MORE ON THE RUMOR OF "INTENTIONAL OVERSHOT FLAKING" AND THE PURPORTED ICE-AGE ATLANTIC CROSSING
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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-
cussion of technology and the manner in which it
WHAT WE ACTUALLY SAID
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’s claims of inten-
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
ACCUSATIONS OF LOHSE, COLLINS, AND of Solutrean and pre-Clovis (see also point
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
Ice-Edge Corridor: A Possible Paleolithic Route to the
experimental and archaeological data support the
New World. World Archaeology : –.
intuitive assertions about the presence of “con- Bradley, B., and D. Stanford The Solutrean–Clovis
trolled” or “intentional overshot flaking” 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.
Cannon, M. D., and D. J. Meltzer Early Paleoindian
(Eren et al. ), the answer to this question is
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
and Blade Cores. In Entering America: Northeast Asia
this is because many of these studies were not true, 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 : –.
Cooper, J. R., and D. J. Meltzer Investigations at
to date of a chronic inclination in studies of lithic
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
Altaians. American Journal of Human Genetetics :
ment to evidence gives a person the capacity, when
–.
needed, to readily change direction in the pursuit of Eren, M. I., R. Patten, M. J. O’Brien, and D. J. Meltzer
scientific reality rather than drown in the rumors, Refuting the Technological Cornerstone of the Ice-Age
assertions, and egos of one’s peers or advisors. 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 CT NR,
UK and Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio , USA.
Email: metin.i.eren@gmail.com
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. , –You can also read
