English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper tests aspects of previous models that argue for cultural continuity between Paleoindian and Early Archaic groups. Using data from Virginia, I provide evidence that Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement strategies were different. In Virginia, Early Archaic sites are closer together and closer to key resources. Early Archaic groups also occupied new areas, and studies of artifact curation and raw materials suggest a change in territory size. In addition, I use coarse-grained data from other key sites in the region (Shawnee-Minisink, Thunderbird, and Fifty) to suggest specific changes in land use. While many of my findings are compatible with aspects of several earlier Early Archaic settlement models in the Southeast, the common theme may be more patterned landscape use on a seasonal basis. I see the expanded landscape use in Virginia as a clear marker of a change among Early Archaic populations.

Using “cultural continuity” to examine aspects of Early Archaic settlement in Virginia and beyond