Solutreanism

The comments of Stanford and Bradley (above) do not address our criticisms and obfuscate the topic at hand with irrelevant data (e.g. the south-to-north movement of fluted points through the Ice Free Corridor), nonexistent data (e.g. ‘under the water’ or ‘destroyed sites’), and questionable data (e.g. Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are by no means widely accepted, nor are Stanford and Bradley's ‘eight LGM sites’ in the mid-Atlantic region). Before touching on some of these points, we direct the reader to several recent articles (e.g. Morrow 2014; Raff & Bolnick 2014) that provide new evidence or arguments inconsistent with a trans-Atlantic migration, including the fact that DNA from the Clovis Anzick child (Montana) shows no European ancestry (Rasmussenet al. 2014). Although Stanford and Bradley describe their Solutrean ‘solution’ (Stanford & Bradley 1999) to the Pleistocene colonisation of North America as ‘testable’, their position is that the idea is correct until falsified. They propose that their colleagues have yet to provide sufficient ‘critiques’ or ‘challenges’ to discount it (see also Collins 2012; Collinset al. 2013). Yet they are the ones proposing a hypothesis inconsistent with overwhelming multidisciplinary evidence, and they ignore results of tests that do not support their claims.