Abstract

Experimental archaeology can help to explain human patterns of production and discard from the Palaeolithic to historical periods, and can inform debates on topics as diverse as human migration and diet. When conducted unsystematically and used to support bold conclusions, however, experimental archaeology may quickly assume the trappings of bad science. Drawing on experimental and archaeological data, Holen et al. (2017) have argued for the presence of an approximately 130 000-year-old archaeological site in California. In our recent critique (Magnani et al. 2019), we evaluated the experimental data used by the authors to support their claims. In considering Holen and colleagues' rebuttal (2019), we first draw attention to their openness to quantitative analysis and further experimentation. While this approach is positive, we maintain that more rigorous experimentation should have been performed before publication of the original extraordinary claims. We agree with Eren and Bebber's (2019) succinct criticism: as with other scientific disciplines, experimental archaeology has matured. As Eren has stated elsewhere, This discussion might sound axiomatic or commonsensical, but we have encountered archaeologists who think that the mere act of 'busting rocks' or using a stone tool to butcher an animal constitutes publishable research. This may have been the case at one time in the same way that the act of dissecting a mollusk would have resulted in a published biology paper 150 years ago (Eren et al. 2016: 108).

No abstract