On the Rumor of “Intentional Overshot Flaking” and the Purported Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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