User:Ell.S.'22/Chiquihuite cave

Lead
Researchers believe Chiquihuite Cave to be evidence of early human presence in the Western Hemisphere up to 33,000 years ago.

Article body - these are additions that I am planning on inserting into existing sections, so some of the context is already in the article
Potential addition to history of research section:

Dr. Ardelean’s team recovered 1,930 stone artifacts from the Cave. Evidence of wind-blown sediment indicates that these artifacts could have moved horizontally, but not vertically through stratigraphic layers used to date them. The researchers obtained 46 radiocarbon dates from bone, charcoal, and sediment samples. They found six more dates using luminescence dating. The dates indicate that the artifacts were used and discarded about 26,000 years ago.

In addition to analyzing the stone artifacts, Dr. Ardelean’s team used pollen analysis and DNA extractions to find if early humans had been present in the Cave.

Potential addition to discoveries section:

Many of the stone tools found in Chiquihuite Cave are considered to be human tools. Almost 30 percent of the tools found show signs of usage around the edges. They are made of black and green limestone. The use of limestone indicates human selectivity of material because of the consistency in color and the availability of material near the cave, but not within it. The flaking of many of the artifacts also suggest the use of a tool for flaking such as a wooden or bone hammer. Dr. Ardelean considers some of the tools to be transversal points, suggesting that the artifacts were made using microlithic technology. This technology differentiates the artifacts from similar points found at nearby sites.

Researchers also considered environmental data. They found palm phytoliths in all samples from inside the cave. It is unlikely that they were naturally present in the Cave based on the high altitude. It is more likely that they are remnants of plants brought into the cave by early humans.

DNA from a wide range of animals was found in the cave, including black bears, rodents, bats, voles, and even kangaroo rats. DNA sequencing indicates that an ancestor of the American black bear was present in the cave 16,000 years ago and a now-extinct giant short-faced bear was in the cave 11,000 years ago. However, no human DNA was found. The chances of finding human DNA in the Cave were low, so human presence should not be ruled out because of this factor.

The site is lacking in cultural evidence of humans, making archaeologists conclude that the site was visited only occasionally by bands of hunter-gatherers; perhaps it was used as a refuge during particularly severe weather. Evidence indicates that the cave was in use for approximately 16,000 years.

Potential addition to regional context:

Transversal points similar to those found in Chiquihuite are common at Pleistocene sites in South America including the Tira Peia, Toca da Pena, and Toca da Janela da Barra do Antonião-Norte sites in Brazil.

Potential addition to criticism section:

He found that the slope of limestone pointing towards the mouth of the Cave could have caused a natural deposit of stone, which was naturally flaked during the fall, to appear like artifacts. Furthemore, Dr. Ardelean’s data indicates that limestone could have been produced from the cave wall. He also believes that blade cores would be found near the site and there would be more tertiary flakes if the tools were created by flaking. Dr. Kurt Rademaker, another member of the team, found the images of the proposed tools to lack the chipping around the edge that is common on stone tools.

Dr. Chatters raised a number of concerns about the work done by Dr. Ardelean at Chiquihuite Cave. He claims that there was not enough detail provided on how the lithic analysis was conducted. He also recommends that Dr. Ardelean should have excavated at the mouth of the cave where humans were more likely to have been present rather than deep inside the cave. Finally, Dr. Chatters found that the human behaviors at Chiquihuite Cave, namely the diet shown through faunal analysis and patterns of usage of such an inaccessible area, are incompatible with previous scientific understandings of early humans.

Dr. Ardelean has responded to this critique with an article defending his argument that further analyses ten of the stone tools with special attention to evidence of flake technology and use-wear. He believes that the tools may indicate that a beginner was learning how to form tools from an expert based on marks on the tools. Although some of the tools may have moved vertically, he is confident that 239 tools from the lowest layer were locked beneath a layer of mud.