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}
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.
PaleoAmericaEarth 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.