MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246311465 · doi:10.1353/gpr.2015.0029

Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex ed. by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Muñiz (review)

2015· article· en· W2246311465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole M. Waguespack

Bibliographic record

VenueGreat Plains research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex ed. by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Muñiz Nicole M. Waguespack Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex. Edited by Edward J. Knell and Mark P. Muñiz. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2013. vii + 340 pp. Tables, figures, illustrations, bibliography, index. $60.00 cloth. The current volume fills a much-needed void in the literature, providing a compilation of previous and ongoing research into a unique cultural and paleoenvironmental period of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain region. Anyone with Plains interests that span 10,000–8,000 14c years before present will appreciate the synthesis, data compilation, and site-specific overviews. I approached this book the way I suspect many archaeologists will, with an awareness that the Cody Complex is somehow distinct from other Paleoindian “types” or cultural “traditions.” Clovis sites contain Clovis points, and Folsom sites contain Folsom points, but Cody Complex sites? Well, they contain one or more, in various combinations, of the following point types: Alberta, Alberta/Cody I, Alberta/Cody II, Eden, Firstview, Kersey, Scottsbluff I, and Scottsbluff II (and/or an additional handful of point types). The Cody Complex stands out as different, and it is tempting to read the “complex” in its name as more adjective than noun. The opening chapter establishes the history of Cody Complex archaeology, temporal and spatial ranges of Cody Complex sites, and contemporary interpretations of Cody Complex peoples in terms of broad behavioral [End Page 179] and technological activities. Subsequent chapters are divided into three sections covering paleoenvironments, site and regional overviews, and Complex-wide synthesis. Muñiz compiles regional and site-specific records that document a trend of increasing aridity across an ecologically diverse array of Cody Complex localities. While the Cody time period may span a period of relative calm, it was not a time of dynamic ecological change. As demonstrated by Widga, who succinctly integrates paleofaunal assemblage attributes and bison biometrics, the Cody Complex–era trend of decreasing precipitation corresponds with the changes in bison that resulted in larger, more socially structured herds. Exploring the role of bison as a Cody Complex prey species, Hill provides a comprehensive zooarchaeological review and demonstrates that Cody Complex–associated bison kills are unusually large. He interprets seasonal and regional differences between northern and southern sites to suggest that “Cody hunters likely relied on communal hunting more than other Paleoindian groups” (109). Examining specific sites and regions are chapters covering North Dakota and southern Saskatchewan (Root et al.), Alberta (Dawe), the Rockies (Hill and Knell), and the northwestern Great Basin (Amick). Collectively, these chapters identify general archaeological trends such as the widespread appearance of Knife River Flint in sites far from the source area, suggestive of long-distance mobility and/or trade patterns. The final group of chapters largely focuses on deriving broader human behavioral patterns, using specific sites as case studies. Knell explores land-use strategies at three Hell Gap–site Cody Complex components with a model designed to identify regional versus more diffuse land-use patterns and ultimately argues for greater regionalization in higher-productivity resource areas with high-quality toolstone. Muñiz explores the concept of risk in Cody Complex technology. Developing what the author considers a largely heuristic model, the model’s complexity of variables and array of predictions far exceeds meaningful expression in his sample assemblages but provides a thought-provoking perspective. While discussed throughout the volume, Knudson’s chapter most directly addresses the unique typological diversity of the Cody Complex. Tracing the history of the Scottsbluff point type, she succinctly sums the situation at this eponymous site, stating that the “site creators appear to have forgotten to follow the typological manuals” (308). The volume provides a detailed and nuanced view of the context and contents of Cody Complex sites. The concluding chapter by Bamforth echoes the sentiment of many volume authors by calling for an approach that centers less on bison and on projectile points. However, bison behavior, distribution, and prey attributes are repeatedly called upon to infer mobility patterns, toolkit design, raw material use, and assemblage characteristics. Returning to my own thoughts regarding the oddity of the Cody Complex...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreat Plains researchSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207