peopling of america essay
Tedd
couple of days for you guys to comment on. it is an essay required by one of my
ANTH courses this semester.
you dont have to agree with the position, just be founded in your criticism and
suggestions please.
i appreciate 'critical' review.
TIA,
tedd.
p.s. yea... i know, i was gonna try this last semester too but never got up the
confidence to do it. plus i have a better idea now of just who to listen to,
(and who to ignore). ;-)
Tedd
transfer back just fine for those of you who wish to intersperse comments,
criticism, or suggestions.
to reply via e-mail add my first name:
TeddJacobs at mail.boisestate.edu
Peopling of the Americas
Position Paper on the
Issues of Migrations into the New World
Tedd Jacobs
Sept. 24, 2003
ANTH 313
The issue of migrations into the New World has centered traditionally around
three questions; when did people first arrive, where did they come from, and how
did they get here. In addressing and reviewing these basic issues the purpose of
this paper is to identify a position on the topic of the peopling of the
Americas and then make the argument either for or against it. In doing this I
will; review the basic questions of ‘when, where, how’; the problems associated
with the traditional lines of thinking; the question of ‘why’ peoples would
migrate; the critique of the South American context by North American
archaeologists, and finally; reflections on differences in hunter-gatherers and
how they might relate to the influence on anthropological thinking. As with most
position papers, the reality here falls closer to the middle than is normally
anticipated within these contexts, the position will follow this course while
leaning slightly to one degree.
When-Where-How
The traditional theory for the populating of the Americas centers on the Bering
Land Bridge (Beringia) which, in theory, allowed for multiple migrations. Within
the last 100,000 years there have been three major glaciating episodes which
opened a land route between modern Chukotski Peninsula in eastern Siberia and
the Seward Peninsula in western Alaska across the Bering Straight. These three
periods occurred roughly 75,000-45,000, 40,000-25,000, and 23,000-11,000 years
ago.
George Neumann presented a ‘Multiple-Waves’ hypothesis in the 1920’s which has
been supported by Christy Turner’s (and others’) more recent DNA work to show
two major New World migrations (with other minor migratory events coinciding).
Young and Guthry’s paleoenvironmental studies suggest, contrary to traditional
counter-representations, that the Berringia climate more closely resembled a
savanna environment than that of a barren tundra. This, coupled with Earnest
Antev’s 1930’s idea of an “Ice-Free corridor” opening between the Larentia ice
field and the Rocky Mountains providing a route south into the continent shortly
after the last glacial maximum paved the way for the building of the Beringia
Migration of the PaleoIndians across the land bridge following herds of
Pleistocene megafauna into the new world. The presentation of this theory stands
to reason that the origins of New World migrators stemmed from populations
located in the regions of northern and eastern Asia.
The question of ‘how’ people got to the New World has changed over last forty
years to not just one of a cross-land migration, but to one that also includes
the possibility of a coastal water transport migration. In theory, the baseline
establishment for the positing of a coastal route is that the window of
opportunity becomes greater and allows for a better fit to the archaeological
timeline, in addition the route would follow the Aleutian chain farther to the
south of the Bering Straight easing the climate strains placed on the people.
Why?
Over time the traditional views to the longstanding Beringia hypotheses have
changed and evolved based upon new evidence, lack of evidence and, most
importantly, a change in orientation around the foundational design that
structures the way we think in modern archaeology. In an effort to reorganize
data to support a conclusion, much of the research within anthropological
archaeology centers not on ‘when’ peoples arrived in the new world (we know they
arrived), or ‘where’ they came from (we know they came from somewhere), or even
‘how’ they got here (if we know they arrived here and we know they came from
somewhere, then we also know that they got here somehow). These questions will
eventually work themselves out. The deeper issue on the issue of migration is
‘why?’. Answering this question reveals more about human nature, the nature of
man and allows the other questions to be answered relevant to the context and
not by speculation based upon non-existent evidence.
Based upon what we know of glaciating episodes for the last 100,000 years and
archaeological evidence, it is suggested that only during the most recent
glaciation was it possible for land migration from Asia to the Americas
possible. This assumption is based upon evidence we find in the archaeological
record that dates to coincide with the opening of the land bridge. The problems
created by this are; 1.) If the last opening of the land bridge and inland
migrational routes occurred ca. 11,000, why are the oldest sites in South
America when by the developmental timeline, the older sites should be in
northern America; 2.) Based upon dates from South America and the migrational
opportunity, people would have had to quickly move from the Alaskan regions to
the southern most tip of South America within the span of a few hundred years.
And; 3.) Dates that predate the migrational opportunity must be thrown out if
one subscribes wholly to the land bridge theory as presented. In answer to this
last counter-point, it is suggested that perhaps additional migrations occurred
during the glacial episode ending at ca. 25,000 years ago. This position, along
with the coastal migratory route, argues the preponderance of the evidence lies
within the now submerged coastline of the pacific seaboard.
By addressing the question of ‘why?’ people would migrate we can gain a greater
insight into the conditions surrounding and influencing migrational
‘when-where-how’ questions. Why do people move? Overpopulation. True but most
probably not in this case, these were hunter and gatherer people on the move,
hunter-gatherer populations are going to do what hunter-gatherer populations do;
they map onto resources and then move once something is used up or something
better is found. This brings the question then of big-game (mega-fauna) hunters
following a resource base. Also true, but probably not that particular resource.
To debunk part of the “Clovis = big-game hunter”, Clovis typological points are
roughly 6-8 inches in length and traditionally were postulated as being used for
mammoth hunting. The thinnest section of a mammoth is located at the sternum and
ranges from 8-12 inches, longer than the Clovis points argued to have been used
for dispatching them. Furthermore, the fluted base of the points is structurally
week and unable to support the thrust necessary to penetrate the 8-12 inches.
Lastly, ‘why’ would someone want to stand underneath a mammoth and poke it with
a sharp stick that’s going to break before it gets the job done.
By looking at questions of ‘why’ we can better surmise the extent of human
behavior and activities. Because of this is has been argued that the ‘migration’
which led to the peopling of the Americas could have been a gradual migration
spanning possibly many generations. This could then be further supported by
looking at substance systems consistent with what we know for hunting and
gathering peoples. A gradual migration of a maritime tradition (consistent
within an Asian context) fits with the pattern of specialized hunter-gatherer
populations. While currently there is no great preponderance of evidence to
wholly support the hypothesis, it is important to note that the hypothesis fits
the data we do have at this point.
By taking an alternative approach to the question of the migration to the New
World, we are no longer as dependent upon the “Manifest Destiny” theories that
eliminate room for evidence to the contrary. To summarize, if the data does not
fit the conclusion, the conclusion is wrong.
South American Context and North American Archaeologists
Part of the problem that help to propagate the continuance of the Beringia
migration hypothesis came from the archaeologists of North America. Much of the
archaeological record of South America reflects a cross section of variability
in both the modern and prehistoric contexts of environmental, geomorphic, floral
and faunal ranges and distributions. Because of the differences in the settings,
many North American archaeologist where faced with the problem of a lack of
“benchmarks” (horizon markers used to stratagraphically date layers based on
sterile zones). During the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s benchmarks were used to
determine the integrity of an archaeological site but because they could not
find any, the claim was that the sites lacked any context and therefore the
“dates” retrieved from them were not considered accurate. With the advent of
radiocarbon dating many of the sites were discovered to have dates older than
North America but because the archaeologists had sold themselves on the Beringia
and Clovis first notions, North American archaeologists began to criticize the
context of the South American sites in order to preserve the theories they had
created. It is because of this that now, fifty years latter, archaeologists are
still having to answer for and explain away the general public view which equals
the views of half a century ago, and because many of those views are still so
prevalent today, research in the area has to fight twice as hard, not only to
establish itself through the record, but against it’s own reputation.
Reflections on Hunter-Gatherers
As a minor point to touch upon with regards to the question of ‘why?’, it is
important to discuss how all this reflects on the differences in strategies of
traditional hunter-gatherer societies. An Australian researcher, Beaton, has put
forth the question; are h/g (hunter-gatherer) people explorers or colonizers?
This, as an almost spin off of Benford’s question of foragers or collectors,
places a new perspective on the views we may have shared and suggests that maybe
not all hunter-gatherer mobility is based or dependant on the environmental
factors that many archaeologists and anthropologists practice in their
reconstruction’s.
The question of where we go next could center around this idea, another idea,
or as a paradigm shift. Through the course of history there have been many ideas
about people in the pre-Columbian Americas that have come and gone changing the
way we think and the way we know what we know. As science progresses today,
eventually all the answers of ‘where-when-how’ will be answered, as an
anthropologist the most important question I would be concerned with is the
behavioral one of “why”.
Tedd
was kind of surprising though, some of the people i never expected to respond
gave some of the most critical feedback, while those i assumed would respond the
best never replied at all.
i'll be submitting the final draft (with revisions!) this friday and should have
it back within a few days, i'll let you know how it goes.
thanks again to everyone! :-)
tedd.
Doug Weller
>
>was kind of surprising though, some of the people i never expected to respond
>gave some of the most critical feedback, while those i assumed would respond the
>best never replied at all.
I never saw it at all. Where did you post it?
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Tedd
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g4nknv4tgvgu6rb32...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:07:04 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Tedd wrote:
>
> I never saw it at all. Where did you post it?
>
> Doug
i posted it here last week as 'draft 1' under this same string.
here it is again (cut and pasted from the first posting).
(original post)
Philip Deitiker
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> did some sarious thank'n and
scribbled:
>The issue of migrations into the New World has centered traditionally around
>three questions; when did people first arrive,
greater than 13 kya
> where did they come from
1st
Ryukyu/Kyushu/Honshu
I should point out I got alot more direct hits
with Japanese with korean haplotypes filtered
out for brazilian than Ainu, Korean, or Ryukyuans.
2nd
Pre-Ag Korean/Ainu/Orochon (Clovis)
2nd wave, highest concentrations along the pacific coast
of south america, mesoamerica.
3rd Wave central siberia
3rd wave highest concentrations in pacific northwest
However there are signs of admixture in meso and south
america.
>, and how
>did they get here.
1st
Boat, The were possibly seasonal coastal foragers.
2nd
Boat + Beringia
3rd Beringia, Sea ice.
> Reflections on Hunter-Gatherers
>
> As a minor point to touch upon with regards to the question of 'why?',
First wavers begin to arrive and incipient Jomonese pour
down Japan into the southern region. Thus they fled.
being of largely melanesian ancestry they prefered warm
climate, however the currents go from south to north.
They probably existed for some awful northern seasons after
which they traveled down to mexico and central american.
The HLA of native brazilians reflect a constriction in the
human population at that time, the original number of
settlers were small. Of the Pre-Yayoi estimated haplotypes
only a small minority are found in native americans
at high freqeuncies.
2nd wavers arrived after admixing with the locals in east
asia, probably aquired better oceanian sea techologies that
extended through japan.
3rd wave, probably pushed by the expansion to the south of
agrarian societies, warming allowed the warm warm adapted
people to move north and this displaced cooler adapted
people even farther north. Possibility of a west to east
high latitude migrations from black sea region.
> it is
>important to discuss how all this reflects on the differences in strategies of
>traditional hunter-gatherer societies.
Big hairy guys with big spears come, you have a boat, you go
bye, bye.
> An Australian researcher, Beaton, has put
>forth the question; are h/g (hunter-gatherer) people explorers or colonizers?
>This, as an almost spin off of Benford's question of foragers or collectors,
>places a new perspective on the views we may have shared and suggests that maybe
>not all hunter-gatherer mobility is based or dependant on the environmental
>factors that many archaeologists and anthropologists practice in their
>reconstruction's.
True, but it appears that when other people expand the
people in front of them get pushed, sometime with their
backs up against the wall they do the rather uncivilized
thing and crawl over the wall. Funny how that happens.
Very short essay.
Tedd
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
news:7oolnvoj4aqiq8hge...@4ax.com...
> Very short essay.
has a cap on it, and being concise is something i'm still working on.
(stretching it to 5 pages vs. keeping it to 5 pages)
what's the old saying... "i could have made it shorter if i'd only had more
time."
Philip Deitiker
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> did some sarious thank'n and
scribbled:
Title: Quandary: The Clovis Phenomenon, the First Americans,
and the View from the Patagonia Region
Abstract:
The archaeological sites of Patagonia have been
considered as good evidence for First Americans, possibly
Paleoindians like Clovis peoples from the North. But, what
is Clovis? A single and monolithic cultural group? Was
Clovis a Pancontinental widespread population movement? An
affirmative reply would require that similar technologic
attributes or artifacts dispersed in all continent could
assume there were similarities in "ethnic identity".
Archaeological evidence from the Southern Cone suggests this
model is insufficient for explaining variability of
archaeological contexts - technologies, tool kits, and
associated faunas, the function of sites in regional
cultural systems, taphonomy, archaeological visibility,
landscapes, and environments of the transition between the
Pleistocene and Holocene. The aims of this presentation are
to analyze the sites of Patagonia and neighboring regions
between 13,000-10,000 B.P. and to discuss the quandary of
Clovis as the first peopling of South American. These
arguments allow us to infer the regional patterns of
subsistence, use of space, and mobility of the first
colonizers to have arrived in Patagonia. Their probable ways
and lifestyles were very different from technology and use
of space patterns characteristic of Clovis.
The lithic materials to be presented are: one fishtail
projectile point (red jasper), scrapers and knives (red,
yellow and green jasper), and three bone tools. All of these
items were recovered from the stratigraphic excavations (50
m2) of Piedra Museo locality, Santa Cruz province, in the
Patagonia Region.
Duncan Craig
Pretty good, although it sounds 'safe'. What do YOU think? Also, I
may be mistaken, but I've never heard of 'Manifest Destiny' used in an
archaeological context,...only as a nineteenth century political term.
Duncan
Tedd
"Duncan Craig" <dun...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:a37f0d1c.03100...@posting.google.com...
> Pretty good, although it sounds 'safe'. What do YOU think? Also, I
> may be mistaken, but I've never heard of 'Manifest Destiny' used in an
> archaeological context,...only as a nineteenth century political term.
>
> Duncan
"safe" being the operative word there. ;) yes it does certainly have it's fair
share of those 'qualifying' words like "could be", "might be", and "possibly".
it's playing the wishy-washy game but the problem is if you dont, it can come
back to bite you because once you start talking in absolutes someone is going to
nail you with an exception.
"Manifest Destiny" is used in a theological context, not an archaeological one.
" 'Manifest Destiny' theories..."
what do i think of that draft? interesting question, no one has asked me that
before. i think it was very scattered, a bit unorthodox, and not complete when
following through in its line of thought in places. i also felt it was very
convoluted in areas, and lacked a definite 'bottom-line', making it harder to
understand what i was trying to say (in my opinion). i've made a number of
clarifications in the final draft to help fix some of that.
the hardest part about this one for me was not citing and referencing, which
also forced me to 'back-off' (so to speak) to a more guarded position ('safe')
without direct sources to support it. first time i've had to write a position
paper of this nature, interesting learning experience.
Tedd
"this needs a broader historical context and more actuals but an interesting
piece- quite apart from what i have read. 90."
one of only three "A's"! :-))
thanks again for everyone who helped to point out errors, flaws and provided
criticism. the feedback was great!
tedd.