Content uploaded by Bruce Bradley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bruce Bradley on Jan 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
CONTROLLED OVERSHOT FLAKING: A RESPONSE TO EREN,
PATTEN, O’BRIEN, AND MELTZER
JON C. LOHSE, MICHAEL B. COLLINSAND BRUCE BRADLEY
Coastal Environments, Inc. and Gault School for Archaeological Research, USA
Gault School for Archaeological Research and Texas State University-San Marcos, USA
University of Exeter, UK
A recent article by Eren et al. () is the latest
criticism of the hypothesis that some Late Pleisto-
cene Solutrean groups from western Iberia came to
the New World and that lasting vestiges of this
contact can be seen in close similarities between
Solutrean and Clovis biface and blade technol-
ogies. Eren et al.’s primary argument is that over-
shot flaking, one of many technological
characteristics shared in common by Clovis and
some Solutrean cultures, was an accident that
both cultural systems happened to have made
and should be interpreted as cultural convergence
rather than evidence for cultural connections or
influences. We find their article and the experiment
used to support it deeply problematic for several
reasons. Indeed, the flawed logic employed in
their study and the distortions of earlier versions
of the Ice Edge Hypothesis are so egregious that
we question how the manuscript passed through
the peer-review process into publication in a
venue as highly regarded as the Journal of Archae-
ological Science. Here, we address some of Eren
et al.’s most obvious errors, misrepresentations,
and over statements. In addition to correcting the
record, we are motivated by a desire to see scien-
tific discourse, particularly on an issue as impor-
tant as understanding the New World’s earliest
occupants, conducted in a scholarly, professional
manner that involves fair and honest evaluation
of appropriate data.
The Ice-Edge Hypothesis (IEH) states that some
unknown number of Solutrean peoples came in
watercraft across the Northern Atlantic from
western Iberia to the New World during the Last
Glacial Maximum. Furthermore, the contri-
butions of these peoples to early stone tool tech-
nologies can be seen in Clovis and possibly
pre-Clovis biface and blade manufacture, along
with other traits. While the idea that people from
Upper Paleolithic Europe came to the New
World is not new (see Straus ), details of the
IEH have recently been elaborated by Bruce
Bradley and Dennis Stanford (Bradley and Stan-
ford ,; Stanford and Bradley ),
who note significant similarities between Clovis
and Solutrean flaked stone and other technologies.
The argument has been critiqued (Balter ;
Straus ; Straus et al. ), sometimes using
a derisive style of commentary (Meltzer :
–). The recent article by Eren, Patten,
O’Brien, and Meltzer, “Refuting the technological
cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing
hypothesis,”(Eren et al. ) is the latest effort
to debunk this idea while again employing an
unprofessional tone. The IEH has been proposed
as, and is best considered to be, a working hypoth-
esis (see Stanford and Bradley :) explain-
ing some of the New World’s cultural origins. We
see the settlement of the Americas as a complex
issue requiring advances in many lines of study,
throughout the Americas, for years if not gener-
ations to come. When it comes to conducting aca-
demic discourse on topics of high importance we
agree with Straus (:) with respect to the
importance of “standards of argument proof.”
We feel strongly that the recent article by Eren
et al. is so deeply flawed that it contributes very
little to the topic it purports to address, or even
to studies of Clovis, Early Paleoamericans, Pleisto-
cene North America, or nearly any other issue. In
this rebuttal, we address what we feel are some of
the more outstanding problems.
According to Eren et al.’s summary of the IEH,
controlled overshot (also known as outré passé)
flaking, the removal of flakes spanning the width
of a biface and removing a small amount of mass
from each margin, is presented as the single most
important trait shared by Clovis and Solutrean
(Eren et al. :). They claim that the key
testable component of the IEH is whether
© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd
DOI: ./Z. Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
controlled overshot flaking was intentional or
accidental and that this can be evaluated by
testing its effectiveness for thinning bifaces. The
degree to which overshot flaking efficiently thins
bifaces, a point we view as a straw man argument
and discuss in detail below, is the focus of their
study. In a peculiar turn of logic, thinning
efficiency is linked with intentionality with
respect to removing overshot flakes, and evaluat-
ing these paired concepts becomes the basis for
refuting the IEH. They dismiss the IEH as speculat-
ive and argue that Stanford and Bradley’s claims
of intentionality rest on the premise that overshot
flaking is an efficient means of thinning a biface
(Eren et al. :), but then transmute
“efficient”into “optimal”(Eren et al. :
). An experiment was undertaken that
involved attempting to remove overshot flakes,
and then determining the degree to which overshot
flaking thinned bifaces in relation to other kinds of
flakes. We question the validity of the experiment:
If the experiment was intended to determine the
rates of accidental overshots why did they set out
to intentionally make them? This experiment
also ignores the fact that this comparison was
not used by Stanford and Bradley ().
Because their results showed that overshot flakes
did not thin bifaces as efficiently as full-face
flakes, Eren et al. conclude that overshots were
most likely accidental rather than intentional and
therefore that this practice was not passed from
Solutrean to Clovis knappers.
We have four main concerns with this article.
First, they inappropriately reduce the complexity
of technological correlations between Clovis and
Solutrean to one shared trait: controlled overshot
flaking. Second, they misrepresent through sim-
plification the motivations associated with over-
shot flaking in Clovis (and Solutrean) biface
technologies. Third, they mischaracterize the ulti-
mate objective of Clovis and some Solutrean
biface production as achieving “maximally”
thinned bifaces rather than first proportionally
thinning bifaces (maintaining approximately the
same width and thickness proportions) through a
step-wise process that was followed in some
cases by strategies to reduce thickness at a
greater rate than width, disproportionate thinning.
Fourth, the replication experiment they conduct in
order to test this false proposition is used to
support an unrelated conclusion, that because
overshot flaking is not the most efficient method
of thinning bifaces, it is most parsimoniously
explained as an error and it therefore cannot
have been shared in common by Clovis and Solu-
trean knappers.
In addition to these issues, other concerns have
to do with how pre-existing ideas and concepts,
specifically full-face flaking, are described using
new terminology in an apparent attempt to
self-ascribe credit for recognizing them. Finally,
but perhaps most importantly from our perspec-
tive, the issue of intentionality seemingly runs
counter to a generation of focused analyses on
Clovis and Solutrean lithic technology. This
includes recent publications by the authors them-
selves, some of which not only use overshot
flaking, deliberate in some cases, to define Clovis
bifaces (Eren ; Meltzer ) but that also
rely on the presence of overshot flake scars to
make cultural connections between Clovis and
other Paleoamerican complexes, specifically
Gainey (Eren et al. ). This point in particular
is both puzzling and problematic. For example, it
is entirely unclear whether Eren et al. intend to
say that, if overshot flaking is accidental, then it
also is not a distinguishing technological feature.
The claim is not stated in this way, per se, but
their focus on intentionality makes it an important
issue to be clearly addressed. We do this in our dis-
cussion of other risky biface thinning strategies
that, according to the logic employed by Eren
et al., ought to have been avoided because of
their high failure rates but were nonetheless under-
taken as part of clearly patterned behavior, e.g.,
fluting. Putting all other issues aside, if overshot
flaking does not characterize Clovis and Solutrean
biface production, Eren et al. would indeed have
made a significant contribution to archaeological
research, albeit one that would invalidate many
of their own prior statements. Based on their
study, however, archaeologists are no closer to
understanding the question of Upper Paleolithic
and Early Paleoindian technology or intentionality
than they were before this article was published.
MAIN CONCERNS
Regarding the first of our main objections, techno-
logical similarities between Clovis and Solutrean
have been compared in detail by Stanford and
Bradley using Dynamic Systems Analysis (Stan-
ford and Bradley : Figure .), borrowed
from textile analyses, as well as cluster analysis
(Stanford and Bradley : Figures .and
.). Dynamic Systems Analysis allows analysts
to compare two or more different production
systems, and illustrates commonalities between
CONTROLLED OVERSHOT FLAKING
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
and within steps in a stair-step graph. They
compare Beringian to Clovis, Beringian to Solu-
trean, and Clovis to Solutrean using different
reduction steps and techniques. Clovis and Solu-
trean appear identical in all but a single biface
reduction step: toward the end of the reduction
sequence, Solutrean knappers laterally thinned
their bifaces while Clovis knappers performed
fluting. In all other regards, including but not
limited to the use of controlled overshot in
primary flaking, the two approaches appear iden-
tical. Cluster analyses are used to evaluate not just
reduction approaches, but technological simi-
larities between whole assemblages. It should be
noted that Stanford and Bradley’s cluster analysis
did not involve weighting of certain variables or
attributes, such as overshot flaking, in order that
their conclusions did not appear biased in favor
of their hypothesized connection between certain
Solutrean and Clovis technologies. An unweighted
analysis comparing technological traits reported
for different assemblages grouped pre-Clovis,
fluted point, Late French Solutrean, Middle
French Solutrean, and north Spanish Solutrean at
the third level of grouping. Neither the cluster
nor the dynamic systems analysis focused solely
on overshot flaking. Rather, both approaches con-
sidered multiple technological variables to con-
clude that some Solutrean and Clovis flaked
stone technologies share very close approaches
and similarities, of which overshot flaking on
bifaces is only one.
Regarding our second main concern, Eren et al.
inappropriately simplify the apparent rationale
behind deliberately employing overshot flaking in
the course of biface reduction. Because they mista-
kenly view the goal of Clovis and Solutrean biface
manufacture to be “maximally thinned”bifaces,
they contend that overshot flaking can be tested
as a strategy for achieving this goal. However,
the different ways in which controlled overshot
flaking contributed to biface production while
also serving other goals is clearly summarized in
Bradley et al. (:–). Briefly, controlled
overshot flaking potentially provides many
benefits: it produces flakes that are usable for mul-
tiple purposes, when used with other flaking strat-
egies it allows knappers to control biface width
and thickness proportions, and it provides a way
for knappers to resolve problems (stacks, square
edges, etc.) on both margins through a single
removal. It should be noted that Eren et al. fail
to understand what is mean by “proportional”
thinning. We follow Stanford and Bradley (:
) who describe proportional flaking as “accom-
plished by removing flakes that end just past the
longitudinal midline of the biface, proportionally
removing as much from the face as from the
edge.”In this manner, width-to-thickness pro-
portions (ratios) remain fairly constant as bifaces
are reduced. Knappers consider proportional
flaking along with thickening (removing relatively
more mass from the margin than from the center)
and thinning (removing relatively more mass from
the center than from the margins; see below) as
they decide what kinds of approaches to employ
to make different kinds of bifaces in accordance
with their culturally informed behavior. In con-
trast, Eren et al. (:) argue that “Bifacial
thinning is a proportional reduction process,
which means that the knapper reduces the thick-
ness of a biface at a faster rate than its width is
trimmed, in order to “massively thin and flatten”
a specimen (Stanford and Bradley :).”It
is curious here that Eren et al. attribute their
(incorrect) view of proportional flaking to Stan-
ford and Bradley, considering the clear and
concise discussion of this issue in their
volume Across Atlantic Ice. Bradley and Stanford
(:) also note that overshot flaking,
when performed successfully, can result in
“bifaces with flat longitudinal cross-sections,”
meaning that maintaining a certain overall shape
and cross-section morphology can also be
achieved. We see controlled overshot flaking as
part of complex cultural systems that placed pri-
ority on proportional biface control, on flexibility
with regard to isolating and simultaneously
solving multiple knapping problems, and on pro-
ducing usable bi-products that benefitted other
task groups in their bands.
Our third main concern stems from the previous
one, but differs in some important ways. We
contest Eren et al.’s factual misrepresentation of
the IEH that Clovis and Solutrean biface pro-
duction strategies were designed simply to
achieve maximum thinning efficiency. Eren
et al.’s experiment does in fact demonstrate that
overshot flakes do not thin bifaces as well as
other strategies. Their resulting conclusions hinge
on this question, which we see as a red herring in
debates regarding the IEH. Stanford and Bradley
(:) discuss alternative approaches to
biface thinning that would achieve higher width:
thickness ratios than overshot flaking alone,
specifically the use of opposed diving flaking
(also Bradley :). In this technique,
flakes from opposing margins dive or hinge
LOHSE ET AL.
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
slightly at the midline, thereby removing a small
amount of mass from the margin and proportion-
ally more mass from the center. This strategy for
achieving maximum thinness was identified long
ago by Bradley () who described it in his
analysis of Clovis biface reduction at the
Sheaman Site. There, he recognized that as
bifaces were gradually and proportionally
thinned through overshot and other flaking
methods, a point was reached where emphasis
was no longer on maintaining proportions but
rather was placed on “maximum thinning
without the danger of outré passé flake pro-
duction”(Bradley :). Although con-
sidered thin, neither Clovis nor Solutrean are
known as biface technologies that are character-
ized by “maximally thinned”bifaces; finished
pieces have width:thickness ratios that average
between only :and :. Among the best candi-
dates for maximal thinning are Folsom ultrathin
bifaces, which are characterized by the opposed
diving flaking described above. Root et al. ()
report width:thickness ratios as high as :for
some ultrathins, which have complex cross-
sections, including bi-concave, rather than the flat
lenticular cross-sections of most Clovis and
Solutrean bifaces. Considering that neither Clovis
nor Solutrean biface manufacturing techniques
targeted maximally thinned bifaces, Eren et al.’s
entire argument seems inapplicable to the IEH.
This point leads to our final main concern:
because overshot flaking is less efficient than
other approaches to thinning bifaces, it must
have been a mistake and therefore could not
have been a cultural trait shared between Clovis
and some Solutrean knappers (Eren et al. :
). Leaving aside for the moment the misrepre-
sentations reviewed above, this particular reason-
ing is highly puzzling, since patterned mistakes
constitute important components of culturally
learned behavior just as successes do. We do not
understand or recognize Eren et al.’s view of pre-
historic behavior, or anthropologists’role in
researching and understanding the past if our
analytical focus is never to include or consider pat-
terned failures and mistakes. Given the importance
of proportionally thin biface production to both
Clovis and Solutrean, and granting for a moment
that Eren et al. are correct that overshot flaking
was accidental, why would not a certain percen-
tage of inadvertent overshots be seen as accepta-
ble, normative behavior within a given social
group? Regardless, we do not believe Clovis and
Solutrean overshot flaking was accidental.
Rather, we believe it reveals important features
involving decisions about risk and reward with
respect to stone tool production that characterized
Late Pleistocene technological approaches to tool
design and manufacture. Archaeological evidence
for decisions about skill-based risk-reward behav-
ior has been reported, for instance regarding
whether or not to flute Folsom points (Bamforth
; Ahler and Geib ; Lohse ).
Indeed, this was probably the riskiest of all
biface thinning strategies, yet some consider it
the hallmark of that technology (Meltzer :
). Although we contend that overshot flaking
was performed intentionally by both Clovis and
Solutrean knappers, the possibility that it might
have been the accidental outcome of other aggres-
sive thinning strategies does not diminish its use-
fulness for hypothesizing about cultural
connections in cases where it can be shown to be
a shared trait. While Eren et al.’s conclusion that
overshot flaking was accidental can be debated,
which we and others do (see below), the fact that
it did occur as either intentional or accidental out-
comes in Solutrean and Clovis assemblages
negates Eren et al.’s main conclusion, raising con-
siderable questions about the this manuscript’s
main point.
EXAMPLES OF OTHER CONCERNS
One of our primary objectives for this response is
to encourage a more honest, responsible level of
academic discourse. Unfortunately, there are no
rules that govern this kind of behavior, and our
profession largely polices itself with respect to
inappropriate or unacceptable practices when it
comes to producing and disseminating knowledge.
An important principle, however, is what Kent
Flannery () refers to as the “priority of
ideas.”By this he means that “we need to know
who proposed an idea, who supported or
opposed it, and when it was ultimately accepted
or rejected”(Flannery :). Eren et al.
describe not only overshot flaking, but also thin-
ning flakes that do not reach the opposing
margin. They refer to these as overface flakes,
“those that terminate beyond the biface midline
but prior to reaching the far edge”(Eren et al.
:) and cite Jennings (,) and
Smallwood (,) for this concept. These
thinning flakes have long been recognized by
Clovis and Solutrean analysts. Phillip E. L. Smith
() coined the term éclat de biface for Solu-
trean thinning flakes. They were described as
CONTROLLED OVERSHOT FLAKING
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
overlapping flakes and flakes that traveled across
the biface up to the other edge without removing
any of it. Bradley et al. (:) call these full-
face flakes. Patten () also recognized these
kinds of flakes, which he calls fractional flakes,
as the deliberate by-product of Clovis biface thin-
ning. Huckell (:) describes early-stage
Clovis biface thinning flakes that include both
overshot and those that do not fully reach the
opposing margin. Callahan () and Bradley
() presented the first detailed evaluation of
systematic Clovis thinning strategies, recognizing
not only overshot and opposed diving flaking as
thinning strategies but also “flakes that traveled
most of the way across the biface”(Bradley
:). A review of the Jennings (,
) and Smallwood (,) publications
identifies Smallwood’s() article as the likely
origin for the term “overface,”although she also
includes in this category flakes that “extended
across the center axis of the biface toward the
opposite edge but either did not over-shoot or
were obscured by subsequent flaking”(Smallwood
:) (we contend that where the termin-
ations are obscured by subsequent flaking, it
cannot be known whether the flake was an over-
shot or full-face flake). The definition is repeated
in Smallwood (:), again without attribu-
tion. While Smallwood and Bradley et al. share the
same publication date (), it is an oversight
that Smallwood () does not credit Bradley
() for recognizing full-face flaking –by what-
ever name –in Clovis biface thinning, and Eren
et al. repeat and compound this oversight in their
own work. Although this issue may seem minor,
for the sake of appropriate credit for prior ideas,
one of the most important principles in scientific
discourse according to Flannery, it is important
to note where others have made important contri-
butions to understanding of Clovis biface thinning
strategies. These works should be cited in sub-
sequent studies that advance the topic.
The second of our other concerns extends from
our earlier comment regarding the intentionality
of overshot flaking and whether, if accidental,
this trait can be considered a distinguishing
feature of Clovis and Solutrean technologies.
According to Eren et al., if this practice was not
intentional then it could not have been conveyed
from Solutrean to Clovis knappers and archaeolo-
gists should no longer consider it useful for inves-
tigating cultural connections between those two
cultures. They suggest that it was simply the inevi-
table product of optimal biface thinning of high
quality materials. This issue was discussed by
Stanford and Bradley (: note ). If
Eren et al.’s contention is correct, overshot
flaking should be present in many other biface
thinning assemblages such as Predynastic Egyp-
tian, Early Danish Neolithic and Caddoan to
name but a few. No data indicating its presence
in any other assemblages is presented or cited. In
contrast, Stanford and Bradley (: note
) present data from the Archaic levels at the
Gault site (also Bradley et al. :), including
deposits that are associated with extreme thinning
technologies like Andice and Castroville, and
show that overshot flaking was not present at a
significant level. Clearly the trait does not simply
occur wherever bifaces are aggressively thinned.
Another of Eren et al.’s misunderstandings is
that Bradley and Stanford (, also Stanford
and Bradley ) suggested that overshot
flaking of Clovis bifaces would be the dominant
method of thinning, in terms of relative numbers.
That overshot flake removals occurred in lesser
frequencies than either “overface”or “ultrashot”
(Eren et al. :–) does not support
their contention that they were uncontrolled or
unintentional. End thinning and fluting also
make up small proportions of Clovis biface thin-
ning flakes, but to our knowledge nobody has
argued that they were unintentional or mistakes.
OVERSHOT FLAKING:CONSENSUS AND
CONCLUSION
We contend that the practice of overshot flaking
was intentional and therefore that its use in the
IEH is appropriate. Nevertheless, let us again con-
sider that it was accidental and that, as Eren et al.
imply, it therefore cannot be used to distinguish
what behaviors or concepts may have spread
from one group to another through acculturation.
We can only imagine that Eren et al. failed to con-
template the total ramifications of this implication:
the great majority of recent studies of Clovis biface
technology and almost every serious scholar today
accepts overshot flaking, accidental or deliberate,
as a defining trait for Clovis. The consensus
regarding Solutrean use of (controlled) overshot
flaking is not quite as widespread, but this is prob-
ably due to the fact that far less detailed techno-
logical analysis has been carried out on these
assemblages (however see Aubry et al. ),
and that few American Clovis scholars are familiar
with the published French literature on the subject.
Nonetheless, we compiled a list (not exhaustive) of
LOHSE ET AL.
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
archaeologists who have recognized overshot
flaking as a defining trait for either or both techno-
logical complexes (Table ). Not included are any
of our own lead-authored citations.
In light of the near-consensus agreement that
Clovis and perhaps Solutrean biface thinning
were both characterized by intentional overshot
flaking, we ask Do Eren and his co-authors truly
perceive it to be accidental? As seen in Table ,
the list of those who accept intentional overshot
flaking by Clovis peoples includes Eren himself,
who dedicated an entire section of his recent dis-
sertation study to defining Clovis in the Great
Lakes region in part by recording evidence for
the use of controlled overshot flaking. He notes
that “The technique is now recognized as a diag-
nostic trait of Clovis biface production in
western and southern North America”(Eren
:). In a separate study of early Paleoindian
remains in the upper northeast United States, Eren
et al. () specifically use controlled overshot
flaking to define a cultural connection between
Clovis and Gainey-associated populations,
similar to how the IEH uses it to help postulate cul-
tural connections between some Solutrean and
Clovis technologies. A quick scan of O’Brien’s
publications using Google Scholar revealed no
prior commentary at all about overshot flaking.
Patten has a clear record of acknowledging the
importance of overshot flaking in Clovis biface
production (e.g., Patten :). From Melt-
zer’s published statements, however, it is not
altogether clear whether he even accepts overshot
flaking as diagnostic of Clovis, much less that it
was intentional. We reviewed many of his pub-
lished works, and find only the caption of
Figure in his book as listing outré passé
flaking as a diagnostic feature of Clovis points
(Meltzer :). However, much of the dis-
cussion by Straus et al. () concerning Clovis
overshot flaking relies on data provided by Melt-
zer’s Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey (Meltzer
and Bever ). This is a database of fluted
points found across that state that were either
recorded by Meltzer or his students, or that were
reported to him via a voluntary survey carried
out through the state-wide amateur Texas Archeo-
logical Society. However, our review of Meltzer
and Bever (), the last published update of
the survey and the source used for Straus et al.
() found no mention whatsoever of overshot
flaking. Nor is it mentioned at all on the recording
form for Clovis points used for the survey. We can
only surmise that the commentary in Strauss et al.
(:), which is limited to specimens
from “over ”and concludes that the trait is
uncommon on finished and reworked points,
come from Meltzer’s own unpublished
TABLE .PARTIAL LISTING OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS WHO HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED IN PRINT THAT OVERSHOT FLAKING IS A
DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF CLOVIS AND SOLUTREAN BIFACE THINNING TECHNOLOGIES
Citation Clovis? Solutrean?
Aubry et al. () yes*
Bement (in press) yes*
Eren (), Eren et al. () yes*
Ferring () yes*
Haynes () yes*
Huckell (, in press) yes*
Jennings (,) yes*
Kilby (), Kilby and Huckell () yes*
Meltzer () yes
Morrow () yes*
Patten () yes*
Smallwood (,) yes*
Tankersley () yes*
Waters et al. () yes*
Wilke et al. () yes*
Yahnig () yes
*Indicates that the author accepts that overshot flaking was carried out on an intentional basis and was not accidental.
CONTROLLED OVERSHOT FLAKING
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
observations or those that were reported without
prompting by avocational archaeologists. It is
difficult to refute this “evidence”any further than
this because none of these data are available in
print. We suggest that this methodology for
recording overshot flaking might be useful for
noting its presence or absence within a collection,
but it hardly conveys any degree of precision about
the frequency of overshot flaking in highly elabo-
rated technological systems. Indeed, because
finished points are most commonly found
retouched, resharpened, and reworked, which
leaves most overshot scars unidentifiable, a volun-
teer survey of largely surface-collected points is
perhaps the least appropriate source of infor-
mation to use for recognizing systematic, con-
trolled overshot flaking (Bradley and Stanford
:). To the degree that Meltzer seems
more consistent than Eren regarding his accep-
tance that overshot flaking is diagnostic of
Clovis, we simply note a general dearth of any dis-
cussion at all by Meltzer about technological
details, other than fluting and basal grinding,
involved in Clovis biface manufacture.
From this review of the authors’prior views
regarding overshot flaking as an intentional
biface thinning strategy, we can only conclude
that the explicit statement that this technique
was a mistake as well as the implication that it
cannot be used to distinguish Clovis or Solutrean
technologies likely originates with Meltzer,
perhaps the most ardent critic of the IEH.
Neither of these opinions seems widely shared in
the academic community. However, since Eren is
lead author of this article, he also assumes
primary responsibility for the statements con-
tained therein. It would have been professionally
appropriate for him to acknowledge his prior
views at the outset of this article so that readers
can understand what appears to be his complete
reversal on the topic.
Admittedly, this review of prior ideas and the list
in Table adds relatively little to our understand-
ing of Clovis or Solutrean technological behavior.
But it points out the degree to which the academic
community accepts deliberate, controlled overshot
flaking as a defining feature of Clovis, Solutrean,
or both. Do Eren et al. really mean that, since
this technique was merely accidental (in their
view), archaeologists cannot use it to build
hypotheses about connections between cultures
that share it in common? We accept that an
equal consensus may have existed opposing the
notion of Solutrean contact with the New World,
or the idea that at one time humans and Ice Age
animals co-existed in the western hemisphere,
and that no meaningful scientific topic should be
evaluated by popular opinion alone. Nonetheless,
if we have not misrepresented or misunderstood
Eren et al.’s meaning, then they have a consider-
able amount of work to do before their prop-
osition will be taken seriously by the
archaeological community.
While there are numerous other technical issues
we could discuss, our final comments involve the
process by which this manuscript was accepted
for publication. As we show, it is filled with
errors of distortion and misrepresentation,
logical fallacies, and makes conclusions (based
on intentionality) that are seemingly unrelated to
the topic it purports to address, technological con-
nections between Solutrean and Clovis. No less
problematic from the point of view of scientific
discourse, statements regarding the accidental
nature of overshot flaking directly contradict state-
ments (by the lead author) made in the very recent
past. At a minimum, those prior conclusions ought
to have been addressed early in the manuscript;
otherwise, the impression is given that any argu-
ment may be advanced merely to suit an agenda
or purpose, refuting the IEH in this case, regardless
of that argument’s relation to fact or supporting
evidence. We, like many others, see the Journal
of Archaeological Science as among the top
outlets available to archaeology and we hope
that this article is not a true reflection of the stan-
dards of that periodical.
REFERENCES
Ahler, Stanley A., and Phil R. Geib. Why Flute? Folsom
Point Design and Adaptation. Journal of Archaeological
Science :–.
Aubry, T., B. Bradley, M. Almeida, B. Walter, M. Neves,
J. Pelegrin, M. Lenoir, and M. Tiffagom Solutrean
laurel leaf production at Maitreuax: an experimental
approach guided by techno-economic analysis. World
Archaeology (): –, Routledge.
Balter, M. Critics assail notion that Europeans settled
Americas. Science :–.
Bamforth, Douglas B. Flintknapping Skill, Communal
Hunting, and Paleoindian Projectile Point Typology.
Plains Anthropologist :–.
Bement, Leland C. In press. The JS Cache: Clovis Provisioning
the Southern Plains Late Pleistocene Landscape. In Clovis
Caches: New Discoveries and Current Research, edited by
Bruce B. Huckell, and J. David Kilby. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Bradley, Bruce A. Flaked Stone Technology and
Typology. In The Agate Basin Site; A Record of the
LOHSE ET AL.
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High
Plains, by George C. Frison, and Dennis J. Stanford, pp.
–. Academic Press, New York.
Bradley, B. A., M. B. Collins, and A. Hemmings Clovis
Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory,
Archaeological Series , Ann Arbor.
Bradley, Bruce, and Dennis Stanford. The North
Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route
to the New World. World Archaeology :–.
Bradley, Bruce, and Dennis Stanford. The
Solutrean-Clovis connection: reply to Straus, Meltzer,
and Goebel. World Archaeology :–.
Callahan, Errett The Basics of Biface Knapping in the
Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for
Flint-knappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of
Eastern North America (): –.
Eren, Metin I. Behavioral Adaptations of Late
Pleistocene Human Colonizers in the North American
Lower Great Lakes Region. Doctoral dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas.
Eren, Metin I., Robert J. Patten, Michael J. O’Brien, and
David J. Meltzer Refuting the technological corner-
stone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis. Journal
of Archaeological Science :–.
Eren, Metin I., Stanley Vanderlaan, and John D. Holland
Overshot Flaking at the Arc Site, Genesee County,
New York: Examining the Clovis-Gainey Connection.
The Open Anthropology Journal (): –.
Ferring, C. Reid The Archaeology and Paleoecology of
the Aubrey Clovis Site (DN), Denton County,
Texas. Center for Environmental Archaeology,
Department of Geography, University of North Texas,
Denton.
Flannery, Kent V. Mayan Archaeology. Science :
–.
Haynes, Gary The Early Settlement of North America:
The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Huckell, Bruce B. Clovis Lithic Technology: A View
from the Upper San Pedro Valley. In Murray Springs: A
Clovis Site with Multiple Activity Areas in the San
Pedro Valley, edited by C. Vance Haynes, Jr., and Bruce
B. Huckell, pp. –. Arizona. Anthropological
Papers of the University of Arizona, Number , Tucson.
Huckell, Bruce B. In press But How Do We Know Its Clovis?
An Examination of Clovis Overshot Flaking of Bifaces
and a North Dakota Cache. In Clovis Caches: New
Discoveries and Current Research, edited by Bruce
B. Huckell, and J. David Kilby. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Jennings, Thomas A. Clovis, Folsom, and Midland com-
ponents at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas: context,
chronology, and assemblages. Journal of Archaeological
Science :–.
Jennings, Thomas A. The Hogeye Cache, Texas: quan-
tifying lithic reduction signatures. Journal of
Archaeological Science :–.
Kilby, J. David An Investigation of Clovis Caches:
Content, Function, and Technological Organization.
Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Kilby, J. David, and Bruce B. Huckell. Clovis Caches:
Current Perspectives and Future Directions. In
Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Kell E. Graf,
Caroline V. Kreton, and Michael R. Waters, pp.
–. Center for the Study of First Americans,
Texas A&M University, College Station.
Lohse, Jon C. Step By Step: The Influence of Reduction
Sequence Models on Understanding Learning and Skill
Transmission. Lithic Technology :–.
Meltzer, David J. Folsom: New Archaeological
Investigations of a Classic Paleoindian Bison Kill.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Meltzer, David J. First Peoples in a New World.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Meltzer, David J., and Michael Bever. Paleoindians of
Texas: an update on the Texas Clovis fluted point survey.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society :–.
Morrow, Juliet E. Clovis Point Manufacture: A
Perspective from the ready/Lincoln Hills Site in Jersey
County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology
:–.
Patten, Bob Peoples of the Flute: A Study in
Anthropolithic Forensics. Stone Dagger Publications,
Denver.
Root, Matthew J., Jerry D. William, Marvin Kay, and Lisa
K. Shifrin. Folsom Ultrathin Biface and Radial
Break Tools in the Knife River Flint Quarry Area. In
Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure
and Variation, edited by Daniel S. Amick, pp. –.
International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Smallwood, Ashley M. Clovis biface technology at the
Topper site, South Carolina: evidence for variation and
technological flexibility. Journal of Archaeological
Science :–.
Smallwood, Ashley M. Clovis technology and settle-
ment in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to
evaluate dispersal models. American Antiquity :–
.
Smith, Philip E. L. Le Solutréen en France. Imprimeries
Delmas, Bordeaux.
Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley. Across Atlantic
Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Straus, Lawrence Guy. Solutrean Settlement of North
America? A Review of Reality. American Antiquity :
–.
Straus, Lawrence Guy, David J. Meltzer, and Ted Goebel
Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis
‘connection.’World Archaeology :–.
Tankersley, Kenneth B. TheConceptofClovisandthe
Peopling of North America. In The Settlement of the
American Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to
Human Biogeography, edited by C. Michael Barton,
Geoffery A. Clark, David R. Yesner, and Georges
A. Pearson, pp. –. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Waters, Michael R., Charlotte D. Pevny, and David
L. Carlson. Clovis Lithic Technology:
Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site,
Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Wilke, P. J., J. Flenniken, and T. L. Ozbun. Clovis
Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal
CONTROLLED OVERSHOT FLAKING
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
of California and Great Basin Anthropology :–
.
Yahnig, Carl Lithic Technology of the Little River
Complex, Christian County, Kentucky. In New
Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley
T. Lepper, and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. –
. Center for the Study of First Americans, College
Station.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Jon C. Lohse received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from The University of Texas at Austin, and is currently a Principal Investigator
with Coastal Environments, Inc.
Michael B. Collins received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Arizona, and is currently a Research Associate
Professor of Anthropology and Principal Investigator of the Gault Archaeological Project.
Bruce A. Bradley received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Arizona and is currently Professor of Prehistory and
Director of the Experimental Archaeology Masters Programme at the University of Exeter.
Correspondence to: Jon C. Lohse, Coastal Environments, Inc. and Gault School for Archaeological Research. Email: jonclohse@
gmail.com
LOHSE ET AL.
Lithic Technology , Vol. No. ,–
