English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Boats, Seafaring, and the Colonization of the Americas and California Channel Islands: A Response to Cassidy (2021)