The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
more on Dillahay
- started site visit in Kentucky - showed experts some of the artifacts he found in Monte Verde
- He started excavating in the 70''s
- he taught in Chile, his grad students were under fire too, others tried to get him fired bc of the sensitivity with the pre-clovis or clovis first emotions
- site visit moved from kentucky to chile where he started to bring people around
- dinner with all the experts turned into a heated discussion about monte verde
- Alex barker - part of the smithsonian sat in the discussion and tried to make them come to a consensus and propsed a vote: Do we agree that Monte verde is an old site older than 12,000 years.
- unanimously they all agree and recognize monte verde for its antiquity and being a preclovis site
- they reached consensus, but dennis stanford toasted to "meadowcroft" (basically still discrediting monte verde) and so the disputes continued
- even though published agreement amongst intellects it does not stop the arguments
- Stuart Fiedel - took their statements and compared it to dilleheys 1500 pages on monte verde adn try to find consistencies. his critic was dismissed bc today Monte Verde is accepted as a pre clovis site
is rooted in what is taught and sometimes politics or intellects rule out unfavored information like the preclovis findings regardless of consensus
a preclovis presence is a reality and yet it still gets questioned: the question is when??? questions such as ___ get littered
- undisputable, undeniable, undisturbed
- C14 dates
- everything about site gets questioned
t/f not everything humans do preserves
early sites in monte verde throws a wrench into the wheel when tracing 1st settlers
- at 15,000 years ago there is no open corridor from berengia
- the only way to come is skirting the coast or coming in by vessel
- other complications is that when we look at coastal route into NA during the ice age when so much water is contained in the glaciers where are all the Pleistocene coasts today? under water!
- tides will destroy artifacts - we are looking in all the wrong places. we need to look along the coast, but its underwater.
finding clovis, folsom, and other paleoindian sites happens pretty regular, but finding Pleistocene sites is rare......
- it will not be on plains it will be on coast
- monte verde almost on the tip of SA so we need to think about travel delay and rate
what can we say about the presence of human in NA
- its extremely controversial
- we know people are foragers and hunter gathers
- we know there is a presence of people before 15,000 years ago
- the exact means and rate they are doing it is problematic.
what does monte verde tell us thats important
- the tools were made of wood, bone, and ivory that would deteriorate rapidly over time
- lithic stone material hasnt been worked
- what does that say since we dont have that type of preservation in other sites.
- Monte verde is unique bc of its anaerobic environment
- their stone industry doesnt involve making these intricate materials
- what does it say about what people are doing before 15,000 years ago
it leaves us with an ambiguous picture of when people exactly came and where did they come from?
- we can look at nonarchaeological evidence such as
- language - a way to access the past, it exists in particular moments in time, has history, develops overtime with different features, it is a vehicle for knowledge, languages are related to one another
- in new world it is complicated by tremendous language loss.
- europeans arrived and there was over 1000 spoken languages
- only 600 identifiable languages of that remains today bc of population and culture loss. in NA there are only about 45 languages still spoken (living languages)
- we can calculate rate that languages will change as well as the relatedness?
- form of linguistics (historical linguistics) concerned with study of lanuage change through time. understanding this change allows to look at languages in present
Historical Linguistics (diachronic linguistics)
is the study of language change over time.
2 ways that historical linguists trace relatedness through time:
- bottom up approach - look for specific sound changes that are become pervasive.
- we can reconstruct linguistic change through the many languages and how they are related to one another
- Used Top down approach rather than bottom up.
- looked at interrelatedness of languages in
- He took a word list that had the same word in all the American Languages and compared similarities between words and pronoun structure
- he concluded that there were 3 language families Eskimo-Aleut (Eskaleut), Na-Dene, Amerind = all represented seperate population with seperate migrations to NA.
- Amerind was the earliest. Eskaleut the youngest
- a lot of wrangling for rate of language change
- a lot of people disagreed with him bc of the extremely controversial data
Edward Sapir -
pioneer of american linguistics that used top down approach also
- dental expert
- also interested in when people came to NA
- paid attention to greenberg study and wanted to see if dental morphology lined up the way linguistics did
- studied over 200,000 teeth from over 9000 individuals looking for structural differences
- he found that there were 2 distinct types of dental patterns in different populations
- 1 - shovel shaped incisors (beveling) more prevalent in Asian populations
- 2 - mandibular molar has 3 roots instead of 2
- he grouped asian populations into 2 populations based on teeth= sinodont & sundadont
- compared to native american populations and found that native americans were sinodont
- sinodonts are east asian populations
problems with turners dental model
- According to Turner, Sinodonts were
- the first migrants to the New World while later migrations of Sundadonts consisted of Eskaleut and Na-Dene speakers
Turner labeled Kennewick Man a Sundadont and thus a member of a later migration into America (tuck that one away for later).
Problems with Turner’s model? he was grouping his analysis into greenbergs 3 population categories, comes to the exact same conclusion as greenberg does, correlates neatly with greenburgs model
- teamed up with greenberg and turner
- looked at genetic inhertience of north american populations
- in the 80's tracing peoples DNA is not what it is today - it hasn't been explored very well
- focused on mtDNA instead of nuclear DNA
- heritage trace through mtDNA is passed down in a matrilineal decent (everyone carrying mtDNA of their mother, but only females can pass this down)
- mtDNA tracing loses some stuff potentially
- correlated with greenburgs data
greenberg, turner, zegura
- greenburg - linguistic model problematic
- turner - model mimics greenburgs
- zegura - genetic evidence still in developmental phase
- mapped neanderthal genome in mid 90's showed that its impossible for neanderthals to
- interbreed with humans
- in 2010 shows we carry minute neanderthal genome