4 research outputs found
A network approach to zooarchaeological datasets and human-centered ecosystems in southwestern Florida
Refining the chronology of North America's copper using traditions: A macroscalar approach via Bayesian modeling.
North America's ancient copper use, predicted to originate as early as 9000 cal BP, represents the earliest use of native copper for utilitarian tool production in the world. Although recent work has focused on establishing the first use of copper in the western Great Lakes region, little attention has been paid to determining the age ranges of subsequent copper using groups or to the identification of broader trends in copper use during the Archaic Period (10,000-3000 RCYBP). Here we address this issue by applying Bayesian modeling to a comprehensive suite of 76 radiocarbon dates directly associated with copper use. Our results identified two distinct peaks in copper usage, ca. 5500 cal BP and ca. 3300 cal BP. Age ranges for the three Archaic Period traditions and practices associated with copper use of the western Great Lakes are revised using modern calibration curves. Bayesian revisions of age ranges from sites where copper tools and/or production debris have been found provide insight into the historical relationships between, and cultural interactions among, these early copper using groups. This study provides an updated, refined chronology based on the most recent calibration curve (IntCal20) for the varied cultural contexts of copper use across the western Great Lakes
Recommended from our members
Current Understanding of the Earliest Human Occupations in the Americas: Evaluation of Becerra-Valdivia and Higham (2020)
Various chronologies of the earliest Native American occupations have been proposed with varying levels of empirical support and conceptual rigor, yet none is widely accepted. A recent survey of pre-Clovis dated sites (Becerra-Valdivia and Higham 2020) concludes a pre-Last Glacial Maximum (>26,500–19,000 cal yr BP) entry of humans in the Americas, in part based on recent work at Chiquihuite Cave, Mexico. We evaluate the evidence used to develop this inference. To provide clarity, we present three explicit dispersal models for the earliest human dispersals to the Americas: Strict Clovis-First (13,050 cal yr BP), Paleoindian (16,000 cal yr BP, encompassing pre-LGM, preferred by Becerra-Valdivia and Higham (2020)), and we summarize the current genetic and archaeological evidence bearing on each. We regard all purported Pre-Paleoindian sites as equivocal and the Strict Clovis-First model to be equally unsupported at present. We conclude that current data strongly support the Paleoindian Dispersal model, with Native American ancestors expanding into the Americas sometime after 16,000 cal yr BP (and perhaps after 14,800 cal yr BP), consistent with well-dated archaeological sites and with genetic data throughout the western hemisphere. Models of the Americas’ peopling that incorporate Chiquihuite or other claimed Pre-Paleoindian sites remain unsubstantiated.18 month embargo; published online: 23 October 2021This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]
Recommended from our members
Evaluating Claims of Early Human Occupation at Chiquihuite Cave, Mexico
Archaeologists working in Mexico recently claimed evidence for pre-Last Glacial Maximum human occupation in the Americas, based on lithic items excavated from Chiquihuite Cave, Zacatecas. Although they provide extensive array of ancillary studies of the cave's chronostratigraphic and paleoenvironmental record, the data they present do not support their central argument, that these lithic items are anthropogenic and represent a unique lithic industry produced by early human occupants. They give limited consideration to the most plausible alternative explanation: that the assemblage is a product of natural processes of disintegration, roof fall, and mass movement of the cave fill, and thus the lithic materials are best explained as geofacts. We assess the evidence by considering the alternative hypotheses (1) that the observed phenomena are artifacts or (2) that they result from natural processes. We conclude that hypothesis 2 is more strongly supported and that Chiquihuite Cave does not represent evidence for the earliest Americans.18 month embargo; published online: 23 October 2021This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]