CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesArchaeological and Geological Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How many elephant kills are 14?

Surovell, Todd A., Waguespack, Nicole M.·2008·Quaternary International
DOI 10.1016/j.quaint.2007.12.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent evaluation of the use of Pleistocene megafauna by Clovis hunter-gatherers has suggested that a small number of reliable associations between Clovis artifacts and the remains of Proboscideans are documented, with perhaps as few as 14 occurrences currently known. Specifically, we ask whether 14 is a large or a small number of associations given the spatio-temporal dimensions of the Clovis period in North America. To place these 14 occurrences into context, we compare the time–space density and relative frequency of Clovis Proboscidean-bearing sites to those of Old World contexts. We develop models to identify the variables contributing to the archeological record of Proboscidean site creation, destruction, and sampling. While acknowledging potential biases in the record, comparative analysis suggests that the Clovis archeological record, with the possible exception of Lower Paleolithic of Iberia, indicates the highest frequency of subsistence exploitation of Proboscidea anywhere in the prehistoric world.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.quaint.2007.12.001

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 107 references

6 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Baryshnikov, 2003, Mammuthus primigenius from the Crimea and the Caucasus, Deinsea, 9, 41
  2. Brunswig, 1993, Research on the Dent mammoth site, Current Research in the Pleistocene, 10, 63
  3. Brush, 1994, The Martins Creek mastodon: a paleoindian butchery site in Holmes County, Ohio, Current Research in the Pleistocene, 11, 14
  4. Brush, 1994, Immunological analysis of flint flakes from the Martins Creek Mastodon site, Current Research in the Pleistocene, 11, 16
  5. Chavaillon, 1979, From the Oldowan to the Middle Stone Age at Melka-Kunturé (Ethiopia). Understanding cultural changes, Quaternaria, 21, 87
  6. Chmielewski, 1962, The find of mammoth bones at Skaratki in the Lowicz District, Folia Quaternaria, 9, 1
  7. Grayson, D.K., 1988. Perspectives on the archaeology of the first Americans. In: Carlisle, R.C. (Ed.), Americans Before Columbus: Ice-Age Origins. Ethnography Monographs 12, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 107–122.
  8. Haynes, 1987, Where elephants die, Natural History, 96, 28
  9. Haynes, 1999, The role of mammoths in rapid Clovis dispersal, Deinsea, 6, 9
  10. Kozlowski, 1986, The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe, vol. 5, 131
  11. Kozlowski, 1970, Palaeolithic site with mammoth remains at Nowa Huta (Cracow, Poland), Folia Quaternaria, 36, 1
  12. Kuzmin, 2003, Dynamics of the mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) population in Northern Asia: radiocarbon evidence, Deinsea, 9, 221
  13. Laub, 1988, The Hiscock site: a rich late Quaternary locality in western New York State, vol. 33, 67
  14. 1971, vol. 3
  15. MacCalman, 1967, The Zoo Park elephant site, Windhoek, Palaeoecology of Africa, 2, 102
  16. Maschenko, E.N., Pavlov, A.F., Zenin, V.N., Leshchinskiy, S.V., Orlova, L.A., 2003. The Lugovskoe site: relations between the mammoth assemblage and late Paleolithic Man (L). In: Proceedings of 3rd International Mammoth Conference—Abstracts Volume, Dawson City, Yukon Territory, Canada, pp. 77–80.
  17. Overstreet, 1996, Still more on cultural contexts of mammoth and mastodon in the southwestern Lake Michigan basin, Current Research in the Pleistocene, 13, 36
  18. Rayl, S.L., 1974. A Paleo-Indian mammoth kill site near Silver Springs, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University.
  19. Thieme, 1985, Neue Untersuchungen zum eemzeitlichen elefanten-jagdplatz Lehringen, Ldkr. Verden, Die Kunde, 36, 11
  20. Weber, 2000, The Eemian Elephas antiquus finds with artefacts from Lehringen and Gröbern: are they really killing sites?, Anthropologie et Préhistoire, 111, 177
  21. Zenin, V.N., Maschenko, E.N., Leshchinskiy, S.V., Pavlov, A.F., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.-J., 2003. The first direct evidence of mammoth hunting in Asia (Lugovskoye site, western Siberia). In: Proceedings of 3rd International Mammoth Conference—Abstracts Volume. Dawson City, Yukon Territory, Canada, pp. 152–155.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 100

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Surovell, T. A., & Waguespack, N. M.
Affiliations
University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
Surovell, Todd A.
Venue
Quaternary International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
191
Issue
1
Pages
82-97
ISSN
1040-6182 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.quaint.2007.12.001
OpenAlex
W1625374141
Cited by
100
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
22.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Quaternary International (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
Clovis, Proboscidea, Pleistocene megafauna, zooarchaeology, site density, prehistoric hunting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review