Talk:Solutrean hypothesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

First proposed 1998? Try 1892

It's a very old idea, given a resurgence in 1998. "Although this hypothesis has been around for more than a century (Abbott 1892; Fischel 1939; Greenman 1960, 1963; Hibben 1941; Jelinek 1971), its recent resurgence was inspired by purported similarities between the artifact assemblages of Solutrean Paleolithic foragers (23,500–20,000 cal ൻඉ) and Clovis Paleoindians"[1] Time to rewrite the lead (well, the body of the article first I guess). Doug Weller talk 11:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just noticing the same thing. Here is a source attributing the recognition of similarities to Renaud in 1931.[2] I am going to take 1998 out of the lead. It is worth putting some of the archeological history into the body, but I don't have the sources to do that (the source linked might be good for that, but I am only seeing scattered pages in the preview).

And speaking of sources, why is ref 4 stuck in the middle of a prepositional phrase, as if it was documentiing the word "the"? I don't have access to the full article to tell what it says, and hence what it was inserted to document, but it shouldn't be there, at that specific spot. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is where the source was first inserted. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I decided to just remove it, since the specific claim it was used to support has been removed. Agricolae (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Solutreans not white

"The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today." [3] Kortoso (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't actually about them, that would be Solutrean, it isn't relevant here. And I can't see how it matters. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Having discovered how important this hypothesis is to American racists, I now see how it very much matters. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a genetic expert, but if you moved a bunch of Nigerians to Sweden in a few thousand years they would likely evolve to be white-skinned. And if you moved a bunch of Swedes to Nigeria in a few thousand years they would likely evolve to be black-skinned. Smallchief (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverse travel

After reading this article, particularly the genetic evidence and most specifically haplogroup R1, it occurs to me that the ancestors who came across from Asia on the land bridge may have gone in several directions, south, southeast and maybe some of them continued on to the east to enter Europe. Is there anything in the sources that might indicate that we may have the direction of travel reversed?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you might be right. The people of the Mal'ta-Buret' culture make up about one-third of American Indian DNA. They're from the central part of Siberia. It seems likely that some of the Mal'ta people mixed their seed with the proto-East Asians and migrated across the Bering Strait. Likewise, the Mal'ta might have been related to people living in Europe or moved eastward into northern Europe. This would have happened 20,000 plus years ago.

Then there is this curious, apparent genetic similarity between the Surui of the Amazon basin and the people in New Guinea and the Andamnan islands. The geneticists speculate that the Surui and the folks in New Guinea had a common ancestor in East Asia 20,000 or more years ago, and that one group migrated north and eventually to the Americas and the other group south to New Guinea and thereabouts.

Both those scenarios are far more probable in my opinion than the Solutrean hypothesis. Smallchief (talk 01:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes it even harder to believe that, given the evidence, we are the only ones who see a reverse-Solutrean hypothesis as far more likely than this article's premise. A good source other than us genius editors needs to be found so it may be added to the article as the Mal'tese hypothesis or whatever the source may call it. But to be honest, they both sound far-fetched simply because of the sparse distribution of haplogroup Q in Europe and N. Africa. And those sparse distributions may have been more likely the result of a westward hike out of Old Russia.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Mal'ta? Doug Weller talk 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Section heading titles - challenges or issues?

@Paddy Plunkett: you might not have liked my explanation, but I did give one in the edit summary and your revert suggested I'd left it blank. Neither section is entirely about challenges, for a start. The sections discuss issues, not simply "challenges". Doug Weller talk 19:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this new account is a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

New documentary likely to get new editors here

[http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-under-fire-for-documentary-that-says-first-humans-to-colonize-new-world-sailed-from-europe "CBC under fire for documentary that says first humans to colonize New World sailed from Europe". This discusses some of the racist users of the hypothesis. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also see this. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A podcast discussion with geneticist Jennifer Raff on Haplogroup X and claims for the SH

here. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations a mess

The citations in this article are a mess. One sentence (fourth paragraph) has nine citations. There is also a paragraph in which the same named reference is used three times (fifth paragraph in Genetic issues section). Several different styles of formatting a citation are used in the article. I am willing to work on it, but I am looking for a consensus on what style of citation to use, and I am not willing to decide on my own which citations are essential and which are redundant. - Donald Albury 11:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned things up. Not saying the current content of the article is the best, or that the citations used are the best/appropriate (I claim no expertise here), but style-wise, things are now much more consistent. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppenheimer quote

@BradT123: please read this article. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"European" mitochondrial DNA in one NE American tribe?

I watched a documentary several years back (on a usually well-informed channel) with some information that I'm trying to piece together with the information provided in the article: Supposedly, Native Americans had four types of mitochondrial DNA, a rare one of which was found only with members from one tribe in the North East of North America (USA?!)... which was identical to Europeans mitochondrial DNA... and which allowed (due to relatively regular mutations) to point to several thousands of years (16,000???) as the period of time, before which the ancestors of the Native Americans should have had (some small) genetic influence from Europeans. In other words, no Europeans founding some American civilization, but rather a hint to some forlorn souls leaving genetic traces in the Native American gene pool.

My question is: Is this information accurate (or parts of it)? How does it fit to the article - has this finding been refuted (I assume the first paragraph of the genetics section speaks to it, although it essentially gives no reason as to why researchers assume that all "four main mtDNA haplogroups" were "part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population")? Or is it a separate, still valid hypothesis? ... Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That was probably Haplogroup X (mtDNA)#North_America. Haplogroup X is relatively rare in most groups of indigenous peoples in the Americas. The sub-clade of haplogroup X found in the Americas is only remotely related to the sub-clades found in Europe. - Donald Albury 00:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the Solutrean Hypothesis Psuedoscience and Psuedohistory?

Since its associated with white nationalism, would the Solutrean Hypothesis considered to be pseudoscience and psuedohistory? I am just curious since its pretty outrageous for this to be taken as serious "fact" and especially since it is used to promote extremely racist beliefs. Also the Southern Poverty Law Center calls it a pseudoscience here: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/01/02/close-encounters-racist-kind, so would it be an acceptable source? 73.240.105.138 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the Solutrean Hypothesis, as originally proposed by its creators, was speculative. Continued defense of the Solutrean Hypothesis when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, verges into psuedoscience in my opinion. But, no I don't think, the SPLC article addresses the Solutrean Hypothesis directly enough to be a source. There are better sources. Smallchief (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

La roche de Solutré

Nowhere in your article, you talk about Solutré, where this noun comes from. That's really weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Becauses this isn't about the Solutrean culture, this is discussed and linked at Solutrean. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)