Talk:Solutrean

message: Just noticed that this was the bulk of the article and reduced it to a summary. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: old thread.  But it still is about half of the article today...  —PaleoNeonate – 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tweaked the text but the problem is that this is a lousy article about a subject with a plethora of sources. It needs someone with time, interest and access to sources. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I assumed that more material accumulated again since then and didn't imply that you should be the one to fix it, of course, I was just making a constatation.  I did a small overview of the relevant articles and their claims; the number of places mentioning it allow opportunity for undue pushing, like  where it was suggested that the genetic evidence is plausible.  —PaleoNeonate – 15:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solutrean hypothesis 

message: "The industry first appeared in modern-day Spain and disappears from the archaeological record around 17,000 BP." Surely could be better worded. It contrasts a place with a time leading to the absurd implication that modern-day Spain was around before 17,000 BP. I fairly sure the Solutrean industry did not first appear in modern-day Spain. The oldest finds may have been made in modern-day Spain, but that is different. Qemist (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We could say Iberia were it not for claims it arose in France or Hungary. ! Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "modern-day" is a fairly common, though imperfect, way of abbreviating "what is now Spain". But "present-day" seems preferable to me. Eric talk 13:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: = The Proto-Basque people? ( They were "White" but they were non-Indo-Europeans). Böri (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were they "Vasconic"? 

message: In order for the paragraph about the Anzick boy to float, there needs to be a reference and comparison to actual Solutrean DNA. Not modern European DNA. Referring to the talk page on the Solutrean Hypothesis, Solutrean DNA has not been recorded. That in itself would be groundbreaking information. The Solutrean seemed come out of nowhere and disappear into thin air so to speak. To put it mildly their technology was out of place in the Paleolithic, making them another enigma. I would like the author of this section to modify that paragraph or provide sourcing for the actual Solutrean DNA or proof of a relationship between Solutrean DNA and whatever European DNA was used to make this statement. Art1faker (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Art1faker. I took the liberty of moving your post to a new section, which is the general practice here for new discussions. Also made a couple copyedits to it for clarity. Since these articles can have many authors or editors, you should feel free to look for sources yourself, or, if you feel strongly that the material in that paragraph is inaccurate, you can edit it. Here you will find some guidance on referencing sources: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Quick_summary. Eric talk 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you Eric. I have to admit that most of the statements in the above mentioned paragraph are correct. Although it still should be pointed out that we don't really know who the Solutreans are genetically. There still could be a genetic relationship between Solutrean and early people in America who were very adept in stone tool manufacture. It is also possible that Siberian connections could be from Alaska.....or rather back flow. These back flow "possibilities" also exist in a possible Atlantic culture.Art1faker (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anzick-1 

message: Eren, Metin I., Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael J. O'Brien
(2015) The Cinmar discovery and the proposed pre-Late Glacial Maximum occupation of North America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports: In Press. 
"Until clearly and reliably addressed, the gravity of the discrepancies and factual inaccuracies presented above indicates that there is no evidence that the stone blade and the mastodon remains were associated or where exactly either was originally discovered. Going further, given the reported inconsistencies in the blade's history, there is no confirmable evidence currently available that demonstrates that it was even dredged up by the Cinmar. Thus, even in the event that the same, original underwater mastodon site is eventually empirically proven to be re-located at some point in the future, this re-discovery would not provide context for, or validate, the stone blade's association with it." Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper on the "Cinmar" blade mentioned in the article 

message: The article says: "The Solutrean may be seen as a transitory stage between the flint implements of the Mousterian and the bone implements of the Magdalenian epochs." This sounds like something from the Victorian era. There's a roughly 20,000 year gap between Mousterian and Solutrean. Also, it's unreferenced. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mousterian? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Solutrean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228200216/http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.php?a=47 to http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.php?a=47
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060114124835/http://www.primtech.net/Summer2003/Solutreanartifacts.htm to http://www.primtech.net/Summer2003/Solutreanartifacts.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article talks about "lithic reduction percussion and pressure flaking rather than cruder flintknapping." "Lithic reduction" as a scientific term refers to any kind of working of stone into artefacts by removing pieces, whether by direct percussion, indirect percussion ("punch"), or pressure, regardless of whether the technology is a core technology (what remains is the artefact, e.g., a core-biface) or a flake or blade technology (artefacts are made from the removed pieces, e.g., flake scrapers or burins on blades). "Flintknapping" or just "knapping" (not all raw material is flint) is a colloquial term for the same; it does not refer to a "cruder" lithic technology.--Death Bredon (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithic reduction and flint knapping 

message: Clovis is identified by the shape of their spear tips Solutrean are a people a hunter gatherer type civilization lived nomadic life's and made Clovis spear tips. They lived in tribes of 20 or less on average. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish them from other nomadic hinter gatherers or those of later periods except the change from Clovis to Celtic spears for example some lucky tribes might even have metal or bow and arrows. 24.36.36.230 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Solutrean industry didn't include Clovis spear tips. Nor did Clovis tips change to Celtic. And as the article says, Solutrean technology doesn't reflect the features and tools found in Clovis culture. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something doesn't add up Clovis is a spear tip type