Was there a Neolithic ‘(R)evolution’ in North America’s Pacific North-West Region? Exploring Alternative Models of Socio-Economic and Political Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pacific Northwest region of North American has long been recognized by ethnographers for its dense aggregate villages, monumental architecture, elaborate artistic traditions, complex social organization, and intensified food harvest and storage. Not surprisingly, archaeologists have been equally interested in the culture historical and evolutionary processes that gave rise to these societies. Ethnological and archaeological materials from the region are of global importance for their analogical value in interpreting more ancient records such as the Scandinavian Mesolithic, Levantine Natufian and Japanese Early-Late Jomon cultures. Gaining an understanding of the variability and evolutionary history of the region’s cultures is equally valuable from the standpoint of understanding indigenous history and for theoretical development within anthropological archaeology. One major emerging discussion concerns evidence for food production within the Pacific Northwest region and its implications for viewing some pre-modern cultures of the region as relevant to understanding variability in Neolithic cultures in general. In this paper we explore alternative models of Neolithic evolution by drawing from the archaeological record of the Pacific Northwest. This permits us to ask first if this record does contain Neolithic attributes and second, how such cultures evolved. We accomplish this with a review of a select set of key archaeological sites from the Fraser River and Salish Sea regions of British Columbia, Canada. We test alternative evolutionary hypotheses with a phylogenetic analysis. Finally we close with a discussion of implications for better understanding cultural evolutionary history within the region. We also offer recommendations for archaeological landscape management and future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".