评估墨西哥奇基胡特洞穴早期人类占领的说法

IF 1.6 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY PaleoAmerica Pub Date : 2021-10-23 DOI:10.1080/20555563.2021.1940441
J. Chatters, B. Potter, A. Prentiss, S. Fiedel, G. Haynes, R. L. Kelly, J. D. Kilby, François B. Lanoë, Jacob Holland-Lulewicz, D. Miller, J. Morrow, Angela R. Perri, K. Rademaker, Joshua D. Reuther, Brandon T. Ritchison, G. Sánchez, Ismael Sánchez-Morales, S. M. Spivey-Faulkner, J. Tune, C. Haynes
{"title":"评估墨西哥奇基胡特洞穴早期人类占领的说法","authors":"J. Chatters, B. Potter, A. Prentiss, S. Fiedel, G. Haynes, R. L. Kelly, J. D. Kilby, François B. Lanoë, Jacob Holland-Lulewicz, D. Miller, J. Morrow, Angela R. Perri, K. Rademaker, Joshua D. Reuther, Brandon T. Ritchison, G. Sánchez, Ismael Sánchez-Morales, S. M. Spivey-Faulkner, J. Tune, C. Haynes","doi":"10.1080/20555563.2021.1940441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT 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.","PeriodicalId":37319,"journal":{"name":"PaleoAmerica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Claims of Early Human Occupation at Chiquihuite Cave, Mexico\",\"authors\":\"J. Chatters, B. Potter, A. Prentiss, S. Fiedel, G. Haynes, R. L. Kelly, J. D. Kilby, François B. Lanoë, Jacob Holland-Lulewicz, D. Miller, J. Morrow, Angela R. Perri, K. Rademaker, Joshua D. Reuther, Brandon T. Ritchison, G. Sánchez, Ismael Sánchez-Morales, S. M. Spivey-Faulkner, J. Tune, C. Haynes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20555563.2021.1940441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PaleoAmerica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PaleoAmerica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2021.1940441\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PaleoAmerica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2021.1940441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

摘要:最近,在墨西哥工作的考古学家根据从萨卡特卡斯奇基胡特洞穴挖掘的石器时代物品,声称美洲存在上一次冰川盛期前人类占领的证据。尽管他们对洞穴的年代地层和古环境记录进行了广泛的辅助研究,但他们提供的数据并不支持他们的核心论点,即这些石器制品是人为的,代表了早期人类居住者产生的独特的石器产业。他们对最合理的替代解释给予了有限的考虑:该组合是崩解、屋顶坍塌和洞穴填充物大规模运动的自然过程的产物,因此石器材料最好作为地质事实来解释。我们通过考虑以下备选假设来评估证据:(1)观察到的现象是人为现象,或(2)它们是自然过程产生的。我们得出的结论是,假设2得到了更有力的支持,Chiquihuite洞穴并不能代表最早美国人的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating Claims of Early Human Occupation at Chiquihuite Cave, Mexico
ABSTRACT 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PaleoAmerica
PaleoAmerica Earth and Planetary Sciences-Paleontology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: PaleoAmerica disseminates new research results and ideas about early human dispersal and migrations, with a particular focus on the Americas. It fosters an interdisciplinary dialog between archaeologists, geneticists and other scientists investigating the dispersal of modern humans during the late Pleistocene. The journal has three goals: First and foremost, the journal is a vehicle for the presentation of new research results. Second, it includes editorials on special topics written by leaders in the field. Third, the journal solicits essays covering current debates in the field, the state of research in relevant disciplines, and summaries of new research findings in a particular region, for example Beringia, the Eastern Seaboard or the Southern Cone of South America. Although the journal’s focus is the peopling of the Americas, editorials and research essays also highlight the investigation of early human colonization of empty lands in other areas of the world. As techniques are developing so rapidly, work in other regions can be very relevant to the Americas, so the journal will publish research relating to other regions which has relevance to research on the Americas.
期刊最新文献
A Stemmed Point Assemblage from the Peace River Country of Northwestern Alberta Early Holocene Archaeological Context and Assemblages of Baño Nuevo 1: A Key Site in Central West Patagonia Current Research from Center for the Study of the First Americans Scholars Chindadn Bifaces and the Archaeology of Terminal-Pleistocene Alaska Experimental Investigations of Eastern Beringian Hunting Technologies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1