Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:25:57.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Ellis’ “Comment” on “Pueblo Indian Migrations”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen C. Jett*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis, California

Abstract

Ellis’ first major criticism, that local variations on the regional precipitation patterns were ignored, is considered irrelevant, because of the local, random, and short-term nature of these variations and the essential homogeneity of the climate of the Plateau area. Ellis’ second criticism, that the regional differences in climate between the Plateau area and the Rio Grande region were not taken into account, is considered to have more relevance. These differences could conceivably account for a movement between a desiccated Mesa Verde and a little-affected Rio Grande, but precipitation at Mesa Verde would have to be considerably more than halved for this regional differential to be of importance. Regional climatic differences cannot explain population shifts within the relatively homogeneous Plateau region. Hack's theory of arroyo-cutting accompanying droughts as the direct cause of migrations is inadequate because a number of areas were manifestly unaffected by arroyo-cutting, and there is evidence to suggest that arroyo-cutting is not genetically associated with drought periods as minor as that of A.D. 1276–1299. Certain misquotations in Ellis' note are also corrected, as is a misrepresentation in Jett's article.

Information

Type
Facts and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1965

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable