic markers to test the Solutrean hypothesis. There was a nearly complete turnover of the European population circa 14.5ka ago. Two citation lists to monitor are these for these articles [14] [15] Poodleboy (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by the authors of "Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas?"

See [16] Doug Weller talk 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Solutrean genomes certainly would help. Poodleboy (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Without putting too fine a point on it, I am wondering: at which point does the Solutrean Hypothesis begin to be considered pseudoscience? At this point, I believe it holds status of minority opinion, but evidence eventually stacks up...Kortoso (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not 'psuedoscience'. It's a minority opinion, it's contentious, but the people who are claiming 'case closed' are doing so in an echo chamber. The genetic sample size being cited to refute Solutrean is absurdly small. As recently as 40 years ago, the Dinosaur extinction asteroid was pretty much a minority opinion, too. I don't think there will ever be a robust enough archaeological record to conclusively prove Solutrean, but there are enough eccentric indicators to warrant a hypothesis. Xyxer (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research

I can't see any evidence that the Nature article discusses the SH. Neither the abstract nor the press release [17]mention it.. Personal insults, especially from an editor I haven't interacted with and who hasn't edited this article aren't impressive. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Solutrean authors discuss the adequacy of the alternative peopling theories. There probably should be links to other wikipedia articles on the peopling of the American's. The Solutrean hypothesis does not occur in isolation but in context of competing theories, best fitting the evidence from different time horizons. It isn't OR to summarize new results bearing on the relative strengths. The proposed text does appear awkward, the whole article needs more of the context. Poodleboy (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it's OR to use other research that doesn't mention the SH to make an argument. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You're 100% wrong on this Doug. The article references specific facts for context. If those facts change or are attenuated per credible research, then so changes any topic that relies on those facts, whether or not the research that modifies/attenuates those facts makes specific mention of some other issue contingent on those same facts. You're trying to argue against the application of logic as being 'original research', which is very strained. Xyxer (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a rather narrow interpretation, if SH mentions dating for the Bering land bridge as relevant, then research which updates that dating is relevant. Similarly, if research which mentions the original dating, contests SH, then that also makes research which updates the dating relevant. So, either SH research or research contesting SH can make that Nature article relevant without OR being required. The context needs to be there however, but not necessarily in the Nature article. Poodleboy (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have looked more closely, I assumed he was referring to the recent ice free corridor work that received a lot of publicity. [18] Poodleboy (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)