MORE ON THE RUMOR OF “INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING” AND THE PURPORTED ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING
METIN I. EREN, ROBERT J. PATTEN, MICHAEL J. O’BRIEN AND DAVID J. MELTZER University of Kent, UK Stone Dagger Publications, USA University of Missouri, USA Southern Methodist University, USA
Lohse, Collins, and Bradley ignore or misrepresent the arguments we have made concerning “controlled” overshot flaking and the purported Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing. Here, we summarize our previous work and explain again how it directly tests the explicit claims of Stanford and Bradley (; Bradley and Stanford , ). We also correct the inaccuracies and false accusations of Lohse, Collins, and Bradley, and refute their belief that argu- ments should be rejected or accepted on the basis of majority consensus and authority rather than on empirical data and logical arguments.
KEYWORDS: biface thinning, Clovis, efficiency, evolutionary convergence, overshot flakes, peopling of North America, pre-Clovis, Solutrean
We thank Jon Lohse, Michael Collins, and Bruce of majority consensus and authority rather than Bradley for their response (Lohse et al. )to on empirical data and logical arguments. our recent discussion of the purported Ice-Age Atlantic crossing (Eren et al. ). We were THE ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING HYPOTHESIS: hoping that our paper might elicit a thoughtful dis- WHAT WE ACTUALLY SAID cussion of technology and the manner in which it could be used to detect historical relatedness. The proposal that Pleistocene peoples arrived in Unfortunately, that is not the case, as not only North America from Europe has been around for do Lohse et al. ignore the large amount of archae- more than a century, but there is no evidence ological evidence we present that is inconsistent from any scientific field, recently including gen- with a Solutrean–Clovis trans-Atlantic connection etics, linguistics, skeletal and dental analysis, and and the inference of “intentional” overshot flaking oceanography, to support it (Dulik et al. ; (Eren et al. : –, Appendix A Sup- Eriksson et al. ; Goebel et al. ; Kashani plementary Data), they also misrepresent our et al. ; Meltzer ;O’Rourke and Raff work to such an extent that we felt it was necessary ; Raghavan et al. in press; Straus ; to write this rejoinder. This misrepresentation is Turner ; Westley and Dix ). Archaeolo- ironic in light of their call for “fair and honest gically, there are a few similarities between the evaluation of appropriate data.” Our goal here is artifact assemblages of Solutrean Paleolithic fora- threefold: () to summarize our previous work gers (,–, cal BP) and Clovis Paleoin- and explain again how it directly tests the explicit dians (,–, cal BP), but there are a far claims of Stanford and Bradley (; Bradley and larger number of differences (Straus et al. ). Stanford , ); () to correct the inaccura- This suggests that any similarities (technological cies and false accusations of Lohse, Collins, and or otherwise) might well be the result of conver- Bradley; and () to refute their belief that argu- gence and not shared ancestry. Indeed, as noted ments should be rejected or accepted on the basis in our original article and reiterated here,
© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence . DOI: ./Z. Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – EREN ET AL. convergence of cultural entities is a common “demonstrate historical connections between phenomenon (see also O’Brien and Lyman [the] technologies” (: ). ), and specific examples of convergence As we noted in our original article, much of this have been empirically demonstrated in the case argument is speculative and untestable: We cannot of stone tools produced by humans (e.g., Lycett determine how challenging or difficult overshot ; Shea ) as well as other primates (e.g., flaking would have been to Pleistocene hunter–gath- Haslam et al. ). Further, there is virtually no erers, who, unlike modern knappers, spent their evidence for marine-mammal hunting in either lives making and using stone tools (Eren et al. Solutrean, purported pre-Clovis, or Clovis sites : ). What may appear “difficult” or (Cannon and Meltzer ; Straus et al. ), “complex” (however defined) to twenty-first- yet this was the presumptive subsistence strategy century archaeologists may not have been all that for the Pleistocene peoples who purportedly difficult for prehistoric people to achieve. crossed the North Atlantic. Finally, it has been However, Stanford and Bradley’sclaimsofinten- shown recently that several additional lines of tionality and historical relatedness rest on their archaeological evidence, including radiocarbon assertions of overshot efficiency, frequency, and dates, are also inconsistent with the predictions similarity, and these latter empirical premises do of the hypothesis (O’Brien et al. ). have empirically testable predictions. Given the pro- As explicitly stated in our original work, we minence Stanford and Bradley have given overshot tested one line of archaeological evidence with flaking with respect to the Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing respect to the Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing Hypoth- Hypothesis, not only in the scientific literature but esis: the removal of overshot flakes (Eren et al. also in the popular media, we felt it important to : , ). Overshot flakes are ones that explicitly test those premises. If the empirical foun- during the manufacture of a biface are struck dation on which Stanford and Bradley base their from prepared edges of a piece and travel from chain of inference for a Solutrean–Clovis link fails, one edge across the face and remove only “a then the inferences built on it—that this complex small portion of the opposite edge” (Stanford and difficult strategy must have been intentionally and Bradley : ; see also Eren et al. : applied and thus its presence in two groups widely Figure ). Controlled, intentional overshot separated in time and space indicates historical flaking is a difficult knapping technique that few relatedness—are left unsupported. modern knappers have mastered, but Stanford We used experimental archaeology to test the and Bradley (: ) are “completely con- overshot-efficiency prediction and quantitative vinced” that the technique was intentionally used analyses of the archaeological record to test the by Solutrean and Clovis peoples because of its pre- overshot-frequency and similarity predictions. To sumed advantages, most prominent among which summarize, our results showed that is that overshot flaking is an “incredibly efficient” or “highly effective” strategy for rapidly thinning . Despite claims by Stanford and Bradley (; stone bifaces (Bradley and Stanford : , Bradley and Stanford , ), overshot : –; Stanford and Bradley : ). flaking is not more efficient at thinning Stanford and Bradley (: , ) make two bifaces than non-overshot flaking (Eren et al. other claims: first, that there is “clear archaeologi- : –). cal evidence of widespread use” of overshot flaking . There is no regular, frequent occurrence of by Solutrean and Clovis knappers; and second, overshot evidence at Clovis sites (Eren et al. that the “level of correspondence between [Solu- : , Supplementary Materials trean and Clovis] technologies is amazing,” such Table S). There are no published data with that “even the details of flaking are virtually iden- respect to the frequency or regularity of over- tical.” Based on these three claims, they then argue shot flaking at Solutrean sites. that because the intentional use of a complex, . Data provided by Stanford and Bradley (: difficult, even “counterintuitive” (Stanford and Table .) show that the amount of overshot Bradley : ) strategy is unlikely to occur by flaking in Solutrean and Clovis assemblages is chance, its presence in two separate groups statistically different (Eren et al. : – “suggests that it is unlikely to have been indepen- , Supplementary Materials Table S). dently invented.” Thus, the occurrence of suppo- sedly intentional overshot flaking on both sides We also noted that the incidence of overshot of the Atlantic in Late Pleistocene times is said to flaking in purported pre-Clovis assemblages
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – MORE ON THE RUMOR OF “INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING” AND THE PURPORTED ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING ought to be significant if, as recently argued by these misrepresentations and false accusations Stanford and Bradley (), there was a pre- below, but we do not expect readers to simply Clovis “missing link” between Solutrean and take our word for it. Rather, we encourage them Clovis in eastern North America (Eren et al. to compare our original discussion and results : ). Although we did not accept the (Eren et al. ), and our refutations below, to pre-Clovis sites they list as valid, either because the statements of Lohse, Collins, and Bradley, as they are not securely dated or are not well well as those made by Stanford and Bradley described (Eren et al. : ; see also (; Bradley and Stanford , ). O’Brien et al. ), we noted that Stanford and () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley “question the Bradley reported only one overshot flake from validity of the experiment: If the experiment was these assemblages. Further, bifacial points at intended to determine the rates of accidental over- proposed pre-Clovis sites fail to exhibit overshot shots, why did they set out to intentionally make scars, and in fact rarely are scars present that them?” (emphasis in original) travel past the biface medial axis. The absence of Reply: In no way did our experiment intend to evidence of overshot flaking in pre-Clovis sites determine rates of accidental overshots. We find indicates that there remains a -year gap in this accusation bizarre, as the experiment was con- the appearance of this purported technique on structed to examine only the efficiency of overshot either side of the Atlantic Ocean. flaking in terms of bifacial thinning. We are unsure Stanford and Bradley (: ) contend that how we could have been more explicit about this “the more basic a technology, the more likely its and are unclear as to how they could have misin- independent invention.” We agree. Since our terpreted the purpose of our experiment. experimental and archaeological analyses unequi- () Lohse, Collins and Bradley state that we vocally point to the conclusion that there is no “inappropriately reduce the complexity of techno- basis for inferring either Clovis, pre-Clovis, or logical correlations between Clovis and Solutrean Solutrean knappers intentionally practiced the to one shared trait: controlled overshot flaking.” “complex,”“difficult,”“counterintuitive” (Stan- Reply: We explicitly stated that we were investi- ford and Bradley : ), and now inefficient gating one aspect of the Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing (Eren et al. ) technique of controlled overshot Hypothesis, though a very important one (Eren flaking, it follows that their link between Solutrean et al. : , ), given the importance and Clovis via an intentionally applied controlled Stanford and Bradley (; Bradley and Stanford overshot technique is invalid. Instead, when con- , ) place on it. We are not sure why sidered in toto, our experimental and archaeologi- Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state otherwise. cal results are consistent only with the proposition Indeed, in Stanford and Bradley’s(: ) that Clovis and Solutrean knappers independently initial publication on the subject in the scientific lit- invented a basic, straightforward, efficient tech- erature, overshot flaking was the first topic they nique for thinning bifaces that occasionally hap- discussed in making their Solutrean–Clovis link. pened to produce the analogous detritus of We acknowledge that Stanford and Bradley overshot flakes. In other words, based on the () looked at other subjectively determined, very logic of Stanford and Bradley (: ) non-quantitative lithic reduction steps and tech- quoted above, the most robust and parsimonious niques in their Dynamic Systems Analysis, and explanation for the presence of overshot flakes in used cluster analysis of unweighted variables and Clovis and Solutrean assemblages is convergence, attributes to compare Solutrean and North Amer- not historical relatedness. ican Pleistocene assemblages. However, their Dynamic Systems Analysis (Stanford and Bradley CORRECTING THE INACCURACIES AND FALSE : Figure . ) did not include a comparison of Solutrean and pre-Clovis (see also point ACCUSATIONS OF LOHSE,COLLINS, AND below), and their cluster analysis (Stanford and BRADLEY Bradley : Figure .) provided no infor- Lohse, Collins, and Bradley accuse us of “flawed mation on the clustering algorithm, a scale to indi- logic,”“distortions,” using an “unprofessional cate cluster interstitial distances, or a measure of tone,” and “contributing little to the topic it pur- significance, rendering their dendrogram statisti- ports to address, or even to studies of Clovis, cally meaningless and irreproducible. Moreover, Early Paleoamericans, Pleistocene North such analyses inform only on overall assemblage America, or nearly any other issue.” We address similarity, not on how historically related
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – EREN ET AL. assemblages might be (O’Brien et al. ). This is () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state that we odd, as Stanford and Bradley (: ) note make a logical fallacy, namely that “because over- that “it is one thing to look at a group of artifacts shot flaking is not the most efficient method of and say they are alike, another to conclude that the thinning bifaces, it is most parsimoniously likeness indicates that they are related.” We could explained as an error and it therefore cannot not have said it better. have been shared in common by Clovis and Solu- () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state that “con- trean knappers.” trolled overshot flaking potentially provides Reply: In fact, it was Stanford and Bradley many benefits: it produces flakes that are usable (: , ; Bradley and Stanford : , for multiple purposes, when used with other , : –; Bradley et al. : –) flaking strategies it allows knappers to control —not us—who proclaimed overshot flaking’s biface width and thickness proportions, and it pro- ability to “efficiently,”“effectively,” or “massively” vides a way for knappers to resolve problems thin bifaces, and it was they who then linked this (stacks, square edges, etc.) on both margins characteristic to the purported technique’s inten- through a single removal,” and it can “result in tional application and supposed historical con- bifaces with flat longitudinal cross-sections.” nectedness. But, recalling Clarke () from Reply: First, Lohse, Collins, and Bradley are above, without a comparative standard, a term assuming both the intentionality and potential such as “efficiency” is meaningless. So, we are benefits of overshot flaking without empirically left to conclude either that proponents of a Solu- or quantitatively demonstrating any of them, trean–Clovis link were making meaningless state- much as Stanford and Bradley () do. ments or that they were indeed asserting the Second, as we noted in our original article, any comparative thinning efficiency of overshot demonstrated potential benefits are only consistent flakes, which is what we tested. Given that with prehistoric intentionality; they do not prove it Bradley et al. (: ) attempt to conduct such because any assertion of prehistoric intentionality a comparative test between overshot and non- is always an inference (Eren et al. : ). overshot flakes using archaeological specimens, Third, as recently noted by Lycett and Eren we assumed the latter. That said, we are pleased (), over four decades ago Clarke (: ) that Lohse, Collins, and Bradley accept that our emphasized that in the absence of appropriate comparative experiment “does in fact demonstrate comparative standards, where necessary par- that overshot flakes do not thin bifaces as well as ameters are required to give an otherwise relative other strategies,” given the importance Stanford entity (e.g., “rare,”“few,”“thick,”“thin”) its and Bradley place on efficiency for inferring the required specificity, such “nonspecific generaliz- intentionality of overshot flakes. ations” are essentially meaningless. Lohse, However, despite what Lohse, Collins, and Collins, and Bradley continually rely on non- Bradley depict, we did not base our conclusion specific generalizations (e.g., “flat”), as do Stanford that overshots are accidents solely on our exper- and Bradley (), especially with respect to the imental analysis. We also undertook a compara- use of the term “efficiency,” which we discuss tive analysis between our experimental below in our reply to point . overshots, which were already shown to be ineffi- () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state that we cient, and actual Clovis overshots from the Gault “mistakenly view the goal of Clovis biface manu- site (Eren et al. : ). That our experimen- facture to be ‘maximally thinned.’” tal overshots were better in terms of thinning Reply: Nowhere in our original article do we efficiency than the Clovis overshots is consistent state or imply that the goal of Clovis biface manu- with the notion that the Clovis overshots were facture is maximal thinning. accidents. Finally, as summarized above, we also () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state that we based our conclusions on the archaeological “fail to understand what is meant by ‘proportional records of Clovis, supposedly pre-Clovis, and flaking.’” Solutrean, as well as on statistical comparisons Reply: Our quote (“Bifacial thinning is a pro- of these complexes using data published by Stan- portional reduction process…”), which Lohse, ford and Bradley (). Collins, and Bradley misinterpret, does not refer () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state “the fact to “proportional flaking” but instead to how that [production of overshot flakes] did occur as biface thinning—both in absolute and relative either intentional or accidental outcomes in Solu- terms—takes place. trean and Clovis assemblages negates Eren
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – MORE ON THE RUMOR OF “INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING” AND THE PURPORTED ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING et al.’s main conclusion, raising considerable ques- intentionality of overshot flaking in Clovis and tions about the manuscript’s main point.” Solutrean assemblages) by examining another, Reply: Never have proponents of the Solutrean different set of data (e.g., Egyptian, Early Danish hypothesis (in its latest iteration) ever stated that Neolithic, Caddoan, or Archaic assemblages). the mere occurrence or presence of overshot This would be like attempting to study the peo- flakes, i.e., as accidents, was enough to make a pling of North America with data on the peopling link between Solutrean and Clovis. The link of Australia. We agree that raw material probably between the two complexes has always been the plays no role in the differential occurrence of over- complex, difficult, counterintuitive, intentionally shots between the Clovis and Archaic levels at applied strategy of overshot flaking—one that Gault. But there are several other potential was most unlikely to occur by chance and thus reasons we list (Eren et al. : ), ignored “suggests that it is unlikely to have been indepen- by Lohse, Collins, and Bradley, that could easily dently invented” (Stanford and Bradley : explain the occasional occurrence of overshot mis- ). If one is to accept that overshots were acciden- takes in Clovis but not in Archaic assemblages. At tal, that means one must also accept that they are the population level, Clovis knappers may have accidents of a more basic, straightforward, and used a strong support grip, whereas Archaic knap- efficient strategy such as overface flaking. And pers did not (Patten ). Or, perhaps Archaic given that Stanford and Bradley (: ) knappers were not looking to produce full-faced contend that the “more basic a technology, the flakes as often as Clovis knappers were. We will more likely its independent invention,” accepting never know the exact reason(s) for sure, and this overshots as accidents resulting from a basic tech- is why the lack of overshots in other cultures nique also necessarily means supporting Solu- cannot support the notion that overshot flakes trean–Clovis convergence, not historical were intentionally removed by either Clovis or relatedness. Solutrean knappers. () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley accuse us of () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state, “Another “using new terminology in an apparent attempt of Eren et al.’s misunderstandings is that Bradley to self-ascribe credit” for “ideas and concepts, and Stanford (; see also Stanford and specifically full-faced flaking.” Bradley ) suggested that overshot flaking of Reply: This accusation is absurd. Our definition Clovis bifaces would be the dominant method of of an “overface flake,” i.e., those flakes that termi- thinning, in terms of relative numbers.” nate beyond the biface midline but prior to reach- Reply: Nowhere do we state that if overshot ing the far edge (Jennings , ; Smallwood flaking was intentionally applied, then it should , ), is not only different and broader be the dominant method of thinning, in terms of than all the other definitions they cite, i.e., flakes relative numbers of flakes produced. However, that “almost reach the opposite edge” or that “tra- Stanford and Bradley (: , ; see also veled most of the way across the biface without Bradley et al. ; Collins ) do claim there removing the opposite edge,” but also quantitative, is “clear archaeological evidence of widespread rather than intuitive, in nature. use” of overshot flaking by Clovis and Solutrean () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state that if over- knappers. Our survey of the literature (Eren shot flakes are mistakes, then “overshot flaking et al. : –) shows this statement to should be present in many other biface thinning be at best inaccurate and misleading, in terms assemblages such as Predynastic Egyptian, Early both of where overshot flakes occur regionally Danish Neolithic and Caddoan to name but a and of their intra-assemblage density. few.” They also note that “Stanford and Bradley () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state, “End (: note ) present data from the thinning and fluting also make up small pro- Archaic levels at the Gault Site (also Bradley portions of Clovis biface thinning flakes, but to et al. : ), including deposits that are associ- our knowledge nobody has argued that they ated with extreme thinning technologies like were unintentional or mistakes.” Andice and Castroville, and show that overshot Reply: We are perplexed by this comment. The flaking was not present at a significant level. reason no one has made this argument is because Clearly the trait does not simply occur wherever there is no independent mechanism for acciden- bifaces are aggressively thinned.” tally producing end thinning flakes or flutes. A Reply: This is specious reasoning. One cannot knapper either chooses to strike the end or not. test an inference for one set of data (e.g., the However, there are independent, non-overshot
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – EREN ET AL. lateral flaking strategies (e.g., full-face flaking) that in Meltzer’s Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey can result in overshot mistakes, especially given (TCFPS). To be sure, the TCFPS data are not the plethora of factors that may potentially without bias, as explicitly noted by Straus et al. influence their frequency (Eren et al. : ). : (see also Bever and Meltzer ; () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley ask, “granting Meltzer ; Meltzer and Bever ), but then for a moment that Eren et al. are correct that over- those data are not without value either, for they shot flaking was accidental, why would not a provide—as Lohse, Collins and Bradley admit— certain percentage of inadvertent overshots be a measure from one region of the frequency of seen as acceptable, normative behavior within a points displaying overshot flakes (as opposed to given social group?” the number of overshot flakes per specimen). Reply: On this point, we agree almost entirely. And if the incidence of overshot flaking is as diag- The question of whether overshot flakes were nostic and pervasive as Lohse, Collins and Bradley intentionally produced, and thus necessarily suggest, its signature should not be entirely erased passed between Solutrean and Clovis (despite from Clovis assemblages. Lohse, Collins and being absent in purportedly pre-Clovis sites), is a Bradley also object that data on overshot flakes different question than whether overshot flakes were not provided in Meltzer and Bever (), are potentially diagnostic of Clovis and Solutrean but it was also noted in that paper that matters relative to their respective and immediately adja- of technology are best seen in sites that yield cent geographical and chronological “cultural earlier stage preforms and reduction debris neighbors.” For example, if we stumbled onto a (Meltzer and Bever : ; Lohse, Collins and site in Colorado that happened to possess some Bradley also identify that article as the “last overshot flakes but no fluted points (and we had published update of the survey.” For the record, no radiometric dates), we would hypothesize that a more recent article on the TCFPS was published it could indeed be Clovis (e.g., Cooper and in in the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Meltzer ) rather than Archaic, Woodland, Society, where it immediately preceded an article or Late Prehistoric. However, we could never be for which Collins and Lohse were principal certain because, as Lohse, Collins, and Bradley authors [see Bever and Meltzer ; Collins correctly note, there are no robust studies docu- et al. ]). menting the frequency of overshot flakes in non- () Finally, the elephant in the room: pre- Clovis, non-Solutrean, or non-Pre-Clovis cultures. Clovis. Lohse, Collins and Bradley make mention Although we agree with Lohse, Collins, and of the similarities of Clovis and Solutrean through- Bradley, once again we are confused with their out their rejoinder. Yet, pre-Clovis is mentioned accusation, because nowhere in our original but twice. If the historical link between Pleistocene article (Eren et al. ) did we state that overshot Europe and North America was that profound, flakes themselves were not potentially diagnostic then surely it would be expressed far more of Clovis or Solutrean, albeit diagnostic mistakes. visibly in assemblages more proximate in time. () Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state, “because Why is it then, as Collins and Lohse observe at pre- finished points are most commonly found Clovis sites such as Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill, retouched, resharpened, and reworked, which that “neither the points nor the blades are techno- leaves most overshot scars unidentifiable, a volun- logically very similar to those of Clovis” (Collins teer survey of largely surface-collected points is and Lohse : )? If Solutrean peoples came perhaps the least appropriate source of infor- onto these shores, why does their technology mation to use for recognizing systematic, con- vanish, only to re-appear years later? The trolled overshot flaking.” answer to that not-entirely rhetorical question is Reply: We also agree with this statement, which that Solutreans did not come onto these shores. is why in our original article (Eren et al. ), we followed the suggestion of Stanford and Bradley’s () and used only Clovis sites on or near raw- THE BOTTOM LINE:THE RUMOR OF material sources, where the earlier stages of biface “INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING” manufacture occurred, as well as caches. Lohse, Collins and Bradley dismiss as biased and irrele- Lohse, Collins, and Bradley ask, “in light of the vant the observation in Straus et al. () that near-consensus agreement that Clovis and there is a relatively low incidence (˜%) of over- perhaps Solutrean biface thinning were both shot flaking in the data on finished points recorded characterized by intentional overshot flaking, we
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – MORE ON THE RUMOR OF “INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING” AND THE PURPORTED ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING ask: Do Eren and his co-authors truly perceive it to noted, as Lohse, Collins, and Bradley do, that we fully be accidental?” accept “responsibility” for this present article, as well as our We answer unequivocally yes because empirical, original work (Eren et al. ). quantitative experimental and archaeological data robustly and parsimoniously lead us to that con- REFERENCES clusion, not because we assume it a priori or Bever, M., and D. J. Meltzer Investigating Variation in possess some sort of “agenda,” as Lohse, Collins, Clovis Paleoindian Lifeways: The Third Revised Edition and Bradley presume. However, in the end, of the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey. Bulletin of the Lohse, Collins, and Bradley’s question is the Texas Archeological Society : –. wrong one to ask. The correct question is, do our Bradley, B., and D. Stanford The North Atlantic experimental and archaeological data support the Ice-Edge Corridor: A Possible Paleolithic Route to the New World. World Archaeology : –. intuitive assertions about the presence of “con- – ” “ fl ” Bradley, B., and D. Stanford The Solutrean Clovis trolled or intentional overshot aking that Connection: Reply to Straus, Meltzer, and Goebel. have been made recently and over the past World Archaeology : –. years, as well as the subsequent use of those asser- Bradley, B. A., M. B. Collins, and A. Hemmings Clovis tions as a cornerstone for a Solutrean–Clovis trans- Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory, Atlantic connection? Based on our empirical results Ann Arbor, MI. (Eren et al. ), the answer to this question is Cannon, M. D., and D. J. Meltzer Early Paleoindian Foraging: Examining the Faunal Evidence for Large unequivocally no, especially when those results Mammal Specialization and Regional Variability in Prey are evaluated in conjunction with other multidisci- Choice. Quaternary Science Review : –. plinary evidence and our arguments above. Clarke, D. L. Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, As noted by Lohse, Collins, and Bradley, our con- London. clusions about overshot flakes “seemingly run Collins, M. Clovis Blade Technology. University of counter to a generation of focused analyses on Texas Press, Austin. Clovis and Solutrean lithic technology.” Perhaps Collins, M., and J. Lohse The Nature of Clovis Blades this is because many of these studies were not true, and Blade Cores. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia Before the Last Glacial Maximum, edited formal analyses (Lycett and Chauhan ; by D. Madsen, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, O’Brien ; Surovell ) but rather mere pp. –. descriptions based on intuition, cherry-picking, and Collins, M., J. Lohse, and M. Shoberg The the “flintknapper’s fundamental conceit” (Thomas deGraffenreid Collection: A Clovis Bifaces Cache from : ). In this sense, we see the Ice-Age Atlantic the Gault Site, Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Crossing Hypothesis as merely the most extreme case Archeological Society : –. to date of a chronic inclination in studies of lithic Cooper, J. R., and D. J. Meltzer Investigations at GN, a Lithic Workshop in the Upper Gunnison technology to depend more on assumption, auth- Basin, Colorado. Colorado Archaeology : –. ority, and experience than on hypothesis testing, Dulik, M. C., S. I. Zhadanov, L. P. Osipova, A. Askapull, quantification, and analysis. Maybe this is why L. Gau, O. Gokcumen, S. Rubinstein, and T. G. Schurr Lohse, Collins, and Bradley find it so odd that we Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome can readily change our minds about our previous Variation Provides Evidence for a Recent Common conclusions about overshot flaking. A true commit- Ancestry between Native Americans and Indigenous ment to evidence gives a person the capacity, when Altaians. American Journal of Human Genetetics : –. needed, to readily change direction in the pursuit of ’ fi Eren, M. I., R. Patten, M. J. O Brien, and D. J. Meltzer scienti c reality rather than drown in the rumors, Refuting the Technological Cornerstone of the Ice-Age assertions, and egos of one’speersoradvisors. Atlantic Crossing hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science : –. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Eriksson, A., L. Betti, A. D. Friend, S. J. Lycett, J. S. Singarayer, N. von Cramon-Taubadel, P. J. Valdes, M.I.E. is supported by a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship. F. Balloux, and A. Manica Late Pleistocene We are grateful to Grant McCall for the opportunity to write Climate Change and the Global Expansion of this closing reply, and we wish to reiterate our thanks to Anatomically Modern Humans. Proceedings of the editor Richard G. Klein and three anonymous peer-reviewers National Academy of Sciences : –. of our original article published in the Journal of Archaeolo- Goebel, T., M. R. Waters, and D. H. O’Rourke The gical Science. We are also grateful to Briggs Buchanan, Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Thomas Jennings, and Stephen Lycett for reading over an Americas. Science : –. early draft of this manuscript, and to Ashley Smallwood for Haslam, M., A. Hernandez-Aguilar, V. Ling, S. Carvalho, I. de la valuable, enlightening discussions. However, it should be Torre, A. DeStefano, A. Du, B. Hardy, J. Harris,
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – EREN ET AL.
L. Marchant, T. Matsuzawa, W. McGrew, J. Mercader, Patten, B. Peoples of the Flute: A Study in Anthropolithic R.Mora,M.Petraglia,H.Roche,E.Visalberghi,and Forensics. Stone Dagger Publications, Lakewood, CO. R. Warren Primate Archeology. Nature : –. Raghavan, M., P. Skoglund, K. Graf, M. Metspalu, Jennings, T. Clovis, Folsom, and Midland Components A. Albrechtsen, I. Moltke, S. Rasmussen, T. Stafford, at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas: Context, L. Orlando, E. Metspalu, M. Karmin, K. Tambets, Chronology, and Assemblages. Journal of S. Rootsi, R. Mägi, P. Campos, E. Balanovska, Archaeological Science : –. O. Balanovsky, E. Khusnutdinova, S. Litvinov, Jennings, T. The Hogeye Clovis Cache, Texas: L. Osipova, S. Fedorova, M. Voevoda, M. DeGiorgio, Quantifying Lithic Reduction Signatures. Journal of T. Sicheritz-Ponten, S. Brunak, S. Demeshchenko, Archaeological Science : –. T. Kivisild, R. Villems, R. Nielsen, M. Jakobsson, and Kashani, B. H., U. A. Perego, A. Olivieri, N. Angerhofer, E. Willerslev (in press) Genome Sequence of an Upper F. Gandini, V. Carossa, H. Lancioni, O. Semino, S. Palaeolithic Siberian Reveals Shared Origins for Native R. Woodward, A. Achilli, and A. Torroni Americans and Western Eurasians. Nature. Mitochondrial Haplogroup Cc: A Rare Lineage Shea, J. J. The Middle Paleolithic of the Levant: Entering America through the Ice-Free Corridor? Recursion and Convergence. In Transitions before the American Journal of Physical Anthropology : –. Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Lohse, J., M. Collins, and B. Bradley Controlled over- Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, edited by E. Hovers, shot flaking: a response to Eren, Patten, O’Brien, and and S. Kuhn, pp. –. New York: Kluwer Meltzer. Lithic Technology: In Press. Academic/Plenum. Lycett, S. J. Are Victoria West Cores ‘Proto-Levallois’? Smallwood, A. M. Clovis Biface Technology at the A Phylogenetic Assessment. Journal of Human Evolution Topper Site, South Carolina: Evidence for Variation and : –. Technological Flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Lycett, S. J., and P. R. Chauhan Analytical Approaches Science : –. to Palaeolithic Technologies: An Introduction. In New Smallwood, A. M. Clovis Technology and Settlement in Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to the American Southwest: Using Biface Analysis to Paleolithic Technologies, edited by S. J. Lycett, and P. Evaluate Dispersal Models. American Antiquity : R. Chauhan, pp. –. Springer, New York. –. Lycett, S. J., and M. I. Eren Levallois Economics: An Stanford, D., and B. Bradley Ocean Trails and Prairie Examination of ‘Waste’ Production in Experimentally Paths? Thoughts about Clovis Origins. In The First Produced Levallois Reduction Sequences. Journal of Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New Archaeological Science : –. World, edited by N. G. Jablonski, pp. –. Meltzer, D. J. The Clovis Paleoindian Occupation of Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, No. . Texas: Results of the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey. San Francisco. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society : –. Stanford, D. J., and B. A. Bradley Across Atlantic Ice: Meltzer, D. J. First peoples in a New World: colonizing The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. University of Ice Age America. University of California Press, Berkeley. California Press, Berkeley. Meltzer, D. J., and M. L. Bever Paleoindians of Texas: Straus, L. G. Solutrean Settlement of North America? A An Update on the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey. Review of Reality. American Antiquity : –. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society : –. Straus, L. G., D. J. Meltzer, and T. Goebel Ice age O’Brien, M. J. The future of Paleolithic studies: a view Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean–Clovis ‘Connection.’ from the New World. In New Perspectives on Old World Archaeology : –. Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Surovell, T. Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technologies, edited by S. J. Lycett, and P. R. Chauhan, Technology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. pp. –. New York: Springer. Thomas, D. H. Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken O’Brien, M. J., and R. L. Lyman Applying Evolutionary and Raymond. American Antiquity : –. Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. New York: Kluwer Turner, C. Teeth, Needles, Dogs and Siberia: Academic/Plenum. Bioarchaeological Evidence for the Colonization of the O’Brien,M.J.,M.Boulanger,M.Collard,B.Buchanan, New World. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene L. Tarle, L. G. Straus, and M. I. Eren On Thin Ice: Colonization of the New World, edited by N. Problems with Stanford and Bradley’s Proposed Solutrean G. Jablonski, pp. –. Memoirs of the California Colonization of North America. Antiquity (in press). Academy of Sciences,No. San Francisco. O’Rourke, D. H., and J. A. Raff The Human Genetic Westley, K., and J. Dix The Solutrean Atlantic History of the Americas: The Final Frontier. Current Hypothesis: A View from the Ocean. Journal of the Biology :R–R. North Atlantic : –.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Metin I. Eren is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Kent, Canterbury, U.K., and a Research Associate at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , – MORE ON THE RUMOR OF “INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING” AND THE PURPORTED ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING
Robert J. Patten studied civil engineering, and did topographic mapping for the U.S. Geological Survey before he retired. Winner of the Society for American Archaeology Crabtree Award, he has knapped stone tool replicas for over fifty years.
Michael J. O’Brien is Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Professor of Anthropology, and Director of the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
David. J. Meltzer is Henderson-Morrison Professor of Prehistory at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
Correspondence to: Metin I. Eren, Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Marlowe Building, Canterbury CTNR, UK and Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio , USA. Email: [email protected]
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –