March 26, 2017

The Solutrean Hypothesis

Now before talking about the Solutrean Hypothesis, you must first realize that the Solutreans were not modern Europeans. The signature Haplogroup for Europeans is Haplogroup U, which doesn’t exist anywhere in genetic studies of Amerindians until after Columbus.

They may or may not have had white skin, as the gene variants that are currently responsible for white skin in modern Europeans had not yet evolved. To the extent anyone cares about that.

At most you could say that these people were “proto-European”, and that feels arguable.

They probably didn’t look like this

I first looked into the idea because I thought perhaps it showed the “Europeans” were the first into the Americas. So I guess you could say I had some “racist” motives to look into it.

However I have since found the hypothesis to be interesting in and of itself, and so am writing about it here.

The Basic Idea

One of the proposed pre-Columbus migration routes into North America is not from Asia, but from Northern Spain and France, a people known as the Solutreans. The main proponents of this idea are Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley.

Solutrean site locations

Around 24,500 BC was the last glacial maximum, and the Solutrean hypothesis is that the Solutreans traveled along the ice edge to the Americas at some point:

Stanford and Bradley‘s proposed routes across the Atlantic for the Solutrean migration

Hypotheses of the peopleing of North America, photo from Smithsonain Magazine

The proposed dates of arrival actually predate most Siberian settlement of the Americas.

The lines of evidence for the Solutrean hyptohesis are genetic admixture and technological origin of the Clovis culture – the first known human culture in North America. “Culture” in this sense refers to the technology used in the region – not language, religion or race. The Solutrean culture is used in the same sense.

The genetic evidence shows admixture of Caucasian haplogroups most concentrated in the Northeastern US and Canada. The technological evidence shows that the most likely origin or Clovis technology is from the Solutreans, and there are multiple reasons to believe this is the case.

  1. Haplogroup X and R admixture vs. Siberian haplogroups

The first piece of genetic evidence is the distribution of Haplogroup X2a in North America, radiating out from precisely the region it would have landed in if it were a product of migrants from Europe.

Haplogroup X2 distributions, Oppenheimer 2014

Haplogroup R is interesting. One common retort is that this haplogroup is a product of post-1500 European admixture. The problem is that it is R-M173 that is most common among the “Native Americans”, not R1b. R1b is the variant most common in Spain, France and Britain, while R-M173 is more common in Ukraine, Belarus, Eastern Poland and Western Russia. So it seems unlikely to be a product of the Western European colonizers.

Haplogroup R1 distributions

By comparison, Haplogroups Q and C-M217 paint a picture of Siberian migration:

Haplogroup Q distributions

Haplogroup C-M217 distributions

In my opinion, the DNA evidence alone is enough to conclude that some people from the old world came to the Americas, and a Solutrean crossing fits the genetic data the best.

  1. East – West Movement of sites

There are multiple lines of evidence that the settlements of North America during the Clovis period moved from the Eastern US / Canada to the west. There are a few lines of evidence of this.

First, an analysis of material movement shows that, in general, the rocks at Clovis sites, when they are not the same as those in the surrounding area, almost always come from further east. They very rarely come from further west, indicating that most of the movement in the Clovis culture were from east to west.

Cache movement, Stanford and Bradley

Second, there is more diversity of toolmaking in the east than in the west. In general, when looking at a “culture”, the location where there is more diversity of techniques in making whatever artifacts constitute the culture is considered to be the likely location of the culture’s origin. It doesn’t necessarily mean the origin is in the east – there could be other reasons for the greater diversity – but it’s another sign that it is.

In addition, the “proto-clovis” sites of Cactus Hill, Krajacic and Meadowcroft are all in the northeastern US.

Solutrean points above, Cactus Hill points below

a – Solutrean

b- Cactus hill

At Cactus hill, points were found in a layer beneath the Clovis artifacts and were dated earlier. Similar “proto-clovis” technology is not found further west.

  1. Not in Siberia

It is perhaps important to understand that Dennis Stanford actually came to the Solutrean hypothesis AFTER attempting to prove that Clovis culture came out of Siberia. He spent decades trying to find proof of Clovis culture and / or precursors in Alaska and northwestern Canada, and in his estimation came up empty.

Once Siberia was opened up, the investigations there found radically different tool-making techniques than what existed in North America.

Solutrean / Clovis “overshot flaking” toolmaking

Arrowhead making in Siberia using wedge-shaped cores, microblades and ivory

Remember that the idea that Clovis Culture technology came from Siberia is an idea that came before anthropologists did any relevant investigations in northern Canada, Alaska or Siberia. It was a theory that was born following investigations at Clovis, New Mexico in 1926 and the subsequent discovery of more “Clovis culture” artifacts throughout North America.

One common counter to this is that similar spear point making technology existed throughout Africa and the Middle East. But this is irrelevant to the fact that it did NOT exist in Siberia, nor are there anything like the Clovis points in Alaska or Canada where the ice corridor was.

In addition, Stanford showed in a 2012 presentation a broken Solutrean point found in Virginia – that was made out of French flint. Moreover, they also found similar points in the area made out of local materials. It’s possible that a post-Columbus Englishman who migrated to Virginia brought it over as a souvenir, broke it and then threw it away. But I don’t think so and I think it is a second smoking gun for Solutrean presence (the first being the genetic data).

Points found in Virginia. Point “a” is the one made from French flint, points “b” and “c” are made from local material in the same area.

Intellectual Opposition

  1. Mismatch of dates between Solutrean civilization and proposed Solutrean sites in North America

One counter to the Solutrean hypothesis is that some proposed Solutrean sites in North America date older than any Solutrean site in France and Spain.

This is a fair point, however one should not take the dates of the sites that are seen as too literal, as the coastline at the time was much further out than it is today:

Northeast US coastline during the last glacial maximum (LGM)

And so the sites we see today are far inland from where the coastal sites would have been. It’s also possible that the migration to North America occurred when it was colder, and the move inland by the Solutreans – both in North America and in Europe – occurred later.

  1. Solutreans didn’t have the ability to cross the atlantic

This argument is based on the idea that the Solutreans didn’t have boats that could navigate the Atlantic. Most locations that would have been on the coast during the Solutrean time period would be deep underwater today as a result of the melting glaciers.

The problem with this argument is that in Europe, the primary source of food for the Solutreans was in rivers and in the few sites that were coastal at the time but not underwater today, there are remains of fish bones and sea shells along with art depicting fishing.

In addition, in order to survive in ice age France and Spain you have to know how to waterproof leather, otherwise the snow will soak into the leather and cause frostbite. The Solutreans had to have known how to waterproof leather using animal fat in order to exist in that region at the time.

This is the same waterproofing technology the Inuits use to build boats that could navigate arctic waters prior to European contact.

Also this argument is not used against the idea that Melanesian people sailed across the Pacific (a much larger, if more hospitable, ocean) and settled in South America. There are no remains of lithic boats for them, and yet that is not treated as some disproof.

  1. Lack of Solutrean art in North America

This is a fair criticism. Again however, remember that the Solutrean coastal sites in North America would be long buried today. And the sites further inland, despite using Clovis / Solutrean technology, weren’t necessarily populated by Solutrean people. Some Solutrean art has been found in a cave in Florida, however, but in general yes there is a lack of Solutrean art.

But remember not all Solutreans produced cave art, and the people who crossed the Atlantic didn’t necessarily produce it.

  1. Haplogroups =/= Ancestry

Haplogroups are used to infer ancestry for the Asian portion of the migrants into the Americas, so the denial of haplogroup evidence for the Solutreans is blatantly hypocritical.

I think this line is just pedantry, more of a warning that “haplogroup is not NECESSARILY ancestry”, even though in this case, given the location of the haplogroups and their dates which correspond to the earliest Clovis sites, the haplogroups obviously do denote ancestry.

Politically-Based Opposition

One common attack on the Solutrean theory is to bring up the book “White Apocalypse”. “White Apocalypse” is a stupid fiction book with false ideas about what the Solutreans were like.

It is used by opponents on the Solutrean theory to smear it as being “White Supremacist” and “racist”. Rationalwiki for example devotes a third of their page on the Solutrean theory to “White Apocalypse”, and doesn’t even mention the haplogroup evidence, evidence of east-west movement of clovis culture, or the lack of any Clovis precursors in Siberia.

Google autocomplete results for “Solutrean Hypothesis”

“Rationalwiki”‘s use of White Apocalypse to associate the Solutrean Hypothesis with “white supremacists”

Two more examples of extremely political opposition to the Solutrean theory come from The Daily Beast and Scienceblogs:

From The Daily Beast with the imperious title “Incontrovertible Evidence Proves the First Americans Came from Asia”:

A troubling insinuation of the “Solutrean” theory is that Native Americans weren’t somehow able to invent the distinctive Clovis point on their own.”

– This from the same person who has no problem claiming that Europe passing Asia technologically around 1400 was entirely a product of Asian technology. Do we ever hear them saying that these theories are “troubling insinuations” that Europeans could not invent those things?

Also, the Solutreans were a real established population in Spain and France at the time, so putting Solutreans in deconstruct-quotes is blatantly dishonest.

Moreover, saying that one group got a technology from another group doesn’t mean they couldn’t invent it themselves. It just means that they didn’t.

In addition, the way arrowheads were made in Siberia at this time using sharpened ivory set into wood slats, was arguably more complex than the techniques used by the Solutreants / Clovis culture.

The legal maneuvering and sequestering behind the discovery of Kennewick Man was a media-fest fed by the loony assertions of white supremacists that the Aryan race discovered America. The result was increasing polarization between the white, male litigants who wanted to run tests on the bones and the local Umatilla people who wanted him reburied.”

– Terms like “Aryan” and “white supremacist” are never used by Solutrean proponents, they are only used by opponents as a form of social shaming. One must deny any pre-columbian Europeans in North America, lest they be associated with “Aryanism” and “white supremacists”.

And bringing up the fact that the people who wanted to do research on the past were white males, so what? The white males want to do science, while the brown people want to bury science because their pagan / animist beliefs tell them to?

So what was the point of pointing out that the people who wanted to do science were white males? Are we to oppose them because they were, in fact, white males?

One might think that the Out-of-Europe hypothesis was, at its worst, a harmless crackpot theory—that this very terrestrial-adapted culture of the Iberian Peninsula, with no evidence of maritime technology, overcame a frigid Atlantic ocean during a time span of 5,000 years by iceberg-hopping in skin boats in order to deliver the distinctive Clovis weapon system to the Southern United States. But this scholarly squabble quickly grew ugly with the discovery of Kennewick Man in 1996.”

– The author is either extremely ignorant of the Solutrean hypothesis, or knows that the Solutrean argument is that the coastal communities would all be underwater now – and he just doesn’t mention this to his readers.

He also doesn’t mention the fact that the Solutreans had the technological precursors to making the kinds of boats Eskimos had built to navigate similar waters.

Also, why is this not considered a racist insinuation that the Solutreans were incapable of doing what the Eskimos had done? To ask the question is to answer it – “racist” means to make Europeans, even these proto-European Solutreans, look better than other races.

Well, the February article in Nature proves definitively that the Clovis child’s ancestry is Asian, not European. It’s solid science. The Solutrean fans are out of luck. This should be the biggest American archeological news in decades. That is, if archeology could let it stand without spinning the hard facts to fit an ambitious pre-conceived political agenda.”

– Bizarre. No mention of haplogroup X or R admixture in the northeastern United States anywhere in this article, but claims that a single boy’s skeleton disproves the Solutrean hypothesis, calling it “hard facts” and using terms like “It’s solid science”.

These are pushy, authority-pounding terms designed to jam-down the debate.

Here’s another bizarre article. It’s from Martin Rundkvist, who shockingly is a Swedish Archaeologist. The title is “Genetic Study Kills Off Solutrean Hypothesis”.

This “genetic study” consists of the DNA analysis of a single boy, the same one referenced in the Daily Beast article.

He then proclaims these four facts:

1. The dates are wrong. 2. The size is wrong. 3. The knapping technique is wrong. 4. There’s no fluted base in the Solutrean material.”

Forget whether these are true or not. A Solutrean proponent would probably be able to take issue with these (forgive me for invoking magic science man) – the point still stands that, for all of the dissimilarities between Colvis and Solutrean technology, it is still FAR more similar than the tool-making techniques in Sibera are to the Solutrean techniques.

From the north-west via Beringia, as the scholarly majority holds, or from the east via an ice-shelf, as a Solutrean minority holds.”

– The Solutrean proponents say that both happened, as opposed to just one. What a weird thing for this person – who is supposedly an Anthropologist and who chose to write about the Solutrean hypothesis – to say.

But is is possible that the Clovis culture consisted of people with some other genetic make-up who died out because of a climate dip. To check this, we need genetic evidence from members of the Clovis culture, and this is sadly not a culture that practices much identifiable formal burial.”

– Nobody demanded this kind of genetic evidence for the Beringian or Pacific coastal theories, for them the presence of Siberian haplogroups in pre-Columbian Americans TODAY was seen, and rightly seen, as sufficient. This demand that Clovis-era skeletons themselves be found that possess Solutrean DNA is a completely fabricated requirement. It’s just a form of bar-raising.

He then uses an analysis of a single skeleton from Montana to claim:

The diagram above shows this individual’s genetic affinities. The important dots to look for are the black and grey ones. They show that the part of the world where people are farthest genetically from the Clovis culture are southern Europe and the Near East. This happens to include the area of the Solutrean culture. Case closed.”

A bizarre leap from a single skeleton to the whole of Clovis culture, and then he says “case closed”. More jam-down language.

Moreover, the single skeleton he refers to came from Montana, which is far outside the area of the Solutrean R and X haplogroup regions.

Moreover, the Solutrean theory doesn’t claim that Siberians weren’t part of Clovis culture. It claims that the origin of the technology used is from the Solutreans and that this culture spread westward. It doesn’t even necessarily mean that it was being spread by the Solutreans themselves, though it probably was to some extent.

Am I just stupid? Am I missing something? Or am I so blinded by my politics that I just see what I want to see? Because these arguments against it seem so bad and so obviously political.

Conclusion

The genetic and artifactual evidence appear overwhelming, and the criticisms of the Solutrean Hypothesis either don’t address the main evidence for it, or do it in an extremely uncompelling way (hand-waving away artifactual evidence as “convergent invention”, ignoring the east-west movement of sites and saying the R and X haplogroups clustered in the Northeast could have gotten there from Asia).

And some people seem to also be finding it compelling:

“‘I drank the Solutrean Kool-Aid,’ said Steve Black, an archaeologist at Texas State University in San Marcos. ‘I had been very dubious. It’s something a lot of [archaeologists] have dismissed out of hand. But I came away from the book feeling like it’s an extremely credible idea that needs to be taken seriously.’”

I think the Solutrean hypothesis is basically true, and probably has more evidence for it than the Beringian land bridge theory had for it when it was first adopted. And that the resistance to it is due to professional entrenchment and its use by white identity people (slandered as “white supremacists”).

Facebook Comments
  • Ghost of Virtve

    All images except the header appear broken.

    • Ryan Faulk

      They appear fine for me.

  • “Forget whether these are true or not. A Solutrean proponent would probably be able to take issue with these (forgive me for invoking magic science man) – the point still stands that, for all of the dissimilarities between Colvis and Solutrean technology, it is still FAR more similar than the tool-making techniques in Sibera are to the Solutrean techniques.”

    Hilarious. You can’t just wave things away. It’s similar? What does that mean? It means nothing. There are only so many ways to make tools.

    I’ll go. Through the rest of this post later.

    Kennewick man was also shown to be “Native”.

    “An alternative, Solutrean, hypothesis posits that the Clovis predecessors emigrated from southwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum4. Here we report the genome sequence of a male infant (Anzick-1) recovered from the Anzick burial site in western Montana. The human bones date to 10,705 ± 3514C years BP (approximately 12,707–12,556 calendar years BP) and were directly associated with Clovis tools. We sequenced the genome to an average depth of 14.4× and show that the gene flow from the Siberian Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta population5 into Native American ancestors is also shared by the Anzick-1 individual and thus happened before 12,600 years BP.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html

    The solutrean hypothesis is bunk.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/23/solutrean-hypothesis-were-the-first-peoples-of-the-americas-from-spain/

    • Ryan Faulk

      I don’t know why you care so much about the Kennewick Man. The Kennewick Man is only ever brought up by people attacking the Solutrean Hypothesis. It’s not something relevant to anything, just something you like to trot out as a vague association. It’s dishonest.

      You just hand-wave away the tool similarity even though you know nothing about it. You have no idea that there are “only so many ways to make tools” – how many? One? Fifteen? And Stanford and Bradley catalog several types of points that are all more similar to those in France and Spain than anything in Siberia. You don’t know what you’re talking about on this, you just dismiss it because you want to disassociate yourself from the kinds of people who promote the Solutrean hypothesis.

      The Anzick infant was just one person, and non-Solutreans using Solutrean tools is part of the theory. The Anzick infant being Siberian is totally consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis.

      And you just dismiss haplogroup X as “mainly native american”, which is an irrelevant a point as saying that the biggest English-speaking country is the United States. The locations of the X haplogroup is what matters.

      It’s obvious that you are emotionally committed to just junking the idea, comparing an idea that is promoted by the head of the Smithsonian Institute with we was changz. A dishonest comparison. I’m sure the people who are working at Aucilla River would disagree with your trashy little snipe about that.

      • >>>>”I don’t know why you care so much about the Kennewick Man. The Kennewick Man is only ever brought up by people attacking the Solutrean Hypothesis. It’s not something relevant to anything, just something you like to trot out as a vague association. It’s dishonest.”

        No it’s not. People say that Kenniwick man is European, as shown in this Nature study (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html) he is Native American, not European. It definitely is relevant.

        >>>>”.You just hand-wave away the tool similarity even though you know nothing about it. You have no idea that there are “only so many ways to make tools” – how many? One? Fifteen? And Stanford and Bradley catalog several types of points that are all more similar to those in France and Spain than anything in Siberia. You don’t know what you’re talking about on this, you just dismiss it because you want to disassociate yourself from the kinds of people who promote the Solutrean hypothesis.”

        Funny. I do know what I’m talking about on this subject and I do know that there are only so many ways to make tools:

        “In its initial formulation, which was presented at the 1999 Clovis and Beyond conference and picked up by the popular press (e.g.Preston1997; Begley & Murr1999), thehypothesis was based primarily on similarities between the stone tools and production techniques of Solutrean people from Western Europe (c. 23500–18000 cal BP [Straus 2005]) and those of North American Clovis people (c. 13300–12800 cal BP [Haynes 2002; Collard et al. 2010]). Flaws in this argument were quickly pointed out. Straus (2000) and other critics noted that the existence of a several-thousand-year gap between the Solutrean and Clovis made an ancestor–descendant relationship highly improbable. They argued that similarities in tool design and production were therefore much more likely to be the result of convergence—theresultofpeopleindependentlydevelopingsimilarwaysofmakingstoneimplements. Subsequently, Stanford and Bradley revised their hypothesis in an effort to deal with the chronological gap (Stanford & Bradley 2002; Bradley & Stanford 2004). Instead of highlighting similarities between the Solutrean and Clovis, they pointed out supposed similarities among Solutrean, pre-Clovis, and Clovis tool types and production techniques(although emphasis remained upon Solutrean-Clovis similarities). It is this version of the hypothesis that is given extended treatment in Across Atlantic ice.”

        “Stanford and Bradley claim that “nowhere in any of our publications have we indicated that overshot flaking was the key technological trait linking Solutrean and Clovis”; yet they have written:“[t]hemostimpressivesimilarityisthebasicallyidenticalmanufacturingtechnology of thin bifaces using an overshot flaking method” (Bradley & Stanford 2004: 465; see also Bradley & Stanford 2006; Stanford & Bradley 2002, 2012). They cite a paper by Eren et al.(2013) refuting the notion of overshot flaking and mention only a response by Lohse et al. (2014), but tacitly ignore the concluding reply by Eren et al. (2014) that deconstructs the comments by Lohse et al.

        And finally:

        “There is always the chance that scientists will discover: 1) an unambiguous Solutrean site,in the right time period, on the shores or continental shelf of eastern North America; or 2) European ancient DNA in a Palaeoindian skeleton. However, hypothetical possibilitiescannot be construed as facts in need of disproving. If one day there is multidisciplinary scientific evidence supporting such a scenario, we might well accept that such a migration occurred. However, in the present—the reality of the here and now—there is no evidence that supports the Solutrean ‘solution’.:

        http://www.academia.edu/5119515/On_thin_ice_Problems_with_Stanford_and_Bradley_s_Solutrean-Clovis_hypothesis

        >>>>”The Anzick infant was just one person, and non-Solutreans using Solutrean tools is part of the theory. The Anzick infant being Siberian is totally consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis.”

        But it’s not. See, if this one child showed European affinities, you’d be saying that the debate is over. But it’s not.

        >>>>”And you just dismiss haplogroup X as “mainly native american”, which is an irrelevant a point as saying that the biggest English-speaking country is the United States. The locations of the X haplogroup is what matters.”

        I don’t ‘dismiss haplogroup X as ‘mainly Native American’, I’m stating the facts of the matter. It IS mainly a Native haolotype.

        http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/files/2014/02/Anzick-1.png

        Debate over.

        “Now though, thanks to work by Morten Rasmussen and many co-authors published in Nature, we have the full genome of a Clovis person who lived c. 10,600 cal BC in Montana, the north-west US. The diagram above shows this individual’s genetic affinities. The important dots to look for are the black and grey ones. They show that the part of the world where people are farthest genetically from the Clovis culture are southern Europe and the Near East. This happens to include the area of the Solutrean culture. Case closed.”

        http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2014/02/13/genetic-study-kills-off-solutrean-hypothesis/

        >>>>”It’s obvious that you are emotionally committed to just junking the idea, comparing an idea that is promoted by the head of the Smithsonian Institute with we was changz. A dishonest comparison. I’m sure the people who are working at Aucilla River would disagree with your trashy little snipe about that.”

        Just because they would disagree with my snipe doesn’t mean it’s not true. Nordicists claim that whites founded every civilization out there, which is objectively bullshit.

        Just because the idea is pushed by the head of the Smithsonian Institute doesn’t mean anything.

        The Solutrean Hypothesis is a joke and long discredited.

        • Frank Jamger

          Faulk did not dispute that Kinnewick was “native”, but you trot this out again. He did not dispute that Anzick was of Siberian origin either, yet you trot this out again as well. He did not dispute that haplogroup X is mainly “native”, yet you emphatically repeat this as though it proves something. You posted a map of Anzick’s DNA relations as if this were relevant to the Haplogroup X issue. Faulk has explained that a Siberian-American using Clovis tools (a matter of dispute, by the way) is consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis, yet you ignore or misunderstand this. Your response on tool design was a lot of copy-pasting; if Faulk responds in kind, the comments will be a mess. You’re evidently harboring resentment toward “Nordicists”, and your comments evince exactly the emotionally dismissive attitude discussed in the article’s Politically-Based Opposition section.

          • Faulk has explained that a Siberian-American using Clovis tools (a matter of dispute, by the way) is consistent with the Solutrean hypothesis, yet you ignore or misunderstand this. Your response on tool design was a lot of copy-pasting; if Faulk responds in kind, the comments will be a mess.

            What does that say to the data presented? Convergence in tool making is most likely the cause.

            There are only a few certain ways to make tools with rocks…

            Again, this hypothesis is put to bed. Quote incoming (I see you don’t like quotes):

            Recent analyses of mitochondrial genomes from Native Americans have brought the overall number of recognized maternal founding lineages from just four to a current count of 15. However, because of their relative low frequency, almost nothing is known for some of these lineages. This leaves a considerable void in understanding the events that led to the colonization of the Americas following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). In this study, we identified and completely sequenced 14 mitochondrial DNAs belonging to one extremely rare Native American lineage known as haplogroup C4c. Its age and geographical distribution raise the possibility that C4c marked the Paleo-Indian group(s) that entered North America from Beringia through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The similarities in ages andgeographical distributions for C4c and the previously analyzed X2a lineage provide support to the scenario of a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. 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***.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21614/abstract

            You’re evidently harboring resentment toward “Nordicists”, and your comments evince exactly the emotionally dismissive attitude discussed in the article’s Politically-Based Opposition section.

            Nordicists push the Solutrean Hypothesis.

            Also, Raff and Bolnick refute this as well:

            Proponents of an early trans-Atlantic migration typically point to a similarity in the tools used by Clovis people—ancient Native Americans—with the early Solutrean hunter-gatherer people in Europe, Raff said.

            However, most anthropologists and archaeologists consider that a coincidence, especially because the genetic evidence thus far doesn’t seem to support the early trans-Atlantic migration.

            http://phys.org/news/2016-01-genetic-ancient-trans-atlantic-migration-professor.html

            Stuff like this:

            In addition, Stanford showed in a 2012 presentation a broken Solutrean point found in Virginia – that was made out of French flint. Moreover, they also found similar points in the area made out of local materials. It’s possible that a post-Columbus Englishman who migrated to Virginia brought it over as a souvenir, broke it and then threw it away. But I don’t think so and I think it is a second smoking gun for Solutrean presence (the first being the genetic data).

            is hilarious. Occam’s Razor.

            My ‘attitude’ is based on the science. I trust Razib Khan, Greg Cochran, and Henry Harpending on the matter. They’re not ‘PC’ either, and neither am I as my blog is called “NotPoliticallyCorrect”.

            https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/

          • Frank Jamger

            The anti-White academic establishment is determined to deny evidence of ancient Europeans in the Americas, so they can keep White Americans feeling guilty about ‘Native Americans being the real owners of the country’. For example…

            Eske Willerslev is an anti-White propagandist
            https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/eske-willerslev-is-an-anti-white-propagandist/

            Their pronouncements that the Solutrean hypothesis is dead are worth as much as their pronouncements that races don’t exist. Kashani’s “definitive dismissal” is refuted here…

            Solutrean hypothesis: genetics, the mammoth in the room.
            https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/17123/SH%20Mammoth%20in%20the%20Room%20FINAL%20with%20figures.pdf

          • Let’s see.

            >Rapanui genetics

            The small amounts of European DNA may be from the 19th century.

            In the genomes of 27 living Rapa Nui islanders, the team found dashes of European and Native American genetic patterns. The European genetic material made up 16% of the genomes; it was relatively intact and was unevenly spread among the Rapa Nui population, suggesting that genetic recombination, which breaks up segments of DNA, has not been at work for long. Europeans may have introduced their genes in the 19th century, when they settled on the island.

            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes

            Early “Natives” from South America helped to colonize the island hundreds of years before Europeans reached it.

            “The white gods of Peru!”

            Genetiker says that the White Gods went to SA then eventually Polynesia, but the link above disproves this.

            Also, why stop there? Why not believe other myths? Were Romulus and Remus raised by wolves? Were there gods on Mt. Olympus? Are we made of corn? Why pick and choose what myths from ancient peoples to believe.

            This is like the Aztec and Mayan myths of ‘white gods’, only they were made after the fall of their civilizations.

            And if you’re just going by appearance on the Moai statues, Afrocentrists do the same with the Olmec statue heads. “They look black!! They’re African. Van Sertima makes similar claims about West Africans being the ‘original Olmecs’ due to the ‘phenotype being Negroid’. Nordicists are just like Afrocentrists.

            https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2015/12/25/refuting-afrocentrism-part-1-olmecs-were-africans/

            Here’s a response to the ‘blonde haired, blue-eyed Aryans’ myth.

            https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/16/nordicist-fantasies-the-myth-of-the-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-aryans-and-the-origins-of-the-indo-europeans/

            Nordicism has no basis in reality.

            Rasmussen is the head author of the study by the way.

            Anyway, here’s what Peter Frost says about the SH:

            “I believe that the earliest humans in the Americas were physically and culturally similar to the Solutreans of Western Europe. But this simply reflects the fact that prior to 20,000 BP a single breeding population extended from southwestern France to Beringia. It was only after the glacial maximum that west and east Eurasians became different from each other.”

            http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/02/were-they-right-after-all.html

            The meaning is self-explanatory.

            As predicted by X2a, European Y haplogroups have higher absolute rates in north‐east Native Americans than most of Europe and the rest of the World. Three recent autosomal studies have all found substantial evidence of pre‐Columbian, West Eurasian autosomal admixture in Native American populations. While this has all been presumed to have arrived via Beringia, the alternative trans‐Atlantic route for such gene flow was not considered or tested.

            Europeans and Siberians share an ancestor on the Y chromosome.

            Y chromosomal DNA polymorphisms were used to investigate Pleistocene male migrations to the American continent. In a worldwide sample of 306 men, we obtained 32 haplotypes constructed with the variation found in 30 distinct polymorphic sites. The major Y haplotype present in most Native Americans was traced back to recent ancestors common with Siberians, namely, the Kets and Altaians from the Yenissey River Basin and Altai Mountains, respectively. Going further back, the next common ancestor gave rise also to Caucasoid Y chromosomes, probably from the central Eurasian region. This study, therefore, suggests a predominantly central Siberian origin for Native American paternal lineages for those who could have migrated to the Americas during the Upper Pleistocene.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9973301

            The relevance of this is explained with the Frost quote which shows why there is some genetic similarity.

            Also:

            “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)”

            There are presently no valid data of which we are aware to support assertions that bi-pointed leaf-shaped lithic tools from the Atlantic Seaboard are either “older than Clovis” or that they were brought here by seafaring Solutreans (see also Fiedel 2012; O’Brien et al. 2014; Waguespack and Kelly 2014:48). There is substantial evidence in the archaeological record of eastern North America to conclude that these stone tools are components of tool kits used by indigenous North American populations between the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods (i.e. the middle Holocene)—periods in which people were exploiting Atlantic maritime resources.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263808760_On_the_Inferred_Age_and_Origin_of_Lithic_Bi-Points_from_the_Eastern_Seaboard_and_Their_Relevance_to_the_Pleistocene_Peopling_of_North_America

            The SH is done.

          • Frank Jamger

            I could also paste in rebuttal a long list of links and citations of experts “proving” my side, but frankly I don’t have time to play games with someone who is emotionally bothered by the evidence of Nordic-type Whites building ancient civilizations around the world, and therefore no interest in being objective on the matter. RaceRealist derides all such evidence as “Nordicist” in similar manner as all evidence of biological race differences is derided as “racist”. For those interested in the topic, I laid out the basics of evidence of Whites in the Americas here…

            14 Reasons Amerinds not true natives of America
            http://fjamger.blogspot.com/2016/07/14rann.html

            The responses of Genetiker and others to the arguments regarding the “white gods” that RaceRealist pasted before this post (and will likely add to after it) are given in my source list following item #14: Whites in South America.

          • Carolin M

            Thank you to both you and Ryan Faulk for putting up such brilliant arguments here. I am an X2c1b Haplogroup haplotype. I live in Canada, I am NOT Native “Indian”, I am almost as white as a ghost, and have redish hair, and green/blue eyes. I can trace my lines back to France with my family tree. I also make MtDNA matches to people in France and Spain. The X Haplogroup is also believed to be Atlantean in origin.

            I have been stalked my whole life, and have been generally treated very badly by everyone I have ever known. This has been perpetrated by government and their establishments at all levels against me. I believe this all relates back to my haplotype in someway or another.

            The Royal establishment has always treated their cousins brutally to keep the power where they want it, and keep the lines to a minimum. I do believe Donald Trump summed this up in a recent rant. Referring to this game as the “Game of Thrones”.

            What many of these anti-white propagandists don’t realize, is that they are in fact sounding off on behalf of the REAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS——THE ROYAL ESTABLISHMENT, who use the racism of NON WHITES to further their own personal agenda. Now one can understand what multiculturalism was really intended for.

  • Katherine Plisko

    Good article. I would add that it is odd that the boy found in Montana is classified as incontrovertibly Clovis. The Clovis point found there was dated to 500 years earlier than the boy’s remains and there is no evidence that the point even belonged to the boy. Seems we need more evidence before we use his DNA as absolute proof that the Clovis people were Berengian rather than Salutrian. What is called for is attention to the scientific method here – repeatable results, as big a sample as possible and an open discussion until then.

  • Normandie Kent

    The reason why there are no Clovis points in Siberia or in Alaska so far is because the ancestors of the Native Americans were already in the Americas for at least 5,000 years, by the time of the Clovis first model. The Clovis tool kit was invented in the America”s, and are an all American invention. Pre Clovis and Clovis are the same people. DNA evidence puts Native American genetic ancestors before the Clovis tool kit invention.

    • Ryan Faulk

      “DNA evidence puts Native American genetic ancestors before the Clovis tool kit invention.”
      – Right, and?

      • Normandie Kent

        Duh! It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that Native Americans invented their own Clovis points. They look nothing like those ugly, bulky Solutrean points. It must suck to be so desperate, to see similarities were there are none. As a matter of fact, they found laurel leaf bi facial lithics in South Africa , maybe the Solutreans went to Africa to learn the art of Lithic Making from their ancestors in Africa. Maybe they got their art from them too. There is more of a chance than that happening, than non Sea faring, landlubbing, terrestrial Solutreans, making it to the Americas. Dude, I think you are trying to hard.

        • Ryan Faulk

          You assert that Solutreans making it to the tip of South Africa and taking what they learned from those people and then crossing to North America, is more likely than them to just cross to North America.

          “those ugly, bulky Solutrean points”
          “It must suck to be so desperate”
          “non Sea faring, landlubbing, terrestrial Solutreans”

        • Roof Top Voter

          How about “too hard?” Lol.

        • Mike Rafone

          Normandie Kent, next time you’re trying to make your case, try sticking to the issues and ditch the assanine sophomoric insult crap. You only look like a douchebag leftists, which you probably are.

  • athingwithfeathers

    I think humans are infinitely inventive when it comes to exploring the world. I assume we all came out of Africa and some of us have passed on the itchy let’s get moving feet that propelled humanity around the globe and into space. I have always assumed that there were many groups who discovered America in preliterate times. There was cocaine found in an Egyptian pharoah’s tomb that could only have come from SA. We know the Phoenicians and the Greeks and the later Vikings were great mariners and navigators. Ther’s some written evidence the Chinese knew of its location well before Columbus’ first voyage. I think the entire human race has discovered the Americas over and over again. The most successful were those who came from Asia/Siberia, obviously. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t learn about the other, less successful explorers. There’s only one race-it’s the human race. Everything else is culturally biased. I find this hypothesis intriging because I thought if humans could get to Australia from Africa 50,000+ years ago, they would have gotten to the Americas sooner than the Clovis period. I remember reading that the neolithic period opened up in the UK due to archeological finds by oil companies doing test drills and dredging in the North Sea. They discovered the outlines of rivers, villages, and the shoreline during the Ice Age. Thet found a number of artifacts as well. Perhaps these sorts of serendipitous finds will reveal more about this connection.

  • Normandie Kent

    The ancestors of the Native Americans had been in Americas and were here even before the Clovis points were invented, why the hell would there be Clovis points in Siberia or Alaska? It’s a fact Native Americans genetics put them in America before 14,666 years in Paisley Caves, and they were not invented yet until about 13,000 years because they found different styles of lithics. It’s obvious that Clovis points were invented in America by Native Americans.

    • Ryan Faulk

      Clovis points have more similarity to Solutrean points than they do to anything in Siberia, and the cache transmission of Clovis points traveled east to west, not west to east.

      Sure, you can concoct a story by which the Siberians invented them once they reached the eastern United States, and then traveled back west. But it’s more honest and pasimonious to conclude that they came from Europe. It’s simpler, and we know the Solutreans fished because of the bones in their settlements. Sure, no boats found, but there are no boats found for the Australians either.