Highlights in the Pre-Contact Archaeology of the Island Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Caribbean islands were the first—and perhaps only—archipelago in the Americas to be settled by Indigenous peoples who went to sea without a guarantee of island inter-visibility. Using dugout canoes and taking advantage of prevailing winds and currents, both major and minor population movements left the South American littoral zone (and perhaps other source regions) in different stages between about 6000 and 1500 years ago. Indigenous groups first settled islands that were closest to the mainland, ultimately reaching the various Greater and Lesser Antilles over a period of some 5000–6000 years. An increasing amount of archaeological research in recent decades, coupled with advances in various analytical techniques, has helped to significantly enhance the understanding of Indigenous origins and cultural lifeways in the Caribbean. This chapter focuses on several areas of research that have led to a better understanding of the origins, environmental interactions, resource use, diet, and mobility of those who first settled these islands and their later descendants: (1) how pottery, as the most ubiquitous artifact type, has played a prominent but disproportionate role in developing cultural chronologies; (2) the role of zooarchaeology—long an important avenue for examining subsistence and anthropogenic impacts on animals—in establishing the antiquity and refining the understanding of non-native animal introductions in the Caribbean; and (3) isotopic analysis, which has been useful for analyzing mobility, nutrition, diet, and health in the insular Caribbean and saw some of its first applications in the region during the method’s earliest development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".