Archaeological site interpretation using experimental quantitative and qualitative data: A response to Magnani et al. (2019)

The evidence reported in Holen et al. (Reference Holen, Deméré, Fisher, Fullagar, Paces, Jefferson, Beeton, Cerutti, Rountrey, Vecera and Holen2017) for hominin activity at the Cerutti Mastodon site is being intensively critiqued by many of our colleagues, but often with little regard for the cumulative meaning or the contextual data that support our interpretation of cultural bone and stone modification at the site. Magnani et al. (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019) characterise our bone-breakage experiments as pilot studies, or first-generation experiments, and as such, argue them to be insufficient in their own right to overturn previous research on hominin migration. While we acknowledge the limits imposed by qualitative data and the potential gains offered by quantitative, laboratory experimentation, much has been learned from these field experiments—including insights into processes used in the past and phenomena worthy of further investigation.