(February 29, 2012 at 12:28 am)popeyespappy Wrote: I like the Solutrean Hypothesis. Beyond the tools themselves I find the Northeast out spread of the technology according to dates of some of the sites very compelling evidence. I do understand though that many of the old dates are not well accepted by mainstream American archeology. It’s also my understanding that people looking at the genetics in the last few years have rejected that part of the hypothesis too. So I think the whole thing is far from a done deal at this point.
It would have also been nice if the article linked in the OP had cited some sources for the more recent claims. Min, do you know if the new book you linked is the source for some of that? If so has any of it been peer reviewed yet?
I haven't read it yet, Pap. It might be like Finkelstein's or Dever's books which are aimed at the general population but cite individual excavation reports which have gone through the peer review process.
Frankly, anyone who has actually read a genuine archaeological paper knows that they are not exactly page-turners. No one ever made a movie out of one of them.
