ABSTRACT
In a recent issue of California Archaeology, Jim Cassidy (2021. “A Technological Assessment of the North Pacific Seafaring Hypothesis: Informed by California Channel Island Research.” California Archaeology 13 (1): 69–92). provided a flawed assessment of the potential role boats and seafaring played in the initial peopling of the Americas, as well as the nature of watercraft used to settle Santarosae and California’s other Channel Islands. His arguments contain numerous errors and inconsistencies and are based primarily on his previously published interpretation of lithic tools from the Early Holocene component at the Eel Point site on San Clemente Island. Here, we point out the most obvious errors and weaknesses in Cassidy’s arguments and present a more realistic view of what we know and do not know about early seafaring and maritime technology in North America and southern California.
RESUMEN
En una edición reciente de Arqueología de California, Jim Cassidy (2021. “A Technological Assessment of the North Pacific Seafaring Hypothesis: Informed by California Channel Island Research.” California Archaeology 13 (1): 69–92) proporciona una evaluación defectuosa del papel potencial que jugaron los barcos y la navegación en el poblamiento inicial de las Américas, así como la naturaleza de las embarcaciones utilizadas para colonizar Santarosae y las otras Islas del Canal de California. Sus argumentos contienen numerosos errores e inconsistencias y se basan principalmente en su interpretación previamente publicada de herramientas líticas del componente del Holoceno Temprano en el sitio de Eel Point en la Isla San Clemente. Aquí, señalamos los errores y debilidades más obvios en los argumentos de Cassidy y presentamos una visión más realista de lo que sabemos y lo que no sabemos sobre la navegación y la tecnología marítima tempranas en América del Norte y el sur de California.
Acknowledgments
We thank Kathleen Hull and the editorial staff at California Archaeology for their help in the review and production of our manuscript, along with two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).