The new paradigm to adopt is admitting that the Solutrean hypothesis, among others, should never have been repressed in the first place...and therefore ending academic censorship entirely. The enforcement of the conventional wisdom in anthropology/archeology in the past few decades is a form of corruption that was inexcusable. And we see it in many other disciplines, as well.
It really bothers me that even scientist have their prejudices and refuse to see the evidence, that the Americas were populated, in many waves. Thank you Dr. Stanford for presenting truth.
Why does it bother you? Scientists are human, and engage in petty politics like everyone else. Science itself is never complete. It’s always the best guess pes based on established evidence. New evidence can take time to be accepted and new hypotheses based on new evidence gets tested. That’s how the scientific method works. Today’s heterodoxy is tomorrow’s orthodoxy. Dr. Stanford isn’t presenting “the truth”. He’s presenting new models, models developed from the work he and many others have done. Don’t thank him for presenting “the truth”. Thank him instead for presenting the latest thinking and the latest findings. Science is always contingent.
Amazing presentation. In South Carolina and Georgia we are uncovering more and more ancient history of North America and it is exciting and astonishing all at once. It is starting to look like there was human life on this continent far more ancient than we ever thought. So much for the history books! I’ve never been so happy for the history books to be incomplete. I think we should leave the last 50 pages in history books blank to be filled from now on
Exactly. Who the heck give a exact demarcation date line when you know you haven’t done enough research or dig deep enough. And now you won’t admit you were wrong. Kinda like. Oh we are a 100% absolutely positive that the virus didn’t come from the wuhan lab. Guess what. It did. We’re absolutely sure the hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. Guess what. Wrong again. But they didn’t want anything to ruin the Biden narrative.
That’s like a homicide detective having tunnel vision and not following the evidence just going where he wants to go. Not logical and definitely harmful to the future of everything. But what do I know.
@@csluau5913 the academics won’t budge from their “is no pre-Clovis people,Clovis were the 1st.” U know the whole concept of the lecture. If u don’t know what tunnel vision is then nevermind
The academics are still sticking with the Clovis people were the 1st people in the americas. So the archeology isn’t complete if it ever can be. And they are saying no one was here prior to the Clovis people. And that’s what they are teaching kids/people in the history books. They have tunnel vision and won’t even look at any new evidence that doesn’t support the narrative they have declared as fact. Maybe you don’t recall your statement that history books were incorrect it was a while ago I think.
Makes a lot of sense. The question is if the "experts in the field" of archeology aren't exactly those who are dragging their feet and thus slow down acceptance of new discoveries? This hypothesis makes so much sense that it is really strange that it is still supressed.
Because it upends the accepted history, and creates a situation where certain groups might not have been the first group, and in fact might have been the group that killed off or inter bred with the original group. Victimhood has become some sort of medal that is worn with pride, and if it came out that they themselves were genocidal conquerors to the exact same group that had been chosen as villains later in history, then their victim status would be completely erased. The fact that the entire planet was populated by the same process never seems to register with them. The meeting of two cultures with such a difference in technology, the results were inevitable.
@@williamadams8353 exactly. You are spelling out the most likely reason why it is still supressed. I should change the words "strange that" to "obvious why".
@@williamadams8353 exactly. What legitimate archeologist would declare that 100% the Clovis were the 1st people in the americas that’s illogical. That’s the major reason they suddenly stop digging any deeper at sites with artifacts below Clovis timeline. It happened here in Connecticut a couple years ago. They were building a new bridge across a historic local river and had previously found artifacts dating to 5-8000 +/- years ago and this happened decades ago when a local archaeologist was a young student and they were told to stop digging. Well now 30+/- years later they were putting a new abutment under the bridge and due to its previous artifact history they deemed it sensitive and had archeologists inspect beforehand and this was his chance to dig as deep as he wanted cause he was now the head archaeologist for the state of CONNECTICUT and they dug like 8-9 meters probably a couple meters past where they were told to stop previously and bingo. They found artifacts dating 13,000-14,000 years old. And they could have still kept digging but for some reason stopped again.
It’s not being suppressed. You’re imposing your conspiracy theories and your own political bias on the scientific method and the workings of the scientific community. Scientific models change as new evidence is discovered. Science moves forward in fits and starts; yesterday’s heterodoxy becomes tomorrow’s orthodoxy. The rest of society takes time to catch up (which is the purpose of these presentations of new findings to the general public).
@@MarcosElMalo2 i don't know why you call my opinion a "political bias", when I see no room for politics in archaeology. By "dragging their feet you can imagine e.g. Very fresh discovery of the corridor in the Great pyramid of Egypt, where some people suggested the corridor many years ago, then teams from at least four countries worked on it for like, eight years, only to come to a conclusion that they can push a tube for endoscopic camera through the cracks in the rock - and after that many years (some of those who suggested the same didn't live long enough to have their hunch confirmed) they "discover" it finally. I think this situation should give many mainstream archaeolgists some sobering thoughts about them being effectively a tool slowing down, suppressing and dragging their feet in so many areas where they basically represent "law" that an inquisitive mind cannot overcome. And I agree that they do all of this with good intentions; unfortunately the result is the reality we live in.
Yep. East Coast following wounded Mastadon deep into fla and west to new Mexico. I've got a translucent Clovis base. N of orange lake fla. Love it. My oldest child. 😆
Most criticism of this theory is that "it's racist." The idea that European people could have traveled to the Americas is immediately dismissed based on race. Despite the fact that the Polynesian people traveled to South America as evidence by the chicken.
@@martenkrueger8647 Obviously. But trade between the Polynesian people of the far East and the native people of Western South America. They could make it. Why couldn't the European seafarers of the time?
@@sidekick6371 There is an archeological site in Chile where the skeletons being dug up are showing the same characteristics of Australian aborigines, and the site is dated back 60,000 years. The aborigines discovered Australia 45 to 50 thousand years ago and we're known for their sailing abilities. My question is why not the coast of South America as well? The site shows non aboriginal groups moved in and began to compete for local resources, and the colony of aboriginal types eventually being killed off by outside groups. A carbon date of 60,000 years would be contrary to the preclovis timeline of less than 20,000 and coming from across the Bering straight from Asia. I think there are a lot of mysteries still left to be solved and adhering to just one theory and never considering another is not very scientific. If there is evidence that does not reinforce the accepted theory, it might be time to consider what that outlying evidence could mean. Is there more sites that could be dug deeper and produce these same type of artifacts? Who knows until an effort is made to dig deeper and to find out what is there. We will never have all the answers, and if we stop looking for answers we have given up the search for the truth.
I was thinking The Atlantic Ocean would have been narrower with lower sea levels back then due to the lack of 14000 years of sea floor spreading, it would have been a peace cake for the Solutreans
I don't know about "a piece of cake", but it definitely would have been doable. We have found out that Neanderthals coud sail. If they could do it, so could Solutreans. As you point out, the Atlantic was narrower at the time of the posited Solutrean voyage(s). We have found settlements on the now-submerged Celtic Shelf off France, Spain, and the British Isles. I believe that if we could explore the continental shelf off the US east coast, we would find evidence of a Solutrean presence in North America.
Being open-minded is the key to scientific endeavour and advancement. Continuously obliging group-think and concensus on experimental data is anathema to discovery and understanding. Dare to challenge convention. Go where the data leads. Until it is found, any conclusion is possible if supported by the facts. I am glad to see that independent-minded people are still able to function despite the over-arching paradigm of grant-funded research controlled by the old-guard and their cronyism. Refining without exploration exhausts resources.
Archaeology is one of the "softest sciences" that exists. To not have an open mind in a field that is plagued by hypotheticals blows me away. Science is very rarely ever settled.
@@WYO2K Archaeology requires a lot more scientific rigor because of the difficulties with collecting evidence and correctly analyzing it to draw correct conclusions. Through hard work and the development of new research techniques, a preponderance of evidence has upended the old models. You’re correct that science is contingent. “Scientific Consensus” is based on the best guesses at the time and is subject to change. Scientific consensus shifts over time as new evidence comes to light (or as new analysis techniques are used to re-examine old evidence).
I'm in Spring Hills Ohio and in the back of the property in the cornfield I found half of what looks like a fluted atlatl point I've looked at a lot of pictures and I've only found one representation of it. Where should I go to have it looked at?
Hey, Jeronimo. We'd recommend reaching out to Dr. Stanford directly if you have questions based on the presentation. Other folks may be able to jump in and answer your question here, but we'll leave it to the experts. Thanks!
Solutreans made it up the Susquehanna to the Wyoming Valley . Cached blades, shark teeth and an awl in the Wolves Den Rockshelter. Dug in 1931 by Carl Clausen. Pennsylvania Archaeologist V3No2 1933
That’s why the east coast is so densely populated with ancient people civilizations. And the more westward you go the sparser & sparser. No Clovis points in Alaska or the corridor, or in northern Russia ?(Kamchatka) they just made them up when they got here. But they are very similar to solutreans points
@frankmartin8471 maybe the "native americans" genocided the people there before, like the Fremont tribe that ceased to exist when the Utes moved into Utah after migrating north from the south. Many questions of how the "native" tribes actually obtained the lands they claim were stolen 🤷♀️
The criticism of this hypothesis is just so childish. It's disheartening seeing adult people and professionals being so narrow minded. With DNA links, behavioral links, same technology and cave art...even French prehistoric flint found in the U. S. the Solutrean hypothesis is by far the best evidenced of any immigration theory. And Stanford was one hell of a researcher...R.I.P.
jeeeeze bro, ...the skills required to make these points is stunning, ...have You ever tried to carve a rock? The examples here at lakehead U in ThunderBay are just awesome,deadly sharp and made with a precision that i find stunning. Thank YOU for the presentation.
Dennis Stanford right? I've got news for you. He's no longer with us, and the damage he did to New World archaeology will probably take a generation to undo. His "Solutrean" silliness is only the most egregious example.
@@indianasunsets5738 Yeah that's pretty much it. The academic 'community' has always been refuge for people who have been hurt or rejected by the religious right. While by itself that's a good thing, what happens is that it becomes an ideological monolith as the former 'heretics' create their own comforting orthodoxy. They define their own beliefs based upon what they oppose, and so there develops a pattern of retrenchment in which ideological purity increasingly becomes a 'litmus test' of legitimacy in the eyes of one's peers. Ideas become self-reinforcing. I say this as someone who went to school for anthropology by the way. It's a good path for people who want to learn why humans act the way they do!
@@randywright9571 he didn’t go with your narrative. So everything he does is nonsense? At least he doesn’t have tunnel vision and made sure u step up when the truth comes out that when u keep digging below your Clovis you will find pre Clovis usually every time. And when someone get the backing and some different new technology submerged under water excavations is where the really old stuff is hiding. Where the ancient pre sea level rise shoreline was. I garuntee your comment won’t age well
@@randywright9571 I think that’s a little harsh. He never had enough evidence to fully support the Solutrean hypothesis, but that doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t out there. Until such evidence is established (and it might never be), his theory remains one of the more conjectural ones. If he’s wrong (as seems likely, I agree), how is it damaging that he explored what turned out to be a dead end? Being wrong is just as important to the scientific method as being right.
Les, This presentation was given by Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. I would reach out to museum directly: naturalexperience@si.edu. Thank you!
Or even directly across oceans. As you know, the new thinking coming into acceptance (due to the mass of new evidence) is that people entered the Americas at multiple points and times. Exactly how and where isn’t established. Dennis Stanford might be wrong and the Solutrean hypothesis might be a dead end, but it’s an interesting idea that shouldn’t be completely discarded just because the evidence is incomplete.
Plausible, for sure. Still many gaps in findings (boats, DNA from skeletons, etc.) but the his hypothesis's such as following the fat makes perfect sense. Something I have always wondered about is that the coastline that may have held most of the settlements are now underwater and most likely obliterated from salt water, and storms....
The Ojibwe people have been genetically connected to a EUROPEAN WOMAN dating to 26,000 yrs old in America... That same EUROPEAN woman was also connected to ancient Basque remains... If you don't know, Basque people live in Iberia, same place the Solutreans are connected to...
I live in the lower Susquehanna! Down in southern PA. So close to where all this seems to have happened in MD. Amazing to know these people probably went up OUR river.
My family has folklore of the Susquehanna River and of being Iroquois. We are S French and Iberian, if my Grandma was right, yes my ancestors did in fact come up the Susquehanna!
Interesting presentation but totally refuted by most of European prehistorians. A little example (and I have plenty of them to refute seriously and with argumentation) of the fail in argumentation a specialist in lithic could demonstrate that the spanish (it is not actually Las Caldos but Las Caldas! imprecision) artefact are in reality pointes à faces planes with a concave base. They are not bifacially retouched (sometimes you have a retouch on ventral part to facilitate the flaking on the other side). The dorsal part is retouched to have a better angle for cutting (less than 35° is perfect). They don't have the typical convex-convex section of clovis points fully retouched on both sides, and finally the "partial flutage" is a consequence of no retouched areas exhibit the underside surface (dorsal part remaining of the blade or flake). Than the argument show an artefact technically totally different than the clovis points. They ressemble partially if you are not a lithician but it is a bad technical reading. The majority of spear points retrieved in Las Caldas were as in many solutrean sites, pointes à cran and we don't have any equivalent in Clovis culture. The laurel leafs are completely different of clovis points two, because they shows majorly flat surface because most of them were actually knifes and not spear points (what the largest and maybe middle sized clovis points seems to be with traceological studies). The argument of saying the retouching technique ressemble, it is poor because there are no thousand of methods to obtain thinning on a stone. The laws of conchoidal fracturation are the same if you are in Europe, Africa and America. Than the way to obtain long large flakes are similar. Is it the same technique, of course because it is a physical law of fracturation. Finally it is difficult to imagine human groups travelling on the ocean and with ice blocks during the maximal of the latest glaciation. Sorry for any english mistakes it is not my mother tongue.
“…..difficult to imagine people traveling over ice/along an ice coastline….”….mmmm…you need to get out more …humans have traveled by boats everywhere and I lived in Alaska and watch Eskimos hunt in skin boats for walruses and seals….no fear….early man went wherever he wanted to go on the water and lived off the sea….and people were in eastern North America 40000 years ago…they came from Europe….no doubt.
Of course for inuits but you can not compare navigation conditions during interglacial and during a real glaciation. See the extension of ice on the northern hemisphere during the würm. What are your archaeological argument to have no doubt that they came from Europe? Lithic argumentation have been seriously refuted.
I,ve heard before that the only other Clovis is found in southern France and northern Spain. if so ,maybe some came over and down the Bering Straight and other travelers came the same way the Vikings did. Clovis is Clovis and over a long period of time they mended together from both coasts with the same tech.
Wow. Did u just use LOGIC?? amazing. How many phd’s do you have? I think the more degrees you get the more logic you lose. Till there’s none left. Too bad the people who need to lose the tunnel vision are stuck on their narrative. Must be Russian disinformation. Just like the hunter laptop.
51:42 However, there is a 2,500+ year gap between Solutrean and Clovis that Stanford has yet to explain. Maybe evidence will be discovered to support the Solutrean hypothesis, maybe it won’t. Until then, the Solutrean hypothesis is one of the more conjectural ideas regarding how people arrived in the Americas. Stanford’s ideas fall under “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and that evidence has not yet been discovered.
This is excellent lecture with best diverse collections and show of the style of points yep people came here from east and west north and south do yourself a favor and watch it all!
The speaker did not not the Folsom find in the arroyo ( gulley, dry creek) was a black cow boy George Junking after a a big rain checking on cows who then reported to his boss who contacted a Archaeogist.
This guy grasps at hopes his people came across the Atlantic, but my DNA. Can be traced back to Lake Baikal in Asia to a woman who lived 24,000 years ago. My maternal DNA Haplogroup is A2f. The Anzick Child was unearthed in Montana was found with numerous Clovis points. He was dated to 12,600 ago. Well they sequenced his DNA in 2014 and it turns out the Anzick Child maternal DNA is A2f like mine! Keep hoping and grasping to rewrite your history in America! Haha!
They can blow so many holes in the Anzick boy theory. The anzick boy himself was not carbonated to 12,500 years ago. just the deer antler that was supposedly found near his body was. (Red flag) Then there's the fact that the body was supposedly found on the anthropologist's own property. (Red flag) Then you have to deal with Anzick boy 2 that only dates to 6500 years old that was found below Anzac boy 1. (Red flag) then you have to contend with the fact that Anzick boy 1 was only supposedly 12,500 years old, but we know Clovis points are 13,500 years old. (Red flag) Then you have to take into account that the carbon dating was done in 1968 (Red flag) And now all of the anzick boy remains have been culturally repatriated, and can no longer be re-studied (Red flag) Moreover, there were two sets of remains found, and only one were genetically tested and shown Asian DNA. (Red flag) Testing one person's dna, and deriving a whole country's ethnicity would be like me going to miami, and testing one person and saying, "yep, everybody in North America is Cuban". Sit down, and shut up.
The Ojibwe tribe was found to be connected to a 26,000 yr old EUROPEAN woman, Haplo group X... They found remains in Ancient Basque graves that connect to the same 26,000 yr old woman... I have S Ireland, French and Iberian DNA and my family has folklore of the Susquehanna River and being Iroquois Indian, hunted and ended up settling in a French colony where they passed for white. Most Native Americans cannot even be connected genetically to ancient remains, only Europeans carry Haplo group X. Understand this Europeans have covered the Earth and I look forward to your meltdown when the truth comes out.
@@MOEMUGGY Anzick-2 was found unassociated with Anzick-1, not underneath. But you are right there are various dates reported from Anzick-1. Some of them are equal to the antler at 13 kya. (between 12,795 and 1300, not 13,500) I find nothing saying that the land owners were archaeologists. Source/ citation? Some of your facts seem like they are not sourced reliably.
Well sir in 8 years since, we now know for sure, the mountain passage route to alamosa colorado, is the launching point of native America. 62k years ago then again 15k years ago during both ice ages, Neanderthal was trapped there with all the north American fauna? trapped also.
Finding the first people were these people came from dennis done that connection to siberia to here did not come in to later the aztec technology is siberian techniques that were done there so far the topper site is earlier than new mexico Minnesota and Yellowstone is much earlier than 18,000 one artifact there goes 24,000 some where there is a site that will predate this site due to the points being found the points are European decent boats did exist so many are still saying the came in from the frozen landbridge that is not true if that was true then there will be more activitie in the north than the southern regins
native Americans Are A myth as they were from Siberia and some Arabs period and red haired giants were here first so get over your bullshit, where do you think the bigfoot stories came from...yes the lndians found them here when they trespassed on their land.
The only reason Europeans have even come up in this conversation is because their skeletal remains have been found here, dating back to atleast 26,000 yrs old! It is kind of hard to fake that don't ya think?. It is so sad when hatred for a race is so strong that you try to deligitimize their history. The Ojibwe tribe has been genetically connected to that 26,000 yr old EUROPEAN woman, that same woman is also genetically connected to the Basque people of Iberia, same place the Solutreans were... Why do the Sioux wear a Life Rune? Runes are EUROPEAN. Why is native faith dam near identical to EUROPEAN paganism? Because IT IS EUROPEAN PAGANISM. We are taking our culture back, thank you for being so bold and dumb. It even states in native folklore that they weren't here first...
Rest In Peace Stanford, but I still think you’re wrong. The reason why less points are found in Canada and the Western US is because 1. They were trying to avoid the Rocky Mountains and the Great Basin. 2. Because they came from boats. If Solutreans could have came from boats, we couldn’t Siberians? If they used a coastal migration, they could of been here MUCH earlier, as they reached Mexico, they would start filling the continent, which is why you don’t see any points found in the West
Fine, sibereans came by boat, passed over the mountains without any trace, came to Mexico, absolutely forgot their own Siberian technology, invented un-situ new technology, which absolutely is similar to solutreans' one. On Atlantic cost the Siberiabs even made their tools from french flint. Great, you are right, they crossed Atlantic, gathered in France flint and returned back. Why not?
Hayden, you believe folks could come down the east coast in boats. With sea levels down 200 feet, perhaps there would be more islands. And if they can follow the coast line in boats, they certainly could have followed the coast, either land or glacial face, to reach North America.
Why do the Sioux tribe wear a Germanic Rune on their headdress? Runes are not Native American, they are EUROPEAN! Most of native american" culture was stolen from my people. That is why the Germanic paganism and native faith is so similar, because it is my culture!
Also, the Ojibwe tribe is genetically connected to a 26,000 yr old EUROPEAN WOMAN! That same woman has also been genetically connected to the Basque people of Iberia! The same place the Solutreans came from. Your time is running out. The truth will be told.
The new paradigm to adopt is admitting that the Solutrean hypothesis, among others, should never have been repressed in the first place...and therefore ending academic censorship entirely.
The enforcement of the conventional wisdom in anthropology/archeology in the past few decades is a form of corruption that was inexcusable.
And we see it in many other disciplines, as well.
It really bothers me that even scientist have their prejudices and refuse to see the evidence, that the Americas were populated, in many waves. Thank you Dr. Stanford for presenting truth.
Why does it bother you? Scientists are human, and engage in petty politics like everyone else. Science itself is never complete. It’s always the best guess pes based on established evidence. New evidence can take time to be accepted and new hypotheses based on new evidence gets tested. That’s how the scientific method works. Today’s heterodoxy is tomorrow’s orthodoxy.
Dr. Stanford isn’t presenting “the truth”. He’s presenting new models, models developed from the work he and many others have done. Don’t thank him for presenting “the truth”. Thank him instead for presenting the latest thinking and the latest findings. Science is always contingent.
RIP Mr. Stanford, such a loss.
Amazing presentation. In South Carolina and Georgia we are uncovering more and more ancient history of North America and it is exciting and astonishing all at once. It is starting to look like there was human life on this continent far more ancient than we ever thought. So much for the history books! I’ve never been so happy for the history books to be incomplete. I think we should leave the last 50 pages in history books blank to be filled from now on
Exactly. Who the heck give a exact demarcation date line when you know you haven’t done enough research or dig deep enough. And now you won’t admit you were wrong. Kinda like. Oh we are a 100% absolutely positive that the virus didn’t come from the wuhan lab. Guess what. It did. We’re absolutely sure the hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. Guess what. Wrong again. But they didn’t want anything to ruin the Biden narrative.
That’s like a homicide detective having tunnel vision and not following the evidence just going where he wants to go. Not logical and definitely harmful to the future of everything. But what do I know.
@@judd0112 ummmm….ok. What in the world are you talking about?
@@csluau5913 the academics won’t budge from their “is no pre-Clovis people,Clovis were the 1st.” U know the whole concept of the lecture. If u don’t know what tunnel vision is then nevermind
The academics are still sticking with the Clovis people were the 1st people in the americas. So the archeology isn’t complete if it ever can be. And they are saying no one was here prior to the Clovis people. And that’s what they are teaching kids/people in the history books. They have tunnel vision and won’t even look at any new evidence that doesn’t support the narrative they have declared as fact. Maybe you don’t recall your statement that history books were incorrect it was a while ago I think.
Master story teller 👍 Marvellous !
Thanks for sharing this excellent presentation by Dr. Stanford.
Steven Wilson yes, excellent. I second that,
@Harlem Barrett your a psycho
I'm not usually the picky one, LOVE the content but can't bare the continuous horrible audio in this instance.
Excellent lecture !
Great Presentation! I HOPE this "theory" becomes part of our historical "fact" very soon!
I am so happy to finally hear that the first people have always been here. And this is not the first video I have seen. Thank you so much 👏😉
Not always. They immigrated.
Not the first. The Solutrean hypothesis does not claim that.
No, not always. All inhabitants of The Americas are immigrants….
@41:16, a large part of Louisiana (Baton Rouge/Opelousas) are on the Pleistocene terrace, which is comprised of wind blown loess.
Great lecture. Thanks for posting.
Makes a lot of sense. The question is if the "experts in the field" of archeology aren't exactly those who are dragging their feet and thus slow down acceptance of new discoveries? This hypothesis makes so much sense that it is really strange that it is still supressed.
Because it upends the accepted history, and creates a situation where certain groups might not have been the first group, and in fact might have been the group that killed off or inter bred with the original group. Victimhood has become some sort of medal that is worn with pride, and if it came out that they themselves were genocidal conquerors to the exact same group that had been chosen as villains later in history, then their victim status would be completely erased. The fact that the entire planet was populated by the same process never seems to register with them. The meeting of two cultures with such a difference in technology, the results were inevitable.
@@williamadams8353 exactly. You are spelling out the most likely reason why it is still supressed. I should change the words "strange that" to "obvious why".
@@williamadams8353 exactly. What legitimate archeologist would declare that 100% the Clovis were the 1st people in the americas that’s illogical. That’s the major reason they suddenly stop digging any deeper at sites with artifacts below Clovis timeline. It happened here in Connecticut a couple years ago. They were building a new bridge across a historic local river and had previously found artifacts dating to 5-8000 +/- years ago and this happened decades ago when a local archaeologist was a young student and they were told to stop digging. Well now 30+/- years later they were putting a new abutment under the bridge and due to its previous artifact history they deemed it sensitive and had archeologists inspect beforehand and this was his chance to dig as deep as he wanted cause he was now the head archaeologist for the state of CONNECTICUT and they dug like 8-9 meters probably a couple meters past where they were told to stop previously and bingo. They found artifacts dating 13,000-14,000 years old. And they could have still kept digging but for some reason stopped again.
It’s not being suppressed. You’re imposing your conspiracy theories and your own political bias on the scientific method and the workings of the scientific community. Scientific models change as new evidence is discovered. Science moves forward in fits and starts; yesterday’s heterodoxy becomes tomorrow’s orthodoxy. The rest of society takes time to catch up (which is the purpose of these presentations of new findings to the general public).
@@MarcosElMalo2 i don't know why you call my opinion a "political bias", when I see no room for politics in archaeology. By "dragging their feet you can imagine e.g. Very fresh discovery of the corridor in the Great pyramid of Egypt, where some people suggested the corridor many years ago, then teams from at least four countries worked on it for like, eight years, only to come to a conclusion that they can push a tube for endoscopic camera through the cracks in the rock - and after that many years (some of those who suggested the same didn't live long enough to have their hunch confirmed) they "discover" it finally. I think this situation should give many mainstream archaeolgists some sobering thoughts about them being effectively a tool slowing down, suppressing and dragging their feet in so many areas where they basically represent "law" that an inquisitive mind cannot overcome. And I agree that they do all of this with good intentions; unfortunately the result is the reality we live in.
Fascinating analysis. This certainly makes more sense than the Bering land bridge populating of the Americas originally. Thanks!
Qi
Yep. East Coast following wounded Mastadon deep into fla and west to new Mexico. I've got a translucent Clovis base. N of orange lake fla. Love it. My oldest child. 😆
Awesome job doc! Love it!
AWESOME!!!
I really like this guy
I like his talks. Always interesting.
RIP Dr. Stanford
Most criticism of this theory is that "it's racist." The idea that European people could have traveled to the Americas is immediately dismissed based on race. Despite the fact that the Polynesian people traveled to South America as evidence by the chicken.
And the sweet potato.
And maybe chicken got here by trade?
@@martenkrueger8647 Obviously. But trade between the Polynesian people of the far East and the native people of Western South America. They could make it. Why couldn't the European seafarers of the time?
@@sidekick6371 There is an archeological site in Chile where the skeletons being dug up are showing the same characteristics of Australian aborigines, and the site is dated back 60,000 years. The aborigines discovered Australia 45 to 50 thousand years ago and we're known for their sailing abilities. My question is why not the coast of South America as well? The site shows non aboriginal groups moved in and began to compete for local resources, and the colony of aboriginal types eventually being killed off by outside groups. A carbon date of 60,000 years would be contrary to the preclovis timeline of less than 20,000 and coming from across the Bering straight from Asia. I think there are a lot of mysteries still left to be solved and adhering to just one theory and never considering another is not very scientific. If there is evidence that does not reinforce the accepted theory, it might be time to consider what that outlying evidence could mean. Is there more sites that could be dug deeper and produce these same type of artifacts? Who knows until an effort is made to dig deeper and to find out what is there. We will never have all the answers, and if we stop looking for answers we have given up the search for the truth.
@@sidekick6371 Polynesinas were over 20,000 years after the Solutreans.
I was thinking The Atlantic Ocean would have been narrower with lower sea levels back then due to the lack of 14000 years of sea floor spreading, it would have been a peace cake for the Solutreans
I don't know about "a piece of cake", but it definitely would have been doable. We have found out that Neanderthals coud sail. If they could do it, so could Solutreans. As you point out, the Atlantic was narrower at the time of the posited Solutrean voyage(s).
We have found settlements on the now-submerged Celtic Shelf off France, Spain, and the British Isles. I believe that if we could explore the continental shelf off the US east coast, we would find evidence of a Solutrean presence in North America.
Being open-minded is the key to scientific endeavour and advancement. Continuously obliging group-think and concensus on experimental data is anathema to discovery and understanding. Dare to challenge convention. Go where the data leads. Until it is found, any conclusion is possible if supported by the facts. I am glad to see that independent-minded people are still able to function despite the over-arching paradigm of grant-funded research controlled by the old-guard and their cronyism. Refining without exploration exhausts resources.
Archaeology is one of the "softest sciences" that exists. To not have an open mind in a field that is plagued by hypotheticals blows me away. Science is very rarely ever settled.
Nope they got tunnel vision before the even looked at everything. Number one rule of what not to do
@@WYO2K Archaeology requires a lot more scientific rigor because of the difficulties with collecting evidence and correctly analyzing it to draw correct conclusions. Through hard work and the development of new research techniques, a preponderance of evidence has upended the old models. You’re correct that science is contingent. “Scientific Consensus” is based on the best guesses at the time and is subject to change. Scientific consensus shifts over time as new evidence comes to light (or as new analysis techniques are used to re-examine old evidence).
I'm in Spring Hills Ohio and in the back of the property in the cornfield I found half of what looks like a fluted atlatl point I've looked at a lot of pictures and I've only found one representation of it. Where should I go to have it looked at?
Hey, Jeronimo. We'd recommend reaching out to Dr. Stanford directly if you have questions based on the presentation. Other folks may be able to jump in and answer your question here, but we'll leave it to the experts. Thanks!
Solutreans made it up the Susquehanna to the Wyoming Valley . Cached blades, shark teeth and an awl in the Wolves Den Rockshelter. Dug in 1931 by Carl Clausen. Pennsylvania Archaeologist V3No2 1933
But the Solutreans in Wyoming left none of their DNA in their Native American descendants. Very interesting.
That’s why the east coast is so densely populated with ancient people civilizations. And the more westward you go the sparser & sparser. No Clovis points in Alaska or the corridor, or in northern Russia ?(Kamchatka) they just made them up when they got here. But they are very similar to solutreans points
@@frankmartin8471 Maybe one was not attracted.
Must be another wave of peoples moving with the changes of habitats. Ice ages were cyclical.
@frankmartin8471 maybe the "native americans" genocided the people there before, like the Fremont tribe that ceased to exist when the Utes moved into Utah after migrating north from the south. Many questions of how the "native" tribes actually obtained the lands they claim were stolen 🤷♀️
The paradigm keeps shifting.
The criticism of this hypothesis is just so childish. It's disheartening seeing adult people and professionals being so narrow minded. With DNA links, behavioral links, same technology and cave art...even French prehistoric flint found in the U. S. the Solutrean hypothesis is by far the best evidenced of any immigration theory. And Stanford was one hell of a researcher...R.I.P.
What DNA links? Genomic studies of Native Americans rule out any genetic influence from Africa, Europe or any other population before 1492.
@@frankmartin8471 Watch the video dude
Hold on, who says they're walking West?
Maybe the camera is north of the walkers.
Salutrean people! Yes!
Did Stanford ever consider the hypothesis that Solutrean in Europe came from the US, not the other way around?
Ring of fire 🔥 on Calafonua . Great chanle . Like on the outdoor findes not the coutch chanle .
jeeeeze bro, ...the skills required to make these points is stunning, ...have You ever tried to carve a rock?
The examples here at lakehead U in ThunderBay are just awesome,deadly sharp and made with a precision that i find stunning.
Thank YOU for the presentation.
Knapp flint Chert obsidian horn stone u don't carve rocks or points
@@robertayoder2063 Lol noted for future reference thank you
@@-LightningRod- sure
Awesome. I buy in! Nice North American Solutrean points.
All this great work did not hire a soundman from any local nightclub is sad . It's hard to sit thru this , it robs great presentations.
Severely beaten up for that lame idea. I love how he keeps his humor while other scientists scoff. That’s b/c he knows he’s right.
Dennis Stanford right? I've got news for you. He's no longer with us, and the damage he did to New World archaeology will probably take a generation to undo. His "Solutrean" silliness is only the most egregious example.
@@randywright9571 in other words, he didn't reinforce your political ideas.
@@indianasunsets5738 Yeah that's pretty much it. The academic 'community' has always been refuge for people who have been hurt or rejected by the religious right. While by itself that's a good thing, what happens is that it becomes an ideological monolith as the former 'heretics' create their own comforting orthodoxy. They define their own beliefs based upon what they oppose, and so there develops a pattern of retrenchment in which ideological purity increasingly becomes a 'litmus test' of legitimacy in the eyes of one's peers. Ideas become self-reinforcing. I say this as someone who went to school for anthropology by the way. It's a good path for people who want to learn why humans act the way they do!
@@randywright9571 he didn’t go with your narrative. So everything he does is nonsense? At least he doesn’t have tunnel vision and made sure u step up when the truth comes out that when u keep digging below your Clovis you will find pre Clovis usually every time. And when someone get the backing and some different new technology submerged under water excavations is where the really old stuff is hiding. Where the ancient pre sea level rise shoreline was. I garuntee your comment won’t age well
@@randywright9571 I think that’s a little harsh. He never had enough evidence to fully support the Solutrean hypothesis, but that doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t out there. Until such evidence is established (and it might never be), his theory remains one of the more conjectural ones. If he’s wrong (as seems likely, I agree), how is it damaging that he explored what turned out to be a dead end? Being wrong is just as important to the scientific method as being right.
I found a site in south Jersey.
Can you tell me how old these
Artifacts are. Effigies axes. I need to know what period. Delaware
River. South Jersey.
Les, This presentation was given by Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. I would reach out to museum directly: naturalexperience@si.edu. Thank you!
What does the Pre-Historic Ocean current look like in the pacific?
Much the same as it is today ~norghern hem clockwise Japan aluetians alaska bc pacicific nw down
I've always believed they came from many directions by boat along the coast line
Or even directly across oceans. As you know, the new thinking coming into acceptance (due to the mass of new evidence) is that people entered the Americas at multiple points and times. Exactly how and where isn’t established. Dennis Stanford might be wrong and the Solutrean hypothesis might be a dead end, but it’s an interesting idea that shouldn’t be completely discarded just because the evidence is incomplete.
I come from the hole in the ground where all natives come from we have always been here from the beginning
me too!
Plausible, for sure. Still many gaps in findings (boats, DNA from skeletons, etc.) but the his hypothesis's such as following the fat makes perfect sense. Something I have always wondered about is that the coastline that may have held most of the settlements are now underwater and most likely obliterated from salt water, and storms....
The Ojibwe people have been genetically connected to a EUROPEAN WOMAN dating to 26,000 yrs old in America... That same EUROPEAN woman was also connected to ancient Basque remains... If you don't know, Basque people live in Iberia, same place the Solutreans are connected to...
@@robynpruitt1116 Basque and other pre-Indo European people may be related to most Americans by a shared ancestry with ancient Siberians.
Fishing boats have been hauling up megafauna bones and who knows what else from Doggerland for decades.
dr stanfordn if you read thisi i live on the upper susquehanna were they here
I live in the lower Susquehanna! Down in southern PA. So close to where all this seems to have happened in MD. Amazing to know these people probably went up OUR river.
My family has folklore of the Susquehanna River and of being Iroquois. We are S French and Iberian, if my Grandma was right, yes my ancestors did in fact come up the Susquehanna!
Interesting presentation but totally refuted by most of European prehistorians. A little example (and I have plenty of them to refute seriously and with argumentation) of the fail in argumentation a specialist in lithic could demonstrate that the spanish (it is not actually Las Caldos but Las Caldas! imprecision) artefact are in reality pointes à faces planes with a concave base. They are not bifacially retouched (sometimes you have a retouch on ventral part to facilitate the flaking on the other side). The dorsal part is retouched to have a better angle for cutting (less than 35° is perfect). They don't have the typical convex-convex section of clovis points fully retouched on both sides, and finally the "partial flutage" is a consequence of no retouched areas exhibit the underside surface (dorsal part remaining of the blade or flake). Than the argument show an artefact technically totally different than the clovis points. They ressemble partially if you are not a lithician but it is a bad technical reading. The majority of spear points retrieved in Las Caldas were as in many solutrean sites, pointes à cran and we don't have any equivalent in Clovis culture. The laurel leafs are completely different of clovis points two, because they shows majorly flat surface because most of them were actually knifes and not spear points (what the largest and maybe middle sized clovis points seems to be with traceological studies). The argument of saying the retouching technique ressemble, it is poor because there are no thousand of methods to obtain thinning on a stone. The laws of conchoidal fracturation are the same if you are in Europe, Africa and America. Than the way to obtain long large flakes are similar. Is it the same technique, of course because it is a physical law of fracturation. Finally it is difficult to imagine human groups travelling on the ocean and with ice blocks during the maximal of the latest glaciation. Sorry for any english mistakes it is not my mother tongue.
“…..difficult to imagine people traveling over ice/along an ice coastline….”….mmmm…you need to get out more …humans have traveled by boats everywhere and I lived in Alaska and watch Eskimos hunt in skin boats for walruses and seals….no fear….early man went wherever he wanted to go on the water and lived off the sea….and people were in eastern North America 40000 years ago…they came from Europe….no doubt.
Of course for inuits but you can not compare navigation conditions during interglacial and during a real glaciation. See the extension of ice on the northern hemisphere during the würm. What are your archaeological argument to have no doubt that they came from Europe? Lithic argumentation have been seriously refuted.
I,ve heard before that the only other Clovis is found in southern France and northern Spain. if so ,maybe some came over and down the Bering Straight and other travelers came the same way the Vikings did. Clovis is Clovis and over a long period of time they mended together from both coasts with the same tech.
Wow. Did u just use LOGIC?? amazing. How many phd’s do you have? I think the more degrees you get the more logic you lose. Till there’s none left. Too bad the people who need to lose the tunnel vision are stuck on their narrative. Must be Russian disinformation. Just like the hunter laptop.
51:42
However, there is a 2,500+ year gap between Solutrean and Clovis that Stanford has yet to explain. Maybe evidence will be discovered to support the Solutrean hypothesis, maybe it won’t. Until then, the Solutrean hypothesis is one of the more conjectural ideas regarding how people arrived in the Americas. Stanford’s ideas fall under “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and that evidence has not yet been discovered.
We find those bi- pointed solutrean knife blades in situ with Folsom points at a bison and camel kill site here in the desert
Overshot flaking isn't accidental.I do it all the time for 40 years
Good for you
@@duanehopland7506 So you’re saying it’s likely to have been developed and used by different groups at different times, yes?
This is excellent lecture with best diverse collections and show of the style of points yep people came here from east and west north and south do yourself a favor and watch it all!
The speaker did not not the Folsom find in the arroyo ( gulley, dry creek) was a black cow boy George Junking after a a big rain checking on cows who then reported to his boss who contacted a Archaeogist.
sound guy your fired! lol
This guy grasps at hopes his people came across the Atlantic, but my DNA. Can be traced back to Lake Baikal in Asia to a woman who lived 24,000 years ago. My maternal DNA Haplogroup is A2f. The Anzick Child was unearthed in Montana was found with numerous Clovis points. He was dated to 12,600 ago.
Well they sequenced his DNA in 2014 and it turns out the Anzick Child maternal DNA is A2f like mine!
Keep hoping and grasping to rewrite your history in America! Haha!
They can blow so many holes in the Anzick boy theory.
The anzick boy himself was not carbonated to 12,500 years ago. just the deer antler that was supposedly found near his body was. (Red flag)
Then there's the fact that the body was supposedly found on the anthropologist's own property. (Red flag)
Then you have to deal with Anzick boy 2 that only dates to 6500 years old that was found below Anzac boy 1. (Red flag)
then you have to contend with the fact that Anzick boy 1 was only supposedly 12,500 years old, but we know Clovis points are 13,500 years old. (Red flag)
Then you have to take into account that the carbon dating was done in 1968 (Red flag)
And now all of the anzick boy remains have been culturally repatriated, and can no longer be re-studied (Red flag)
Moreover, there were two sets of remains found, and only one were genetically tested and shown Asian DNA. (Red flag)
Testing one person's dna, and deriving a whole country's ethnicity would be like me going to miami, and testing one person and saying, "yep, everybody in North America is Cuban".
Sit down, and shut up.
@@MOEMUGGY I cannot like this reply enough!
The Ojibwe tribe was found to be connected to a 26,000 yr old EUROPEAN woman, Haplo group X... They found remains in Ancient Basque graves that connect to the same 26,000 yr old woman... I have S Ireland, French and Iberian DNA and my family has folklore of the Susquehanna River and being Iroquois Indian, hunted and ended up settling in a French colony where they passed for white. Most Native Americans cannot even be connected genetically to ancient remains, only Europeans carry Haplo group X.
Understand this Europeans have covered the Earth and I look forward to your meltdown when the truth comes out.
@@MOEMUGGY Anzick-2 was found unassociated with Anzick-1, not underneath.
But you are right there are various dates reported from Anzick-1. Some of them are equal to the antler at 13 kya. (between 12,795 and 1300, not 13,500)
I find nothing saying that the land owners were archaeologists. Source/ citation? Some of your facts seem like they are not sourced reliably.
Well sir in 8 years since, we now know for sure, the mountain passage route to alamosa colorado, is the launching point of native America. 62k years ago then again 15k years ago during both ice ages, Neanderthal was trapped there with all the north American fauna? trapped also.
This is what public school students would find helpful
it can't have the real story as long as clovis first is the mantra and must be protected at all cost.
Finding the first people were these people came from dennis done that connection to siberia to here did not come in to later the aztec technology is siberian techniques that were done there so far the topper site is earlier than new mexico Minnesota and Yellowstone is much earlier than 18,000 one artifact there goes 24,000 some where there is a site that will predate this site due to the points being found the points are European decent boats did exist so many are still saying the came in from the frozen landbridge that is not true if that was true then there will be more activitie in the north than the southern regins
All points found make great...collections, and great jewelry....just saying.
RIP Doctor
Yikes...just found this 2023..um Dear chap RIP
There was no people on Earth 20,000 years ago.
There was no people on Earth 10,000 years ago.
Stop. Just stop. You're making yourself look ignorant.
Interesting , similar to Native American
Speaker needs a pop filter.
Touch the lecturn, bang on it for emphasis, and you make a very distracting noise...
Clovis created everything.
Yet the Solutreans created the Clovis...
Do you know about the Child skull in Taber , Alberta
From France! That's the ones. Pre paleo people.
Yes Maam!!!
Holy Shi_! A bomb! Well. 😆
Zuni's were created here along with other Tribes , except for the nomedic tribes
Yeah very over the border
Horrible audio quality.
Not a wind storm it was a flood of melting glaciers
stanford is to Native Americans what columbus was to the Aztecs and the Incas and Mayas.
native Americans Are A myth as they were from Siberia and some Arabs period and red haired giants were here first so get over your bullshit, where do you think the bigfoot stories came from...yes the lndians found them here when they trespassed on their land.
@@larryhanshew5173 thank you for reply, even though it is racist a SShit
@@larryhanshew5173 haa you had to delete my reply to your comment but i don't delete your racist comment lolol
@@larryhanshew5173 thanks for reply, even though your comment is racist AF
when I hear the dna studies, it totally contradicts, the atlantic crossing who is right, ??? eroupean love to be first, ???
The only reason Europeans have even come up in this conversation is because their skeletal remains have been found here, dating back to atleast 26,000 yrs old! It is kind of hard to fake that don't ya think?. It is so sad when hatred for a race is so strong that you try to deligitimize their history. The Ojibwe tribe has been genetically connected to that 26,000 yr old EUROPEAN woman, that same woman is also genetically connected to the Basque people of Iberia, same place the Solutreans were... Why do the Sioux wear a Life Rune? Runes are EUROPEAN. Why is native faith dam near identical to EUROPEAN paganism? Because IT IS EUROPEAN PAGANISM. We are taking our culture back, thank you for being so bold and dumb. It even states in native folklore that they weren't here first...
There is so far no support for a major European contribution to Paleoindians. There is evidence for later arrivals (Vikings)
3 minutes and I give up. Get someone to reprocesses sound and reload video.
Rest In Peace Stanford, but I still think you’re wrong. The reason why less points are found in Canada and the Western US is because 1. They were trying to avoid the Rocky Mountains and the Great Basin. 2. Because they came from boats. If Solutreans could have came from boats, we couldn’t Siberians? If they used a coastal migration, they could of been here MUCH earlier, as they reached Mexico, they would start filling the continent, which is why you don’t see any points found in the West
Fine, sibereans came by boat, passed over the mountains without any trace, came to Mexico, absolutely forgot their own Siberian technology, invented un-situ new technology, which absolutely is similar to solutreans' one. On Atlantic cost the Siberiabs even made their tools from french flint. Great, you are right, they crossed Atlantic, gathered in France flint and returned back. Why not?
@@Ladoyar77 why are you both ignoring finds in the Rockies, Clovis and before
Hayden, you believe folks could come down the east coast in boats. With sea levels down 200 feet, perhaps there would be more islands. And if they can follow the coast line in boats, they certainly could have followed the coast, either land or glacial face, to reach North America.
I've got more points than you found at the TN River
SMITHSONIAN CANT BE WRONG
THEY ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST
Smithsonian "loses" artifacts? No way!
is this guy trying to say archaeologists are idiots? we already know that. i will rebury my points before i leave them to any museum.
too bad hes puffing into the microphone
The same disrespect to Natives and the ancients as Ales Hrdlicka from way back in the day…. Across Atlantic Ice was garbage
Why do the Sioux tribe wear a Germanic Rune on their headdress? Runes are not Native American, they are EUROPEAN! Most of native american" culture was stolen from my people. That is why the Germanic paganism and native faith is so similar, because it is my culture!
Also, the Ojibwe tribe is genetically connected to a 26,000 yr old EUROPEAN WOMAN! That same woman has also been genetically connected to the Basque people of Iberia! The same place the Solutreans came from. Your time is running out. The truth will be told.
Hilarious
Good video but I give the sound engineer, such as he was, an F.
How many people are going to post basically the same material? Enough already.
Lip smack
Why censure the letter? As adults , and with the events taking place since 2020 by the biden administration, I am prepared to face anything.