{"title":"三叶草技术并非三叶草独有","authors":"M. Eren, D. Meltzer, Brian N. Andrews","doi":"10.1080/20555563.2021.1890402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We previously showed that stone-tool technological attributes thought to be unique to the Clovis period were present in a radiocarbon and OSL dated middle Holocene-age stratum at Goodson Shelter, Oklahoma (Eren et al. 2018a. “Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis?” PaleoAmerica 4:202–228). Consequently, we argued that technological attributes alone should not be used to assign assemblages to Clovis times. Huckell, Haynes, and Holliday (2019. “Comments on the Lithic Technology and Geochronology of the Goodson Rock Shelter.” PaleoAmerica 6:131–134) proposed two alternative hypotheses: that material we identified as Clovis-like was not, or that it was Clovis but had been mixed with younger deposits. They called for more information on the Clovis-like assemblage at Goodson, and additional dating of the site's lowest deposits. We provide that information, which confirms that stone-tool technologies ostensibly unique to Clovis were indeed in use in the middle Holocene.","PeriodicalId":37319,"journal":{"name":"PaleoAmerica","volume":"7 1","pages":"226 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20555563.2021.1890402","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clovis Technology is not Unique to Clovis\",\"authors\":\"M. Eren, D. Meltzer, Brian N. Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20555563.2021.1890402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We previously showed that stone-tool technological attributes thought to be unique to the Clovis period were present in a radiocarbon and OSL dated middle Holocene-age stratum at Goodson Shelter, Oklahoma (Eren et al. 2018a. “Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis?” PaleoAmerica 4:202–228). Consequently, we argued that technological attributes alone should not be used to assign assemblages to Clovis times. Huckell, Haynes, and Holliday (2019. “Comments on the Lithic Technology and Geochronology of the Goodson Rock Shelter.” PaleoAmerica 6:131–134) proposed two alternative hypotheses: that material we identified as Clovis-like was not, or that it was Clovis but had been mixed with younger deposits. They called for more information on the Clovis-like assemblage at Goodson, and additional dating of the site's lowest deposits. We provide that information, which confirms that stone-tool technologies ostensibly unique to Clovis were indeed in use in the middle Holocene.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PaleoAmerica\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"226 - 241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20555563.2021.1890402\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PaleoAmerica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2021.1890402\",\"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/10.1080/20555563.2021.1890402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT We previously showed that stone-tool technological attributes thought to be unique to the Clovis period were present in a radiocarbon and OSL dated middle Holocene-age stratum at Goodson Shelter, Oklahoma (Eren et al. 2018a. “Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis?” PaleoAmerica 4:202–228). Consequently, we argued that technological attributes alone should not be used to assign assemblages to Clovis times. Huckell, Haynes, and Holliday (2019. “Comments on the Lithic Technology and Geochronology of the Goodson Rock Shelter.” PaleoAmerica 6:131–134) proposed two alternative hypotheses: that material we identified as Clovis-like was not, or that it was Clovis but had been mixed with younger deposits. They called for more information on the Clovis-like assemblage at Goodson, and additional dating of the site's lowest deposits. We provide that information, which confirms that stone-tool technologies ostensibly unique to Clovis were indeed in use in the middle Holocene.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
