A wet strawman: A response to Ward et al.

Ward et al. (2022) assert in their desktop study that we are “mistaken” in our interpretation of the artifacts at the Cape Bruguières Channel (CBC), Flying Foam Passage (FF), and Dolphin Island (DI) sites as evidence of cultural activity on a pre-inundation land surface (Benjamin et al., 2020 [CBC and FF]; Dortch et al., 2019 [DI]) and that we have failed to take account of local hydrodynamic processes that could have displaced artifacts and moved them over much greater distances than we thought possible. They argue two key points in support: (1) that “these sites are in the intertidal zone” (p. 783) and (2) that “many or all artefacts are likely to have been reworked” (p. 783).