Cinmar Blade

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH


Re: Cinmar Blade

Postby Minimalist » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:04 pm

Once again, this fellow is setting up a straw man argument by suggesting a trans-Atlantic "migration" and peopling of the Americas by Europeans. I simply cannot recall Stanford making such an assertion and I've heard him numerous times on the issue. The idea of small groups of hunters working along the ice is not a "migration." Further, the concept of the inherent differences between Siberian and Solutrean technology remains to the anathema of the Clovis-Firsters....who seem to be trying for a comeback!

Further,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.


If this is true then we are left seeking an answer for how it got there. Let's not get into African and European swallows, you know.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Cinmar Blade

Postby shawomet » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:37 am

This thread from another forum discusses the two blades that were made of French flint. The one that was removed from the sample by Stanford was found beneath the foundation of a colonial era chimney. It really begs the question of why an English settler to Va. would do such a thing, but out of an abundance of caution, Stanford removed it from the bipoint sample.

Look at page 1 of this thread to see photos of one of the two bipoints found to be made of French chert. It's the blade that's in two pieces and patinated white. Both blades made of French flint were found relatively near each other, but not at the same sites.

Also note that some of the blades in Stanford's sample were found in a pre-Clovis context, so they are not later examples from the Holocene......

https://arrowheads.com/index.php/forum/ ... t?start=15

"In “Bipoints before Clovis” Hranicky describes a Solutrean-like point as “found in a 1980 Browning Farm Site (44CC8) excavation in Virginia (Buchanan and Owen 1981)” and also as “found in the Epps [sic] Island site” and that it was “found in a trash pit”. He cites XRF fingerprinting by the Smithsonian as a “near perfect match” to French gunflint material and cites “Bradley 2012” as a reference. He doesn’t specifically say French “Grand Pressigny” flint, but I would assume that’s what he means. Hranicky provides a picture on page 169 which I probably shouldn’t publish for copyright reasons but I can send you it by e-mail if it helps.

It is nevertheless very clearly the same biface as in Clovisoid’s picture, which I would agree is the second example (of claimed French flint). Hranicky adds a caption to the picture saying that it shows “recent breakage” and that the patination shows that “one face was up” during its burial prehistory/deposition.

He adds some confusion by then citing Howard MacCord (Buchanan & Owen 1981): “Its outer surface is patinated with a thick white layer of corrosion products. It had been broken before burial since two small slivers of the stone are missing and the two larger pieces were physically separated about 2 feet when found.”

The confusion arises in part from the apparent contradiction between “recent breakage” and “broken before burial”. Further confusion arises from citing “Bradley 2012” as a reference since it could be (and has incorrectly been) read as referring to the last-minute note on page 110 of “Across Atlantic Ice”. That wasn’t Hranricky’s intention and the note is in any case clearly attributed to Stanford, not Bradley. Stanford’s note describes a completely different point, which I believe was the “first” (of claimed French flint). He describes it as found “in the 1970’s” [other sources specifically say 1971, which is ten years earlier than the point Hranicky describes] from “archaeological excavation of a 17th Century colonial homestead on Eppes island, Virginia” [ie the same general locality as the second point] and found “below a clay chimney” [ie different circumstances]. He references “Grand Pressigny” flint specifically rather than just “French” with regard to the results of the XRF testing. There’s no mention of it being broken and Stanford doesn’t provide a picture.

I think it’s this first point mentioned by Stanford for which we don’t have a picture or any better formal documentation (as far as I know). I believe that although he included the brief last-minute note in his book as it was going to press, he subsequently reconsidered the wisdom of using that point as further evidence because of the uncertain provenience which has the potential to “taint” other evidence on a “guilt by association” basis . He hints at that in the note by saying it couldn’t be ruled out as a 17th Century colonial import for example although I would say it’s pretty unlikely to have come in with flint ballast in a ship as some have suggested. The island was largely settled by the British, which some have taken as an indication that the point wasn’t imported from France, but that neglects the fact that the Solutreans spread from France to Britain – albeit in very limited numbers (as well as to Portugal and Spain). British-found Palaeo artefacts made from French lithics are – in general – not that uncommon.

My take is that Stanford lost interest in the point for those reasons (again, he hints at that in the note by saying it’s “not the smoking gun” but “an intriguing piece of evidence”, however its brief mention in the book nevertheless established it in many minds as the “only” example (of claimed French flint) at the time because the 1981 example wasn’t mentioned at all. I would presume that was because the detailed assessment of its characteristics (which were not initiated until much later) were not ready in time for the publication deadline.

It’s easy to see how the confusion might have arisen.

The circumstances of the second find were published in “The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County: Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Randolph M. Owen - Quarterly Bulletin Archeological, Society of Virginia. Vol. 35, No. 3 (March 1981), pp. 139-158” but I don’t know of a free source for that and haven’t read it myself. I don’t know why Hranicky quotes MacCord when it was Buchanan & Owen’s paper. Maybe MacCord provided an introduction to the paper or editorial comment in the bulletin."
Last edited by shawomet on Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
shawomet
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Cinmar Blade

Postby shawomet » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:55 am

The broken blade in this photo is the 2nd of the two blades made of French flint. This is not the one found beneath a colonial foundation....

And to learn more about its' recovery, see:

The circumstances of the second find were published in “The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County: Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Randolph M. Owen - Quarterly Bulletin Archeological, Society of Virginia. Vol. 35, No. 3 (March 1981), pp. 139-158”. I have never found a published photo of the first blade made of French flint-the Epps Island blade, the one found beneath a 17th century colonial chimney.

As far as "migration" vs. hunting, Stanford feels Clovis technology developed out of Solutrean. And that that development occurred in the Delmarva region. I don't think he takes it beyond that. Obviously, they had to actually be here to do that. It does seem in favor with simple odds that if there was arrival in Delmarva from across Atlantic ice, that some of those hunters might have remained here. In which case, I have no problem saying they "moved" here. If the problem is an objection to the notion of say 100 boatloads of Solutreans setting out for a brave new world, then yeah, that's askew.
But I think Stanford visualizes at least some of these hunters remaining on these shores. And unless they're camping out only on their boats, then they're living here, in the Americas. At that point, I don't understand why they can 't be seen as migrants, whether they see themselves that way or not.
Attachments
image.jpg
image.jpg (49.01 KiB) Viewed 4392 times
shawomet
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: Cinmar Blade

Postby Minimalist » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:57 pm

Call it a pet peeve, Shaw. "Migration" implies, or can easily be misconstrued as implying, an intent to do so.

Now, the thing with technology is that it is transferable. One man can show another how to do something probably in fairly short order. Not all that far south of Virginia is Al Goodyear's Topper site in South Carolina which he dates to pre-Clovis and 50,000 ybp. Then there is Meadowcroft somewhat north and west. And Buttermilk Creek in Texas. The fact that the Clovis-Firsters don't like these sites proves nothing. They are there....and that's without even considering Mexico.

Thanks for the explanation on the knife. I did not realize there were two.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona


Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest