Hunter C.

Somerville

hsomervi@utk.edu

Anth 120, Sec 001

In The North Atlantic ice edge corridor, Bradley and Stanford describe the basis for
their argument of how the Americas were first populated. They describe how Clovis technology
is more like the Soultrean of Western Europe than like the Northeast Asian technology. They
also show how Carbon14 dating places older archaeological sites on the Eastern side of America
and sites with younger dates going westward. They say this gives us useful evidence that
people came from Europe along the North Atlantic ice sheet. They also describe how there is
no substantial evidence proving that Clovis peoples came across the Beringia land bridge. They
say there is no archaeological site that has Clovis technology in that area. As modern
technological advances get better and dating of sites is processed, this shows that people
moved northward through the ice free corridor, not southward from Beringia. They say with all
this evidence that it gives us substantial evidence to accept that people first inhabited the
Americas by crossing the Atlantic Ocean by the North Atlantic ice sheet.
In the article, Ice Age Atlantis, Straus, Meltzer, and Goebel take on the assumptions
made by Bradley and Stanford. This article disputes the claims made by Bradley and Stanford
on many accounts. They first point out that there is a 5000 year gap between then end of the
Soultrean Culture and the beginning of the Pre-Clovis/Clovis Culture. They also refute the claim
of astounding similarities between two complexes (Straus et al. 2005). They say there are
more differences when you look closely than there are likenesses between the two cultures.
They also question the loss of art work. Meaning that Soultrean peoples were very rich in
forms of art work and Clovis people were not. They ask, Why would artistic ability and
productivity of Soultrean people have been lost during a supposed trans-Atlantic voyage?
(Straus et al. 2005). The technology similarities that Bradley and Stanford use as their

connection to the Soultrean and Clovis peoples are not as defined says Straus. The bifacial
technology and flint knapping is not exclusive to just these two cultures. They also say there
are no direct Soultrean artifacts found in the Americas that would indicate that they were here.
They also say that there should be other cultural indicators that the Soultrean were here
besides stone tools. The last claim that is disputed is that there has been no evidence that
Soultrean were sea faring people or marine fisherman. This would lead you to believe they did
not have boats to cross the ocean.
The material traits that define the Soultrean Culture are one of advanced stone
technologies. They used specialized blade core technology and flint knapping techniques to
produce various bifacial blades, points, and other tools. They also had knowledge of heating
the stone material to produce a better product. They also prepared bone wands, spatulae,
eyed needles, and works of portable art (Straus et al. 2005). Soultrean were also known for
their art work, drawings and paintings as well as bone carvings. The material traits that define
the Clovis Culture are similar technologies in their manufacture of stone tools. They have
similar technique that produced bifacial blades and points. The other trait that is not apparent
and found in the record is the art work. Very little has been found with a few pieces from
Texas. The only cultural similarities that have been found to exist between the Soultrean and
Clovis cultures are their similar stone tool manufacture with very closely related techniques.
The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor theory says that the Soultrean people migrated
from Western Europe along the ice sheet to the Americas. This gave rise to the Clovis culture in
the Americas. Support of this theory by Bradley Stanford is in the stone tool technologies

being almost identical. They also use Carbon14 dating to say that people inhabited the
Americas on the Eastern side first and then moved west. They say that because little or no
Clovis archaeological finds in the Alaska, Canada, and Beringia areas that people did not migrate
from Asia. The theory that the peopling of Americas came from Asia is defended by Straus,
Meltzer, and Goebel by saying that there is a 5000 year gap between Soultrean in Europe and
Clovis cultures in America. They say that people came from Asia because the Soultrean were
not sea faring people and did not cross the Atlantic Ocean. They also use the analysis of mtDNA
to show that the European marker X is not present in Native American peoples, but that
markers from Asian ancestors is present.
After reading these two articles, I agree more with the theory that the peopling of
Americas and the rise of the Clovis Culture came from the people of Asia. The main scientific
data that influenced me the most was the mtDNA analysis and the absence of marker X in the
profiles. The second point is that there is a 5000 year span between when the Soultrean
Culture ends and when the rise of the Clovis Culture begins across an ocean. I believe in the
possibility of the idea of convergence or parallelism in which the technology similarities just
began in the Americas. I believe that Bradley and Stanford have a plausible hypothesis but they
do not have enough information to make the conclusion they have. As technology advances
and we have more evidence, I do think that we will eventually understand where the peoples of
America came from and possibly how they arrived.

References Cited

Bradley, Bruce, and Stanford, Dennis

2004 The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Paleolithic route to the New World
World Archaeology: Debates in World Archaeology 36(4): 459-478

Straus, Lawrence Guy, Meltzer, David J., and Goebel, Ted

2005 Ice Age Atlantis? Exploring the Soultrean Clovis connection
World Archaeology: Debates in World Archaeology 37(4): 507-532