Who were the first humans to inhabit North America? According to the now familiar story, mammal hunters entered the continent some 12,000 years ago via a land bridge that spanned the Bering Sea. Distinctive stone tools belonging to the Clovis culture established the presence of these early New World people. But are the Clovis tools Asian in origin? Drawing from original archaeological analysis, paleoclimatic research, and genetic studies, noted archaeologists Dennis J. Stanford and Bruce A. Bradley challenge the old narrative and, in the process, counter traditional--and often subjective--approaches to archaeological testing for historical relatedness. The authors apply rigorous scholarship to a hypothesis that places the technological antecedents of Clovis in Europe and posits that the first Americans crossed the Atlantic by boat and arrived earlier than previously thought. Supplying archaeological and oceanographic evidence to support this assertion, the book dismantles the old paradigm while persuasively linking Clovis technology with the culture of the Solutrean people who occupied France and Spain more than 20,000 years ago.
Across Atlantic Ice
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Stanford and Bradley weave a fascinating narrative. . . . [The authors] deftly illustrate their expertise."--Southeastern Archaeology
"This scientific treatise . . . shines between the lines."--The Washington Times
"A thorough job. . . . Stanford and Bradley compile an impressive dossier of evidence. . . . It should be taken seriously."--Int'l Jrnl Nautical Achaeology
From the Inside Flap
"Across Atlantic Ice is brilliant and ground-breaking. As fascinating as it is controversial, this book brings together decades of research from diverse areas into a single volume that is well argued, factually rich, elegantly written--and absolutely riveting. I could not put it down." --Douglas Preston, author of Cities of Gold, Thunderhead, and former archaeology correspondent for The New Yorker magazine
"In their well-written and well-reasoned exploration of the first inhabitants of the Americas, Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley have provided a viable alternative scenario. I am not a trained professional, but I have been reading the archeological literature for thirty-five years. Their argument is logical and should be given an open-minded hearing." --Jean M. Auel, author of The Land of Painted Caves and The Clan of the Cave Bear
"This carefully crafted, well-researched book aims to change our thinking of who the first Americans were and where they came from. Stanford and Bradley have produced an ambitious, interdisciplinary study of a neglected route of early entry into the Americas that will affect the way the larger narrative of the first chapter of human history in the New World is written." --Tom D. Dillehay, author of The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory
"In their well-written and well-reasoned exploration of the first inhabitants of the Americas, Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley have provided a viable alternative scenario. I am not a trained professional, but I have been reading the archeological literature for thirty-five years. Their argument is logical and should be given an open-minded hearing." --Jean M. Auel, author of The Land of Painted Caves and The Clan of the Cave Bear
"This carefully crafted, well-researched book aims to change our thinking of who the first Americans were and where they came from. Stanford and Bradley have produced an ambitious, interdisciplinary study of a neglected route of early entry into the Americas that will affect the way the larger narrative of the first chapter of human history in the New World is written." --Tom D. Dillehay, author of The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
120 of 129 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, we were hit full on by the storm of New Archeology, which promised a whole new way, a scientific way, of explaining what archeological remains could tell us about the evolution of human behavior. Now, some 40 or 50 years later, archeology is still basically the same as it was before New became old archeology. A generation or two of archeologists raised on Popper and Hempill have come and gone, and much of the philosophy of science understood by archeologists today is still based on the Popper and Hempill models of half a century ago.
Experimental archeology was a (small) part of the New Archeology. Primarily it involved faunal analysis, and the application of ethnographic and experimental data to explaining the nature of bone assemblages and the behavior which produced them. Binford and his students led the way in this endeavor, and I view their results as some of the best, and only, useful products of the New Archeology.
Experimental lithic technology studies were conducted, to be sure. But for the most part, these concentrated on "discovering" the methods used to manufacture lithic tools in a very mechanistic sort of way, or to discover possible uses to which the tools might have been put. As important as those studies were, they seldom really got to human behavior, and almost never to providing a useful way to trace the development and spread of either the technology, or, more importantly, the groups of people who were making their way in an evolving landscape using those tools.
Across Atlantic Ice is not one of those aforementioned studies. It is what those studies should have been. Written by Dennis Stanford, a long-term maverick archeologist who has been forcing us to look at the possibility of pre-Clovis occupation of the New World for many years, and by Bruce Bradley, without any doubt the most accomplished and widely experienced flint knapper alive today, the book suggests a new hypothesis to explain the origin, both technologically and geographically, of the Clovis culture. To give away the plot without further ado, Stanford and Bradley argue for an origin of Clovis (and pre-Clovis) technology with the Solutrean culture of France and Spain. They marshal a considerable corpus of data in support of this hypothesis from a wide variety of disciplines - paleontology, geology, geochronology and of course, archeology. They describe Clovis technology in great detail, pulling together the work of many researchers, as well as their own research. They carefully lay out what they see as the three potential candidates for the antecedents of Clovis technology, and describe each in detail. Their comparisons are detailed and extensive.
In identifying the complex biface thinning technology of southwestern Europe as the progenitor of Clovis, they also rely heavily on Bradley's analysis of the manufacturing process of both Solutrean lithics and Clovis lithics. Unlike the earlier, much more mechanistic investigations of lithic technology, Bradley seems to view the manufacture of a lithic tool as a series of problems which confront the knapper, and which must be addressed by conscious choices as to technique, raw material and tools used. Bradley conveys the nature of those choices as a human behavior amenable to analysis in a way other knappers have not.
One of the interesting points of their arguments involves the identification of specific, detailed similarities in the lithic complexes they analyze as more likely to carry information about the true relationships of those complexes, and hence the people responsible for them, than higher level, broader and more general resemblances, which they regard as more likely to be due to a sort of cultural convergence. This approach mirrors closely that of cladistic analysis in phylogenetic reconstruction. For example, they identify one very specific technique, overshot flaking, as so specialized, and so restricted in time and space (it is a significant component of only two complexes, Clovis and Solutrean) that it surely evidences a close relationship between the people responsible. In cladistic analysis, such traits are called "synapomorphies," that is, shared derived characters, which are the only similarities that can be used to infer phylogenetic relationships. I would offer here that some of the numerical, computerized methods used in discovering relationships between different taxa in a quantifiable and testable way, might be applied to analysis of lithic complexes. It would add a further level of sophistication to the "three taxa" analyses that Stanford and Bradley have worked out manually.
I will not belabor the rich fabric of evidence which the authors have woven for us readers. As the author of the book's Forward, Michael Collins notes, they've laid out the evidence. Much more needs to be done in order to test their hypothesis, and I am sure that this book will be responsible for encouraging much of that work to be done, particularly by those who will, and already have, vociferously opposed their ideas. My suspicion is that, unlike most crazy ideas, this one is an example of Shopenhauer's process. It is only a matter of time, I believe, until the present naysayers will be telling us that they knew it all along.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to knowing one of the authors (Bradley) as well as the author of the Forward (Collins). All that means is that I have some little exposure ( decades ago) to Bradley's consummate skill as a knapper, and to Collins' abilities as an archeologist and a scientist. Although they may not remember or realize it, both taught me important lessons in those long past days.
Richard S. White
Experimental archeology was a (small) part of the New Archeology. Primarily it involved faunal analysis, and the application of ethnographic and experimental data to explaining the nature of bone assemblages and the behavior which produced them. Binford and his students led the way in this endeavor, and I view their results as some of the best, and only, useful products of the New Archeology.
Experimental lithic technology studies were conducted, to be sure. But for the most part, these concentrated on "discovering" the methods used to manufacture lithic tools in a very mechanistic sort of way, or to discover possible uses to which the tools might have been put. As important as those studies were, they seldom really got to human behavior, and almost never to providing a useful way to trace the development and spread of either the technology, or, more importantly, the groups of people who were making their way in an evolving landscape using those tools.
Across Atlantic Ice is not one of those aforementioned studies. It is what those studies should have been. Written by Dennis Stanford, a long-term maverick archeologist who has been forcing us to look at the possibility of pre-Clovis occupation of the New World for many years, and by Bruce Bradley, without any doubt the most accomplished and widely experienced flint knapper alive today, the book suggests a new hypothesis to explain the origin, both technologically and geographically, of the Clovis culture. To give away the plot without further ado, Stanford and Bradley argue for an origin of Clovis (and pre-Clovis) technology with the Solutrean culture of France and Spain. They marshal a considerable corpus of data in support of this hypothesis from a wide variety of disciplines - paleontology, geology, geochronology and of course, archeology. They describe Clovis technology in great detail, pulling together the work of many researchers, as well as their own research. They carefully lay out what they see as the three potential candidates for the antecedents of Clovis technology, and describe each in detail. Their comparisons are detailed and extensive.
In identifying the complex biface thinning technology of southwestern Europe as the progenitor of Clovis, they also rely heavily on Bradley's analysis of the manufacturing process of both Solutrean lithics and Clovis lithics. Unlike the earlier, much more mechanistic investigations of lithic technology, Bradley seems to view the manufacture of a lithic tool as a series of problems which confront the knapper, and which must be addressed by conscious choices as to technique, raw material and tools used. Bradley conveys the nature of those choices as a human behavior amenable to analysis in a way other knappers have not.
One of the interesting points of their arguments involves the identification of specific, detailed similarities in the lithic complexes they analyze as more likely to carry information about the true relationships of those complexes, and hence the people responsible for them, than higher level, broader and more general resemblances, which they regard as more likely to be due to a sort of cultural convergence. This approach mirrors closely that of cladistic analysis in phylogenetic reconstruction. For example, they identify one very specific technique, overshot flaking, as so specialized, and so restricted in time and space (it is a significant component of only two complexes, Clovis and Solutrean) that it surely evidences a close relationship between the people responsible. In cladistic analysis, such traits are called "synapomorphies," that is, shared derived characters, which are the only similarities that can be used to infer phylogenetic relationships. I would offer here that some of the numerical, computerized methods used in discovering relationships between different taxa in a quantifiable and testable way, might be applied to analysis of lithic complexes. It would add a further level of sophistication to the "three taxa" analyses that Stanford and Bradley have worked out manually.
I will not belabor the rich fabric of evidence which the authors have woven for us readers. As the author of the book's Forward, Michael Collins notes, they've laid out the evidence. Much more needs to be done in order to test their hypothesis, and I am sure that this book will be responsible for encouraging much of that work to be done, particularly by those who will, and already have, vociferously opposed their ideas. My suspicion is that, unlike most crazy ideas, this one is an example of Shopenhauer's process. It is only a matter of time, I believe, until the present naysayers will be telling us that they knew it all along.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to knowing one of the authors (Bradley) as well as the author of the Forward (Collins). All that means is that I have some little exposure ( decades ago) to Bradley's consummate skill as a knapper, and to Collins' abilities as an archeologist and a scientist. Although they may not remember or realize it, both taught me important lessons in those long past days.
Richard S. White
43 of 46 people found the following review helpful
By A. Foulks
Format:Hardcover
I have been awaiting this book hypothesizing a Solutrean origin for the Clovis culture for many years, in the meantime subsisting on the bits of information the authors have leaked through journal articles and lectures. Finally their book-length alternative hypothesis of the origins of the early American "Clovis" culture is out.
As an archaeologist who specializes in stone tools analysis, and a mediocre flintknapper, I have to say that the totality of the similarities between Solutrean culture and Clovis culture is very compelling. This is especially true if sites such as Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are being correctly interpreted as bridging the time gap between these two (putatively related) cultures. It is a very difficult thing to describe the profound changes one has to make when switching from one culture's tool manufacturing method to another's, and I don't think it was done totally successfully in this book, but as a flintknapper I agree that if ANY two sophisticated prehistoric groups made their tools the same way, it was these two.
Above all, I think this book should be seen as a challenge to do new research, including that which may not assume all early Americans came from Asia. This book doesn't refute that there sites proximal to the Pacific coast of the Americas that DO represent Asian migration; they are only saying that a different wave of migrants was responsible for Clovis culture. As they opined (p. 185), if the Solutrean culture were found in Siberia, everybody would immediately recognize it as the progenitor of Clovis. Another strong point in the book is the review of LGM(last Glacial maximum) environments in BOTH eastern Siberia and southwest Europe. If crossing thousands of kilometers of ice edge (the Atlantic route) seems impossibly daunting, the long-favored northern Siberian route to America seems just as unappealing (horrific storms in winter, raging rivers in spring, and mushy bug-infested lands in summer). Hard to imagine either route being plausible, to those of us who live in modern technological comfort; but SOMEBODY did it in the distant past. Why not more than one group?
I have my nitpicks with the presentation. For instance, the index is terrible. I looked in vain for "Ramah chert" and "Suwannee complex", which I knew from previous exposure to the hypothesis were key elements in this model of Clovis origins. They are covered in the text, but are not listed in the index. Another weak point was on p. 42 (Figure 2.5): the scattershot distribution of Clovis site dates didn't make the intended case at all, that Clovis culture is older in the East than in the West. Finally, after painstakingly telling the reader how far it is between early sites in Siberia and those in interior North America; they were very reluctant to actually disclose the distance Solutrean hunters would have had to cross (with their families) in order to establish a viable population in eastern North America [it is roughly 6,000 km; or 4,000 mi.]. Better to have stated that right away, and then used the distances between Siberia to interior northwest America to mitigate the shock of it. Again, SOMEBODY made the journey, no matter how difficult it was, or there wouldn't have been people in the Americas.
My biggest criticism: the authors' interchangeable use of "hypothesis" and "theory". I don't let students in my 100-level course make that mistake. What we have here is an HYPOTHESIS supported by some observed facts; one that is just begging for testing (by both traditional and innovative methods).
I thank the authors for their courage; they've long been aware of the severe criticism this model has inspired. As they noted, similarities between Solutrean culture in western Europe and Clovis culture in North America have been observed before; but it would have been professional suicide for a graduate student to present such an idea, as entrenched as the "Siberian origin of New World peoples" was. Stanford and Bradley have unassailable research reputations, and they are late enough in their careers to take this risk.
One of my most important reactions to this book: I appreciate it as a statement against entrenchment and political correctness in science. The ideal of science being "let the data take you where it will" is seldom practiced in reality. The reality is that, now that we've had access to archaeological finds in Siberia (since the fall of the USSR), there is NO valid progenitor to Clovis technology to be found there. I suppose the fear is that American archaeologists (most of whom are Anglo.) will be labeled "racist" by suggesting that any of the first Americans came from Europe. Newsflash: the Native Americans are offended that anyone would suggest that they haven't ALWAYS been here in the Americas, so we've already offended them. And sadly, if an archaeologist from, say, Africa or Asia had suggested the "Solutrean hypothesis", we would have just dismissed them as "out of touch" with paleo-American archaeology. That's one accusation nobody can make about these authors.
The other reality of modern archaeology is that humans have clearly proven their intrepid exploration abilities time and again: from expanding into temperate areas during the early Ice Age, to colonizing offshore islands as much as hundreds of thousands of years ago, to our recent history of Moon landings in what already seem like impossibly flimsy spacecraft. And yet, archaeologists consistently underestimate early man's drive to explore; and fail to even search for sites in accordance with that underestimation. Let's stop being so timid, and find ways to be intrepid ourselves, such as developing new techniques to do underwater archaeology, which might illuminate the human occupation of landscapes now deep underwater, including those that could just lead this to being our new paradigm of Clovis origins.
As an archaeologist who specializes in stone tools analysis, and a mediocre flintknapper, I have to say that the totality of the similarities between Solutrean culture and Clovis culture is very compelling. This is especially true if sites such as Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are being correctly interpreted as bridging the time gap between these two (putatively related) cultures. It is a very difficult thing to describe the profound changes one has to make when switching from one culture's tool manufacturing method to another's, and I don't think it was done totally successfully in this book, but as a flintknapper I agree that if ANY two sophisticated prehistoric groups made their tools the same way, it was these two.
Above all, I think this book should be seen as a challenge to do new research, including that which may not assume all early Americans came from Asia. This book doesn't refute that there sites proximal to the Pacific coast of the Americas that DO represent Asian migration; they are only saying that a different wave of migrants was responsible for Clovis culture. As they opined (p. 185), if the Solutrean culture were found in Siberia, everybody would immediately recognize it as the progenitor of Clovis. Another strong point in the book is the review of LGM(last Glacial maximum) environments in BOTH eastern Siberia and southwest Europe. If crossing thousands of kilometers of ice edge (the Atlantic route) seems impossibly daunting, the long-favored northern Siberian route to America seems just as unappealing (horrific storms in winter, raging rivers in spring, and mushy bug-infested lands in summer). Hard to imagine either route being plausible, to those of us who live in modern technological comfort; but SOMEBODY did it in the distant past. Why not more than one group?
I have my nitpicks with the presentation. For instance, the index is terrible. I looked in vain for "Ramah chert" and "Suwannee complex", which I knew from previous exposure to the hypothesis were key elements in this model of Clovis origins. They are covered in the text, but are not listed in the index. Another weak point was on p. 42 (Figure 2.5): the scattershot distribution of Clovis site dates didn't make the intended case at all, that Clovis culture is older in the East than in the West. Finally, after painstakingly telling the reader how far it is between early sites in Siberia and those in interior North America; they were very reluctant to actually disclose the distance Solutrean hunters would have had to cross (with their families) in order to establish a viable population in eastern North America [it is roughly 6,000 km; or 4,000 mi.]. Better to have stated that right away, and then used the distances between Siberia to interior northwest America to mitigate the shock of it. Again, SOMEBODY made the journey, no matter how difficult it was, or there wouldn't have been people in the Americas.
My biggest criticism: the authors' interchangeable use of "hypothesis" and "theory". I don't let students in my 100-level course make that mistake. What we have here is an HYPOTHESIS supported by some observed facts; one that is just begging for testing (by both traditional and innovative methods).
I thank the authors for their courage; they've long been aware of the severe criticism this model has inspired. As they noted, similarities between Solutrean culture in western Europe and Clovis culture in North America have been observed before; but it would have been professional suicide for a graduate student to present such an idea, as entrenched as the "Siberian origin of New World peoples" was. Stanford and Bradley have unassailable research reputations, and they are late enough in their careers to take this risk.
One of my most important reactions to this book: I appreciate it as a statement against entrenchment and political correctness in science. The ideal of science being "let the data take you where it will" is seldom practiced in reality. The reality is that, now that we've had access to archaeological finds in Siberia (since the fall of the USSR), there is NO valid progenitor to Clovis technology to be found there. I suppose the fear is that American archaeologists (most of whom are Anglo.) will be labeled "racist" by suggesting that any of the first Americans came from Europe. Newsflash: the Native Americans are offended that anyone would suggest that they haven't ALWAYS been here in the Americas, so we've already offended them. And sadly, if an archaeologist from, say, Africa or Asia had suggested the "Solutrean hypothesis", we would have just dismissed them as "out of touch" with paleo-American archaeology. That's one accusation nobody can make about these authors.
The other reality of modern archaeology is that humans have clearly proven their intrepid exploration abilities time and again: from expanding into temperate areas during the early Ice Age, to colonizing offshore islands as much as hundreds of thousands of years ago, to our recent history of Moon landings in what already seem like impossibly flimsy spacecraft. And yet, archaeologists consistently underestimate early man's drive to explore; and fail to even search for sites in accordance with that underestimation. Let's stop being so timid, and find ways to be intrepid ourselves, such as developing new techniques to do underwater archaeology, which might illuminate the human occupation of landscapes now deep underwater, including those that could just lead this to being our new paradigm of Clovis origins.
24 of 27 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
This is the book that amateurs, like me, and professionals have been waiting for, a reasonable argument for early peopling of the Americas from Europe. My review of a precursor book, Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis on Amazon.com, noted Dr. Stanford's dedication to overcome the Clovis first mentality with data. Across Atlantic Ice uses new discoveries and data analysis to present reasonable proof that travel across the Atlantic Ocean and ice did happen during Neolithic times.
Going down to the sea in ships has always been risky and requires the right mix of technical innovation and skillful seamanship to succeed. I have seen this first hand in Nuclear Submarines, including Attack Submarine Command (SSN 612) during the Cold War. The ability for vessels to carrying heavy loads, quickly over long distances would have been obvious even in Neolithic times.
This book is controversial, but that it is why it is important to read. If you are not an expert you may be challenged to understand all the concepts, but it is well worth the effort.
Going down to the sea in ships has always been risky and requires the right mix of technical innovation and skillful seamanship to succeed. I have seen this first hand in Nuclear Submarines, including Attack Submarine Command (SSN 612) during the Cold War. The ability for vessels to carrying heavy loads, quickly over long distances would have been obvious even in Neolithic times.
This book is controversial, but that it is why it is important to read. If you are not an expert you may be challenged to understand all the concepts, but it is well worth the effort.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
The detail comparisons of stone tools and points make the case for...
Great detail of the stone tools and artifacts linking the Solutrean culture of europe with the pre-Clovis culture in America,
Published 2 months ago by MaryAnn
5.0 out of 5 stars
Solutreans
Excellent theory deserving of serious critical review, not the usual knee-jerk rejection by archaeologists and academics firmly entrenched in their own corner of orthodoxy.
Published 2 months ago by K. Hoenke
5.0 out of 5 stars
Across Atlanatic Ice
It was such a good book and I like reading about these
type of things. Plus one of these suthors grew up in my
town and we were friends.. Read more
type of things. Plus one of these suthors grew up in my
town and we were friends.. Read more
Published 3 months ago by jeanne
5.0 out of 5 stars
PREHISTORIC WATER ROUTE MAKES SENSE
I thoroughly enjoyed this work and agree with most of the conclusions.
This is an exciting time for new world archeology ! Read more
This is an exciting time for new world archeology ! Read more
Published 3 months ago by Thomas Spalding
5.0 out of 5 stars
hubby loved
this book was one my hubby read cover to cover as soon as we got it - I already reviewed this what happened to that review?
Published 3 months ago by Marijo
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent and fairly easy to follow
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in north America`s Clovis and pre-Clovis cultures. I don't know if I fully believe their hypothesis, but the authors make a very... Read more
Published 3 months ago by Jatroc
3.0 out of 5 stars
Atlantic Crossing, Yes -- Boats, No
Ice age man crossing along Atlantic ice, Europe to North America? Yes. But why and how?
"Across Atlantic Ice" -- it's an interesting book, and an even more interesting... Read more
"Across Atlantic Ice" -- it's an interesting book, and an even more interesting... Read more
Published 3 months ago by John Bull
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting take
Not always convincing and oooooh so detailed as to be off-putting, but I find the theory fascinating enough to plow through this scholarly text, and feel rewarded at the end.
Published 4 months ago by Tom B.
4.0 out of 5 stars
Review by an Archaeology and History Major
I read this book and could barely put it down. The theories being promoted in this book were fresh and far more factual than the outdated drivel being spouted by most university... Read more
Published 4 months ago by norstar1
4.0 out of 5 stars
Intriguing theory well argued
The authors make a fairly persuasive case that Clovis culture originated in Europe, not Asia. The book would benefit from inclusion of recent DNA studies of Native Americans. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Lillian A. Anderson
