Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Three Ounces of Sea Shells and One Fish Bone Do Not a Coastal Migration Make

Christy G. Turner II
American Antiquity
Vol. 68, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 391-395
DOI: 10.2307/3557086
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557086
Page Count: 5
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($9.95)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Three Ounces of Sea Shells and One Fish Bone Do Not a Coastal Migration Make
Preview not available

Abstract

The suggestion by Jones et al. (2002) that a terminal Pleistocene-early Holocene California site contains evidence for a separate coastal migration into the New World is challenged. The authors ignore the fact that some 100 or more generations passed since the initial New World colonization event(s) and the occupation of their site (Cross Creek), during which time many cultural changes could be expected, including post-big-game-hunting coastal adaptations throughout the Americas. Moreover, the amount of food refuse is so minuscule that inferring the exact nature of the initial Cross Creek economy is doubtful at best. The recovered chipped stone artifacts have no diagnostic value for economic function or ecological correlation, and the grinding stones suggest more seed than sea exploitation. Lastly, what is known about the biological origins, variation, and microevolution of Native Americans does not support a direct coastal migration from Siberia to California. /// Se desafía la sugerencia hecha por Jones, et al. (2002), en el sentido de que un sitio de California del Pleistoceno terminal- Holoceno temprano contiene evidencia de una migración costera diferente hacia el Nuevo Mundo. Los autores ignoran a las 100 o más generaciones que pasaron desde el inicio de los eventos de la colonización del Nuevo Mundo y la ocupación de su sitio (Cross Creek), durante cuyo tiempo se esperarían muchos cambios culturales, incluso adaptaciones costeras post-caza mayor por todas partes de las Américas. Además, la cantidad de desecho de la comida es tan minúscula, que se pone en duda la misma inferencia sobre la naturaleza de la economía initial del Cross Creek. Los artefactos de piedra recuperados no tienen valor diagnóstico por función económica o correlación ecológica, y las piedras de molienda sugieren más uso de semillas que explotación del mar. Finalmente, lo que es sabido acerca de los orígenes biológicos, variación, y micro evolución de Americanos Nativos no apoya una migración costera directa de Siberia a California.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
391
    391
  • Thumbnail: Page 
392
    392
  • Thumbnail: Page 
393
    393
  • Thumbnail: Page 
394
    394
  • Thumbnail: Page 
395
    395