1 – 16 of 16
Anonymous Anonymous said...

best/most interesting article you've written yet. i'd like to see more like this

17 October 2010 at 02:08

Anonymous Davegeek said...

Excellent and interesting article. I wasn't too up on the Solutrean Hypothesis before reading this.

One part of the WN position on Solutrea that I found of interest was where Frank from Queens states "Ours were a peaceful people, who welcomed the Beringians in peace, and were paid back in DEATH! They left little trace, because they honoured nature and lived lightly on the land. Their great cities were organic entities that blended with nature, not against it! They had no word for WAR, but were a kind, peaceful, gentle, loving people." As you pointed out there exists no evidence of such a genocide. Also how exactly is Mr from Queens able to determine all these "facts" about the civilization of the Solutreans? Given that they left "little [if any] trace", particularly in the way of written records, I am amazed that he knows so much about their language and architecture.

Or maybe he's indulging in some pseudo-anthropological onanism.

17 October 2010 at 10:29

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Owch! I heard the ass-kicking from all the way here in Slammin Arm.
I gotta say, the arguments these white nationalists are fronting aren't just a bit nutty, but also a little fruity, too.
Between science, which has us immigrating from Asia across a frozen, but is likely correct, and the Jehova Witnesses which has us arriving from Israel, and these jerks, who have a part of us arriving from Europe, one would have to wonder what people's imaginations get up to under the influence.
Good post, and thanks.

17 October 2010 at 15:42

Blogger Dr.Dawg said...

An entertaining read on a Sunday evening. Many thanks!

17 October 2010 at 20:31

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone else hear Donovan saying "hail solutrea?"

Thanks for this exhaustive piece.

17 October 2010 at 20:37

Anonymous Ekko said...

Probably one of the most fun articles I have seen yet. Beautifully researched, and a real delight to read. Seeing Frank's comments did produce some bile though. It could not echo your point in the WN's constructing a pseudo-mythology for themselves; on that has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Excellent work you guys!

18 October 2010 at 10:19

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haha wow, those four paragraphs in red contained so much speculation. Great article, I enjoyed it very much.

18 October 2010 at 10:36

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. These white power goofs are none-too-smart. Did anyone else read the quotes on the cover?? "This EVIDENCE could be the jolts whites need..."

Boneheads know the difference between fiction and non-fiction, correct? They understand a novel isn't evidence of anything? Except Jurassic Park... that shit is real.

20 October 2010 at 08:44

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to say that you are using very poor logic to make your point. Your point is a good one (racism is stupid) but as an archaeologist my teeth tightened a touch reading through your post.

(I'm reading the book that proposes the Solutrian migration right now and was googling a point type when I came across this blog.)

Equating the '3,500 year gap' between solutrian and clovis to Egypt to present time is ridiculous when you're suggesting that "not much happened and that's really a long time so your theory is stupid and wrong." Howabout Gobleki Tepe? It's 12,000 years old, and there's more time between it and Egypt's pharoic height than between Now and Egypt. Does that constitiute proof that modern-day Turkish people have the right to claim all of Europe as their own? No, it doesn't.

What does that prove? Nothing. That's my point. I'm using the same logic and you're not proving anything.

You're also seriously cherry-picking photos. Comparing the shots of one well-made Clovis point to French Laurel-leaf Solutrian points is pretty bloody poor in my opinion. Did you read the book this theory comes from or just read about it and then cobble some photos together? Because those Solutrian points come from an area the writers of the book state is not the area they think the Clovis people came from.

I get the idea that racists using a theory to forward their idiotic agenda is something you'd want to argue against, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A unique perspective on an old and problematic question is good, not bad, and damning a theory because you don't like the political fallout that is happening because of it is anti-science, or at the very least a lack of clear thinking on your part.

I'm sorry if I"m being harsh about a three year old post, but reading some of the responses that are pretty much 'Today I Learned... ' is frustrating to say the least.

You're trying to be anti-racist, which is excellent. You're a Canadian, which is also excellent (but neither more or less excellent than being from another place) and you're trying to make a good point: archaeological theory and unbelievably stupid racism don't really have much to do with each other.

But you're attacking a theory that you apparently haven't actually read using bloody poor arguments and highly questionable logic and I for one would like to ask you to stop.

Thank you, feel free to burn me in effigy if you musht.

6 June 2013 at 14:00

Blogger Nosferatu200 said...

Hey there. I created a blog post asking for you to contact us, but I want to quickly address a few points.

Regarding the Ancient Egypt reference, the purpose was to note that there was a significant gap between the end of Solutrean and the beginning of the Clovis Culture. I'll be generous and narrow the gap to 3000 years. If one is going to claim that Clovis is a North American continuation (or extension) of Solutrean, you need to explain why there is a 3000 year gap in which projectile points of either kind are not being made. Cactus Hill MIGHT be a bridge in the gap, but even the best lithic work from the site doesn't appear to have much in common with Solutrean at all.

As for the points I used in the article, they are, by and large, represent the typed of points being discussed, so I'm not sure that your criticism is fair. A significant diagnostic feature of Clovis is that the points are fluted. Nowhere is a point in the Solutrean tool kit fluted. This is a significant difference that proponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis can't just shrug off.

I wasn't damning the theory because boneheads have decided to try to justify their racism with it. I don't damn evolution because boneheads have tried to use that theory either. But, unlike evolution, the Solutrean Hypothesis is highly speculative in light of the current evidence, and that is just an observation as someone with an interest in pre-history. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but so far the evidence is at best circumstantial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if you are going to overturn Beringia as the primary route for the peopling of the Americas then you need to provide a much stronger case.

That being said, I agree that the peopling of the Americas is likely a lot more complicated and that future discoveries may change the way we think about how it occurred. All I'm asking is that I'm shown concrete evidence to support the claims and, thus far, I find the Solutrean Hypothesis interesting, but lacking.

9 June 2013 at 19:51

Blogger Holly Stick said...

I've certainly seen comments at the National Post from people who seem to hold the supremacist version of the Solutrean hypothesis. I wonder if there is a link with the Mormon version of prehistory. I'm not sure, that may have changed over the years - there's an interesting discussion about DNA here: http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/dna-tests-contradict-mormon-scripture-the-church-says-the-studies-are-being-twisted-to-attack-its-beliefs/

11 June 2013 at 19:28

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Refuting the Technological Cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing Hypothesis"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440313000873

12 June 2013 at 14:47

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow so many anti-white idiots on here. Face it Solutreans were on North America FIRST. The most likely got slaughtered by asiatics, (and certainly got no reservations) but thankfully their offspring back in Europe came back and slaughtered the Indian tribes!

As soon as you quote anything the Southern Poverty Law Center (completely biased and an anti-white hate organization you lose all credibility!)

31 July 2013 at 08:37

Blogger Nosferatu200 said...

We posted the above comment to illustrate the mindset of the typical bonehead.

Thanks for that. You do our job for us with comments like that. ;)

7 August 2013 at 13:56

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't laughed this hard in a while, thanks for the post man i really enjoyed it, and you nationalists keep posting too, we all find you guys hilariously stupid. and it brightens our day (at least mine) to see such imaginative minds at work. seriously that mythology you whipped up is something. xD

19 February 2014 at 09:41

Blogger cri sis said...

thanks for this article!!...i´m no expert at all, and i can not tell what may be right or may be wrong...

what bothers me is, that one is not able to gather information on the solutrean-technology and the beautiful flintknapping work they did without jumping on to a racist, white power..shit page!!

so, thank you for reflecting on the theory!!

to me there are just tribes, no matter if they came to america or not, they did an amazing job prepairing the way for us now...and for sure they did live a much more sustainable life then we do nowadays! thanks to all the people that came before us...

and again, liked the article very much!

5 March 2014 at 09:53

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot