Let us begin simply: the criticisms of Magnani et al. (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019) and others (e.g. Braje et al. Reference Braje, Dillehay, Erlandson, Fitzpatrick, Grayson, Holliday, Kelly, Klein, Meltzer and Rick2017; Haynes Reference Haynes2017, Reference Haynes2018; Ferraro et al. Reference Ferraro, Binetti, Wiest, Esker, Baker and Forman2018) regarding the Cerutti Mastodon site are valid and convincing. Regardless of whether Holen et al.’s (Reference Holen, Deméré, Fisher, Fullagar, Paces, Jefferson, Beeton, Cerutti, Rountrey, Vescera and Holen2017) study should have been published in Nature—or anywhere else (e.g. Curwen Reference Curwen2017)—the scientific process has done its job. Advocates of 130 000-year-old boulder-wielding, bone-cracking SoCal [southern Californian] hominins now have their work cut out for them. Until that work is robustly completed, evaluated and replicated, there is no reason for archaeologists who study the peopling of the Americas to incorporate the Cerutti Mastodon site into their New World colonisation frameworks.

In the case of the Cerutti Mastodon site, we, of course, agree with Magnani et al.’s (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019) critique of the use and abuse of experimental archaeology. Indeed, as experimental archaeologists ourselves, we are heartened by the near-unanimous reaction against Holen et al.’s (Reference Holen, Deméré, Fisher, Fullagar, Paces, Jefferson, Beeton, Cerutti, Rountrey, Vescera and Holen2017) conclusions; we suspect that it is indicative of an increasingly refined, discipline-wide understanding of how archaeological experiments should be conducted, how they should be integrated into archaeological research and the nature of inferences that can be made from different types of experiments. In other words, perhaps Holen et al.’s (Reference Holen, Deméré, Fisher, Fullagar, Paces, Jefferson, Beeton, Cerutti, Rountrey, Vescera and Holen2017) experiments appeared so jarring to modern archaeologists because the experiments were so removed from modern experimental practice in archaeology. When exactly experimental archaeology experienced this quiet ‘coming of age’ can, of course, be debated—and there are always areas in which experimental archaeologists can improve to mature the field still further (Eren et al. Reference Eren, Lycett, Patten, Buchanan, Pargeter and O'Brien2016; Lin et al. Reference Lin, Rezek and Dibble2018). At some point in the last two decades, however, the concepts discussed by Magnani et al. (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019) have become vital, customary—and even routine—considerations in the design and execution of archaeological experiments (e.g. Outram Reference Outram2008; Lycett & Chauhan Reference Lycett and Chauhan2010).

Magnani et al. (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019: 793) thank Holen et al. (Reference Holen, Deméré, Fisher, Fullagar, Paces, Jefferson, Beeton, Cerutti, Rountrey, Vescera and Holen2017) for “making extensive supplementary data available for their project, including videos and three-dimensional models, which will prove beneficial for further evaluation of the Cerutti site”. Magnani et al.’s (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019) criticism, however, makes perfectly clear that supplementary videos and data, three-dimensional models, the use of ‘high-tech’ gadgets and, indeed, the very act of replicating artefacts are nothing more than parlour tricks, unless in the service of a testable question with a structured and robust research design. Like it or not, the future of archaeology is largely experimental (cf. Surovell et al. Reference Surovell, Toohey, Myers, LaBelle, Ahern and Reisig2017); Magnani et al.’s (Reference Magnani, Grindle, Loomis, Kim, Egbers, Clindaniel, Hartford, Johnson, Weber and Campbell2019) article helps to ensure the rigour with which experimental archaeology must proceed.