Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:37:59.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Weight of the Evidence from Cross Creek: A Reply to Turner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard T. Fitzgerald  and
Terry L. Jones
Richard T. Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Office of Cultural Resource Studies, California Department of Transportation, 111 Grand Ave., Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Terry L. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As stated in our original paper (Jones et al. 2002), the Cross Creek site is not of sufficient antiquity to challenge Clovis for temporal priority in western North America, but it pushes the age of the California Milling Stone culture back 2,000 years earlier than previous estimates. The Milling Stone culture and coastal adaptations on the southern California islands are so profoundly different from Clovis that they beg consideration of alternative colonization scenarios. Relying on old arguments and ignoring recently published findings, Turner (this issue) argues that there is insufficient evidence for a maritime culture on the central coast of California at the end of the Pleistocene. In our response, we further discuss implications of the findings from Cross Creek and other studies that support a coastal migration model.

Résumé

Résumé

Como fuera expresado en nuestro trabajo original (Jones et al. 2002), el sitio de Cross Creek no es de la antigüedad suficiente para desafiar al Clovis en la prioridad temporal en la Norte América occidental, pero empuja la edad del Período Arcaico de California por 2,000 años antes de las estimaciones previas. La cultura del Período Arcaico y las adaptaciones costeras en las islas sureñas de California son tan profundamente diferentes de Clovis que buscan la consideración de guiones alternativos de colonización. Fiándose de los argumentos e ignorando viejas conclusiones recientemente publicadas, Christy Turner (este número) discute que la evidencia es insuficiente para una cultura marítima en la costa central de California a fines del Pleistoceno. En nuestra respuesta, discutimos las implicaciones de las conclusiones de Cross Creek y otros estudios que apoyan el modelo costero de la migración.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 396 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Basgall, M. E. 2000 The Structure of Archaeological Landscapes in the North-Central Mojave Desert. In Archaeological Passages: A Volume in Honor of Claude Nelson Warren, edited by Schneider, J., R. Yohe II, and Gardner, J. K., pp. 123–137. Publications in Archaeology No. 1. Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology, Hemet, California.Google Scholar
Basgall, M. E., and Hall, M. C. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Goldstone (CA-SBR- 2348): A Middle Holocene Occupation Complex in the North-Central Mojave Desert, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Copies available from Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.Google Scholar
Basgall, M. E. and True, D. L. 1985 Crowder Canyon Archaeological Investigations. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation District 8, San Bernardino, California. Copies available from California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California.Google Scholar
Chartkoff, J. L., and Chartkoff, K. K. 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Dixon, E. J. 2001 Human Colonization of the Americas: Timing, Technology, and Process. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlandson, J. M. 1994 Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlandson, J. M. 2001 Maritime Voyaging and Colonization of the Americas. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, edited by Jablonski, N., pp. 59–92. Memoirs of the California Academy of Science No. 27. San Francisco.Google Scholar
Erlandson, J. M., Kennett, D. J., Ingram, B. L., Guthrie, D. A., Morris, D. P., Tveskov, M. A., West, G. J., and Walker, P. L. 1996 AnArchaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38:361–373.Google Scholar
Fiedel, S. J. 2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 8:39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, R. T., and Jones, T. L. 1999 The Milling Stone Horizon Revisited: New Perspectives from Northern and Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2 1:65–93.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, W. R., and Jones, T. L. 1992 Evolution of Marine Mammal Hunting: A View from the California and Oregon Coasts. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:360–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., Stafford, T. W. Jr., Ajie, H. O., and Morris, D. P. 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by Brown, D. R., Mitchell, K. C., and Chaney, H. W. pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, California.Google Scholar
Jones, T. L. Fitzgerald, R. T., Kennett, D. J., Miksicek, C. H., Fagan, J. L., Sharp, J., and Erlandson, J. M. 2002 The Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) and Its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67:213–230.Google Scholar
Mandryk, C. A. S. Josenshans, H., Fedje, D. W., and Mathewes, R. W. 2001 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Northwestern North America: Implications for Inland versus Coastal Migration Routes. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:301–314.Google Scholar
McGuire, K. R. and Hildebrandt, W. R. 1993 The Possibilities of Women and Men: Gender and the California Milling Stone Horizon. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16:41–59.Google Scholar
Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Orr, Phil C. 1956 Dwarf Mammoths and Man on Santa Rosa Island. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 26:74–81. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Porcasi, J. F., Jones, T. L., and Raab, L. M. 2000 Trans-Holocene Marine Mammal Exploitation on San Clemente Island, California: A Tragedy of the Commons Revisited. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:200–220.Google Scholar
Rogers, D. B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.Google Scholar
Schroth, A. 1993 The Pinto Point Controversy in the Western United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. J. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9,000-2,000 B.C. In California, edited by Heizer, R. F., pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, Sturtevant, W. C., general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar