Both of you are fantastic educational content creators!

Hi James, I've wanted to learn more about The Soultrean culture and technocomplex, do you have any recommendations at all? I've got the Jill Cook one you show, and I'm not bothered about reading 'Across the Ice ' Thanks

I’ll have a look, but I think papers in archaeological journals will be your friend for learning more about techno-complexes

This is nearly a year late, but watching the process, how long does it take? I've read here and there that hunter-gatherers had a lot more free time compared to us overall, but it seems like the toolmaking process is a bit arduous.

@@vehkvehk3624 If you're somewhat adept in the art, you can make a nice point in a few hours. Smaller tools can be made in even less time. Even though it's likely a skill that everyone learned, I'm sure there were some in a tribe far more skilled at toolmaking and made most of the points for everyone...and probably got better and faster at it with every passing year.

@muhammad koπtol (erectile dysfunction) I'm sure in the beginning they did. Bones, tusks, antler, horn, fangs...they'd all be functional. You can't keep a sharp edge on any of those for long, some of them you can't sharpen at all, and none of them can be made as thin, all of that adds up to a more deadly weapon with better cutting and penetration. That's why knapped tools were such a game changer when we figured that out all those years ago.

Agreed, there’s lots of example of technology appearing to ‘appear’ without external influence, even in the world of stone tools!

@@forestdweller5581 Even if they did hunt seals, how does that make them ancestors of Native Americans? Northern Europeans have been hunting seals for eons and we only just reached the Americas in the past thousand years. Additionally, genetic evidence supports the "out of asia" theory. And don't belittle my "chit-chat" about flaking and needles. I am an experienced stone knapper and primitive technology enthusiast. It's a bit insulting really. The solutrean hypothosis is some white supremacist crackpot archeology. Nothing more.

​@@forestdweller5581 Your Great Auks example is a bit lacking. If Great Auks were eveywhere, why would humans travel to America to hunt them? Sure, Solutreans hunted them and depicted them, but that doesn't mean they went to America. The Great Auk example works for pretty much any oceangoing creature. Look, whatever the case, neither of us is going to drop our opinion in this bickering. You made some good points (the seafaring abilities of early cultures *are* in fact often underestimated) and I believe I did too. I'll also admit "white supremacist" is a bit dramatic though this hypothesis still is a breeding ground for many racist ideas. It's a bit too similar to the Nazi's concept of all races stemming from the Aryans for my comfort. Thanks.

@@forestdweller5581 I agree it's a natural question, did people transit the North Atlantic (either way) during the Pleistocene. Solutrean tech transfer is a special case of the possible interactions. Very interesting about the Great Auks! Do we know what kind of boats were in use in Canada/Greenland/Europe at that time? Inuit and Norse could do the trip... but those are ~~10k years later

It ends when all your friends are rocks

Thanks! It's a softshell by 'Technicals' but I'm not sure you can buy it anywhere now which is a shame.

Its called pine pitch. Its made by melting pine sap and mixing in charcoal powder and sometimes dried dung

It's likely there are a number of reasons as to why different groups chose different tool shapes, some of those contributing factors might be cultural, climate caused, prey specialism or even a fusion with other groups. Sadly it's very difficult to pinpoint the specific reasons for tool styles in early prehistory.

We have made a lot of penetration test with my labo and the benefit is nul in term of penetration. If the edge is retouched it is lesser weak but offer some resistance to penetration of the skin. The zic-zac edge cause terrible cut wounds. At contrary a brute edge like you can see on many gravettes points on one side or many posterior microliths are more fragile but penetrate more easy. These type of points are more easy to produce and replace. The conclusion for laurel leafs as spear points is: the investment in time is to important for quite fragile artefact (in fact a lot of pointes à crans, gravettes and others points were broken after the first use we find so much peduncle of pointe à cran that there is no doubt about this). It is then understandable that the solutrean finally adopt the "pointe à cran" easier the make and standardise. They were made with flint blades first with rigorous choice because the solutrean were not so advanced in pressure technique at the beginning. But progressively the technique became more efficient and they will be more confident, after they choose any blade and reshape with pressure technique. It is the hypothesis of Serge Maury who have make more than 145 of them to test it. There is a video on this experimentation.

Leaf shape is propably better for thrusting. I would at least think it would not give as good penetration when thrown. Maybe that kind of spears were used for war or for game that has tendency to face the hunter.

@@ReasonAboveEverything The traceology give tu us clear answer, most of laurel leafs were knifes (we have found on with his handle made of half of reindeer mandible). The smaller and unifacially retouched "feuilles de saule" wears frequently impact breakage. The most common seams to be "pointes à crans" they were clearly and undoubtedly thrown (maybe on spears thrown with atatl).

@@ReasonAboveEverything yeah I think it’s easier to get out of game so maybe it’s more for thrusting but could have also been done just to decrease likelihood of breaking when pulling the point out. Not sure how likely that second idea would be a concern.

There is no evidence of any spirituality mate. Plenty of evidence they were hunting. But making a big point is seen as practical as well. If the tip breaks you can still reshape it into a point again which is less work than making an entirely new point.

There are several of us American flintknapping dealers that sell stone.

No relation it is only the same way to do the thinning on a bifacial point. Indeed the fruiting is unique and you never find this on any laurel leafs. It is normal that it looks the same because the physic laws of flint fracture are the same everywhere.

My guess is Birch bark.....pine pitch is another way ..rabbit skin glue..is a minor variant and still used in woodworking

There’s plenty out there about the solutrean that has nothing to do with the ‘hypothesis’, though I admit I am in a fortunate position with access to archaeological journals via my university

Debunked? How is the Solutrean hypothesis debunked? Highly criticised and scoffed at would be a better way to say it. And that is usually meaningless.

Are you talking about the debunked North American solutrean hypothesis? Solutreans existed, just not in North America.

@@forestdweller5581 Use of the term "debunked" has been debunked lol. In science we gather and weigh evidence. The Solutrean hypothesis has limited evidence, nothing in the DNA for example has been found. But it might be found, so "debunked" is incorrect. That said, imho the Solutrean idea often suffers from a narrow view... we should look for evidence of movement in both directions via the Atlantic, and to and from Africa as well.

By eating things like bone marrow and brains. Things that today are discarded. By choosing game at the right time, when it is fattest and making sure that none of that valuable fat is wasted.

It is a question of tendencies, culture and technology. A lot of cultures have adopt quite simple spear or arrowhead points. The best example is probably the gravette what are so easy to produce and easy to replace. The majority of spear points were unifacial (Font Robert, pointes à face planes and feuilles de saules), Certain are majorly unifacial sometimes (Font Robert and pointes à crans) and sometimes completely or almost bifacial (certain pointes à crans). Another idea it is to integrate flint elements in a reindeer spear point, almost unbreakable or easy to refit, with flint elements easy to replace (example of tiny blades produce by pressure flaking during the aurignacien and "pieces à dos" on pieces of blades during magdalénien). After during epipaleolithic arrow points on blades were frequent, in Mesolithic the only partial bifacial piece are feuilles de gui and sometime they are only unifacial. It is finally during the middle and final neolithic after the generalisation of pressure flaking that produce bifacial arrowheads (example on polished flakes from broken axes during the michelsberg). The conclusion is: most of armatures were unifacial and frequently with only one side retouched, the other was brute because it is considerably more sharp. A lot of armature were easy to produce and than to replace because it is as many flint piece: consumable. It is difficult to resume this thing in such short talk. I hope that I will be clear.

Conserved flint. They were starting to run out of all of the obvious surface supplies and began to develop techniques that utilised almost all of the flakes from a given "chunk" of stone. Look at the size of the nodule he had to start with to produce one biface then go back to see all the blades he had to work with for the unifacial style of points.

Why are they not found on land then? And why was there a 10k years pause before Clovis technology? To be clear I'm not a critic, it's a fine hypothesis, worthy of being questioned. There may be good answers.

@@nmarbletoe8210 The Solutrean laurel leaf was found on land. It just happens the land is now underwater because the oceans have risen 250 feet since the first Solutreans crossed the Atlantic. To your second question, there was pre-clovis artifacts found at the Cactus Hill (VA) site (from an earlier occupation) that predates standard clovis by 4 to 5 thousand years. The pre-clovis artifacts were ignored by most archeologists as the facts did not fit their White-people-can't-be-here-first model. Another question you may be wondering about (and I know I do) is why there was the refinement of serious Solutrean blades (that were labelled as "clovis" in the Americas) but no continued effort to create the impressive laurel leaf blades. Maybe that will be answered at more artifacts are discovered.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde

Anzick child shows Clovis was related to North and South Americans. However I have not rejected contact via the Atlantic, at any time of prehistory. This would require some excellent boating. Did Solutrians hunt seals?

In fact it looks more like Clovis tech went from south to north. To be clear I don't accept the Solutrean idea yet. I'm just saying that people were here long before the ice free corridor opened, and when it opened, Clovis went north.

Yes, it is getting support from various finds. For example there were green islands all along the coast during the entire glacial period. However, both inland and coastal routes are open before the last glacial maximum. The ice free corridor is only closed between about 22 kya and 13 kya. So peope from very very old sites such as Rio Puerco at 37 kya could have come by either route.