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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call