Bayesian Analysis of Haskett Projectile Point Radiocarbon Dates in the Intermountain West Demonstrates Contemporaneity with Clovis and Folsom Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate existing radiocarbon dates at sites containing Haskett stemmed projectile points, present 12 new dates from 5 components at 4 sites, and model the age of Haskett points in a multiphase Bayesian framework with trapezium boundaries. We present multiple models with variable prior information to explore the impacts of different interpretations of the archaeological record, and ultimately favor a model where Haskett points appeared between 13,260 and 12,895 calendar years ago and fell out of use between 11,785 and 11,390 calendar years ago, a period of between 1115 and 1555 years. When compared to Bayesian analyses of Clovis and Folsom points, our preferred model suggests Haskett emerged at a similar time as Clovis and lasted longer than both fluted point complexes. Our results also indicate Haskett preceded other unshouldered stemmed point complexes in North America, providing further support for an ancestral-descendant relationship like that proposed for Clovis and Folsom.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".