MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570228504 · doi:10.7183/0002-7316.81.1.132

Early Hunter-Gatherer Tool Use and Animal Exploitation: Protein and Microwear Evidence from the Central Savannah River Valley

2016· article· en· W2570228504 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher R. Moore, Mark J. Brooks, Larry R. Kimball, Margaret E. Newman, Brian Kooyman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Antiquity · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsArchaeologyGeographyHearthAntlerHoloceneFaunaPrehistoryAcheuleanZooarchaeologyArchaic periodBovidaePleistoceneGeologyEcologyPaleontologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Results of protein residue and lithic microwear analyses are reported for Paleoindian and Early Archaic stone tools from a Carolina bay sand rim on the Aiken Plateau of South Carolina, USA. Protein residue analysis is performed using crossover Immunoelectrophoresis (CIEP), and indicates positive results for Bovidae, Cervidae, Galliformes, and Meleagris gallopavo. These results are complemented by a larger immunological study of 135 diagnostic hafted bifaces from South Carolina and Georgia. Among other species identified, bovid residue was found on multiple Paleoindian hafted bifaces, an Early Archaic hafted biface, and a Middle Archaic hafted biface. Results suggest continuity of species selection and availability across the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary and provide no support for the exploitation of extinct fauna. The data do provide compelling evidence for a demographic shift and/or regional extirpation of Bovidae possibly as late as the early mid-Holocene in the Southeast. In addition, microwear analysis of artifacts from Flamingo Bay indicate intensive hide scraping, antler boring, bone graving/planing/pointing, wood whittling, and hafting traces. Microwear data suggest intentional snap-fracture or bipolarization of exhausted or broken Clovis points for reuse as hide scrapers, and use of large bifacial knives and unifacial scrapers in intensive defleshing activities consistent with large animal butchery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican AntiquitySame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207