anthropology writing-6

znttvrznttvr
timer Asked: Aug 2nd, 2018

Question Description

Answer TWO !!!!! of the three following questions. your answers should reflect your interpretation of the material presented in this course. Be sure to cite specific examples and use both class and outside sources to support your answers. Be sure to use in-class and out of class sources and cite your references. No limits on the number uses of the resources, but at least use 2 in class resources, thanks.

Question 1: . How are artifacts, ecofacts, or features analyzed? Discuss the process of finding, categorizing, and interpreting an archaeological site. Describe at least two analytical methods (in detail) used by archaeologists to interpret archaeological data.

In class rescues:

1.http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/Educatio...

2. Attached file: tin can archaeology and radiocarbon dates

Question 2: . How did humans arrive in the New World? What are the different hypotheses and which routes might they have used? Describe the evidence and corresponding hypotheses that attempt to answer this question. Be sure to include archaeological evidence from at least three archaeological sites.

In class resource:

1. http://westerndigs.org/ancient-feces-from-oregon-c...

2.attached file: PNAS & Clovis Dates

Question 3. Explain the lifestyles of those on the Columbia Plateau and Great Basin. What archaeological evidence supports these behaviors? How do these lifestyles similar or different?

(In class resources, See attached file: Columbia Plateau, Great Basin. )

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas Michael R. Waters, et al. Science 315, 1122 (2007); DOI: 10.1126/science.1137166 The following resources related to this article are available online at www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of February 27, 2007 ): Supporting Online Material can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5815/1122/DC1 This article cites 3 articles, 2 of which can be accessed for free: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5815/1122#otherarticles This article appears in the following subject collections: Anthropology http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/anthro Information about obtaining reprints of this article or about obtaining permission to reproduce this article in whole or in part can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/help/about/permissions.dtl Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright c 2007 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title SCIENCE is a registered trademark of AAAS. Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 27, 2007 Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online version of this article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5815/1122 REPORTS 1122 it is difficult to ensure that the distance between antennas can be made large enough for this requirement to be satisfied. This difficulty is typically encountered when antennas are placed in a laptop and the telecommunication wavelengths are on the centimeter scale (e.g., Bluetooth or Wi-Fi). An illustration of the benefit of timereversal subwavelength focusing to overcome this difficulty is given in Fig. 3. A three-antenna TRM is used to transmit a color picture to a three-antenna receiving array. The original picture is encoded onto three RGB (red-greenblue) color channels. Each corresponding figure is represented by a bit series giving the gray levels of each pixel on that particular channel. Then the simplest modulation is used (a positive pulse for bit 1, a negative one for bit 0) to create three bitstreams with a data rate of 50 Mbit/s each. The intended global data rate is thus 150 Mbit/s. Time reversal is used to focus each bitstream onto one of the antennas (one antenna for each color) of the receiving array. Then the three bitstreams are decoded and mixed to reconstruct the color image. The communication is performed with two kinds of receiving arrays. The first is “classical”; it consists of three dipolar antennas with a l/30 spacing. The second is a microstructured antenna array analogous to the one previously described (Fig. 1). It turns out that the image reconstructed with the classical array is gray-scaled: Its colors are lost. Indeed, subwavelength spaced antennas are strongly coupled, that is, they essentially receive the same signal. Hence, each transmitted pixel is gray because the three different antennas corresponding to the three different color channels receive the same gray levels. However, when the microstructured receiving array is used, each color stream focuses independently at each antenna. Consequently, the relative weights of the RGB components of each pixel are preserved and the image is transmitted without major losses. This experiment shows that our approach allows one to increase the information transfer rate to a given volume of space. References and Notes 1. E. Betzig, J. K. Trautman, Science 257, 189 (1992). 2. F. Zenhausern, Y. Martin, H. K. Wickramasinghe, Science 269, 1083 (1995). 3. J. B. Pendry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3966 (2000). 4. D. R. Smith, J. B. Pendry, M. C. K. Wiltshire, Science 305, 788 (2004). 5. D. R. Smith, Science 308, 502 (2005). 6. V. G. Veselago, Sov. Phys. Usp. 10, 509 (1968). 7. N. A. Nicorovici, R. C. McPhedran, G. W. Milton, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8479 (1994). 8. R. Shelby, D. R. Smith, S. Schultz, Science 292, 77 (2001). 9. M. C. K. Wiltshire et al., Science 291, 849 (2001). 10. N. Fang, H. Lee, C. Sun, X. Zhang, Science 308, 534 (2005). 11. D. O. S. Melville, R. J. Blaikie, Opt. Exp. 13, 2127 (2005). 12. Z. Jacob, L. V. Alekseyev, E. Narimanov, Opt. Exp. 14, 8247 (2006). 13. T. Taubner et al., Science 313, 1595 (2006). 14. M. Fink, Phys. Today 50, 34 (1997). 15. C. Draeger, M. Fink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 407 (1997). 16. B. E. Henty, D. D. Stancil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 243904 (2004). 17. G. Lerosey, J. de Rosny, A. Tourin, A. Derode, M. Fink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 193904 (2004). 18. G. Lerosey, J. de Rosny, A. Tourin, A. Derode, M. Fink, App. Phys. Lett. 88, 154101 (2006). 19. R. Carminati, J. J. Saenz, J.-J. Greffet, M. NietoVesperinas, Phys. Rev. A 62, 012712 (2000). 20. D. Cassereau, M. Fink, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 39, 579 (1992). 21. J. de Rosny, M. Fink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 124301 (2002). 22. Further details are available as supporting material on Science Online. 23. A. L. Moustakas, H. U. Baranger, L. Balents, A. M. Sengupta, S. H. Simon, Science 287, 287 (2000). 24. This work was partially funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under grant ANR-05-BLAN-0054-01. Supporting Online Material www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5815/1120/DC1 SOM Text Fig. S1 References 7 September 2006; accepted 19 December 2006 10.1126/science.1134824 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas Michael R. Waters1* and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.2 The Clovis complex is considered to be the oldest unequivocal evidence of humans in the Americas, dating between 11,500 and 10,900 radiocarbon years before the present (14C yr B.P.). Adjusted 14C dates and a reevaluation of the existing Clovis date record revise the Clovis time range to 11,050 to 10,800 14C yr B.P. In as few as 200 calendar years, Clovis technology originated and spread throughout North America. The revised age range for Clovis overlaps non-Clovis sites in North and South America. This and other evidence imply that humans already lived in the Americas before Clovis. or nearly 50 years, it has been generally thought that small bands of humans carrying a generalized Upper Paleolithic tool kit entered the Americas around 11,500 radiocarbon years before the present (14C yr B.P.) and that F 23 FEBRUARY 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE these first immigrants traveled southward through the ice-free corridor separating the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets (1). These people developed the distinctive lithic, bone, and ivory tools of Clovis (2, 3) and then quickly populated www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 27, 2007 ceiving array. A TRM made of eight commercial dipolar antennas is placed in the far field, 10 wavelengths away from the receiving array. (The electronic part of the setup is described in fig. S1.) When antenna 3 sends a short pulse (10 ns), the eight signals received at the TRM are much longer than the initial pulse because of strong reverberation in the chamber (typically 500 ns). An example of the signal received at one of the antennas of the TRM is shown in Fig. 2A. When antenna 4 is used as a source, the signal received at the same antenna in the TRM (shown in Fig. 2B) is considerably different, although sources 3 and 4 are l/30 apart. When these signals are time-reversed and transmitted back, the resulting waves converge respectively to antennas 3 and 4, where they recreate pulses as short as the initial ones (Fig. 2, C and D). Measuring the signal received at the other antennas of the receiving array gives access to the spatial focusing around antennas 3 and 4 (Fig. 2E). The two antennas can now be addressed independently, because the focusing spots created around them are much smaller than the wavelength (typically l/30). The diffraction limit is overcome, although the focusing points are in the far field of the TRM. The origin of the diffraction limit, and the way to overcome it, can be revisited by using the time-reversal concept and the Green’s function formalism, without the explicit use of the evanescent wave concept (20–22). The time-reversed wave, generated by a closed TRM, which converges to its source, is always followed by a spatially diverging wave due to energy flux conservation. Because the focal spot results from the interference of these two waves, the timereversed field can always be expressed (for a monochromatic wave) as the imaginary part of the Green’s function (22). In a homogeneous medium, the imaginary part of the Green’s function oscillates typically on a wavelength scale. To create focal spots much smaller than the wavelength, one introduces subwavelength scatterers in the near field of the source. Therefore, the spatial dependence of the imaginary part of the Green’s function is modified to oscillate on scales much smaller than the wavelength. A promising application of time-reversal subwavelength focusing is telecommunications. One way that has been proposed to increase the data rate of a communication system is to use multiantenna arrays at both transmitter and receiver (23); different bitstreams sent from each antenna of the transmitting array can be decoded at the receiving array under the condition that the medium creates sufficient scattering. It is also generally stated that the spacing between the receiving antennas must be larger than l/2 (23). If these two conditions are fulfilled, the global maximum error-free data rate, or “Shannon Capacity,” is at best multiplied by the number of transmitting antennas. Such methods are referred to as MIMO (multiple input–multiple output). However, from a practical perspective, the contiguous United States. Clovis humans and their descendants then rapidly populated Central America and reached southernmost South America by 10,500 14C yr B.P. (1). Identifying when the Clovis complex first appeared and knowing the complex’s duration is critical to explaining the origin of Clovis, evaluating the Clovis-first model of colonization of the Americas, determining the role of humans in the extinction of late Pleistocene megafauna, and assessing whether people inhabited the Americas before Clovis. We determined a more accurate time span for Clovis by analyzing the revised existing Clovis 14C date record and reporting high-precision accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 14C ages from previously dated Clovis sites. Our AMS 14C dates are on culturally specific organic matter—bone, ivory, and seeds—that accelerator mass spectrometers can date accurately (4, 5) to precisions of ±30 years at 11,000 14C yr B.P. Clovis technology has strong Old World antecedents, but Clovis-specific traits (e.g., fluted lanceolate projectile points) probably originated in the New World, south of the continental ice sheets (3). Clovis tools and debitage identify and unify archaeological sites over a broad geographic range. Clovis sites and artifacts cluster in North America, especially in the contiguous United States (1). A small number of Clovis artifacts have been recovered from Mexico and possibly as far south as Venezuela (6). Even though Clovis covers a broad geographic range, only 22 Clovis sites in North America have been directly 14C-dated (Fig. 1, Table 1, and table S1). The 14C dates from these sites traditionally place Clovis between 11,500 and 10,900 14C yr B.P. (1, 7, 8). However, the 14C dates from 11 of these sites are problematic and do not provide accurate or precise chronological information to determine the age of Clovis (5). Three sites (East Wenatchee, Washington; Blackwater Draw, New Mexico; and Cactus Hill, Virginia) have Clovis diagnostic artifacts but lack precise ages (5). Three sites (Lubbock Lake, Texas; Kanorado, Kansas; and Indian Creek, Montana) fall within the Clovis age range but lack diagnostic Clovis artifacts (5). The site of Sheriden Cave, Ohio, provides only bracketing ages for Clovis artifacts (5). Questions exist about the accuracy of the 14C dates from Aubrey, Texas (5), where diagnostic Clovis artifacts were found. We obtained three dates from the Sheaman site, Wyoming, that averaged 10,305 ± 15 14C yr B.P. These dates indicate that the Clovis context at Sheaman is mixed with younger cultural materials (5). Finally, associations between Clovis artifacts and 14 C-dated faunal remains at two sites (Wally’s Beach, Canada; and Union Pacific, Colorado) are unresolved (5). Because of these problems, we excluded the dates from these sites in assessing the age of Clovis. This leaves 11 sites with a total of 43 14C dates (Table 1 and table S1) (5). These sites have assemblages of Clovis artifacts in secure geological contexts. Existing ages from five sites (Anzick, Montana; Paleo Crossing, Ohio; Lehner, Arizona; Murray Springs, Arizona; and Jake Bluff, Oklahoma) already have highprecision 14C dates on credible materials. We obtained nine new ages from seeds and highly purified bone and ivory collagen for five imprecisely dated sites (Lange-Ferguson, South Dakota; Dent, Colorado; Domebo, Oklahoma; Shawnee-Minisink, Pennsylvania; and Colby, Wyoming) (4, 5). In addition, we obtained five ages on human remains from the Anzick site, Montana (5). We attempted to date samples from Sloth Hole, Florida, but the samples contained no collagen. These 43 14C dates place the beginning of Clovis at ~11,050 14C yr B.P. (reducing former estimates by 450 14C years) and its end at ~10,800 14C yr B.P. (younger than previous estimates by 100 14C years). Accurate calendar correlation of 14C ages from the Clovis time period is not currently possible because of correlation uncertainties (9). The Clovis-period segment of the INTCAL04 calibration is based on 14C-dated marine foraminifera and is not accurate for the Clovis time period (10). The most accurate calibration for this time period is provided by a floating European tree-ring chronology that is provisionally anchored to INTCAL04 (11). Using this tentative calibration (11), we estimated that Clovis has a maximum possible date range of 13,250 to 12,800 calendar yr B.P.—a span of 450 calendar years (Fig. 2). By taking the youngest possible calibrated age for the oldest Clovis site and the oldest possible calibrated age for the youngest Clovis site, a minimum range for Clovis is calculated as 13,125 to 12,925 calendar yr B.P.—a span of Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 27, 2007 REPORTS 1 Departments of Anthropology and Geography, Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, 4352 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4352, USA. 2 Stafford Research Laboratories, 200 Acadia Avenue, Lafayette, CO 80026, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mwaters@tamu.edu Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Clovis and other early sites. The numbers correspond to those found in Table 1. Other sites are 31, Monte Verde, Chile; 32, Nenana Complex sites, Alaska; and 33, Broken Mammoth, Alaska. www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 315 23 FEBRUARY 2007 1123 200 calendar years. The ages for all Clovis sites overlap within this 200-year period, and this time span probably represents the true range of Clovis. However, the absolute calendar placement of the floating tree-ring record is disputed (12). By an alternative calibration (12), the maximum time range for Clovis is 13,110 to 12,660 calendar yr B.P., and the minimum time range is 12,920 to 12,760 calendar yr B.P. (Fig. 3). Regardless of the exact calendar dates, the 200year duration for Clovis remains secure because the floating dendrochronological sequence provides calendar-year separations between two 14 C-dated sites. The oldest Clovis sites (n = 3 sites) are located in Montana, South Dakota, and Florida; younger Clovis sites are located in the interior (n = 5) of the United States and in the Southwest (n = 2) and East (n = 1). The distribution of dated sites shows no clear indication of northsouth or east-west age differences that would indicate movement of people in one direction or another. Instead, Clovis technology seems to have appeared synchronously across the United States at ~11,050 14C yr B.P. This pattern of 14C dates is compatible with two contrasting hypotheses. First, this pattern could support the idea that there was a rapid spread of Clovis people across an empty continent. Demographic models suggest that people exiting the ice-free corridor could have occupied the contiguous United States within 100 years or less (13). Although there is much speculation about a coastal migration of the first Americans from both Asia and Europe (14, 15), the revised date range for Clovis reopens the possibility of a Late Glacial migration through the ice-free corridor that separated the Laurentide and Cordilleran Ice Sheets. People could have easily traveled through the ice-free corridor after ~11,500 14C yr B.P. (1)— at least 200 calendar years before the oldest known Clovis date. The biface and blade industry of Nenana (16) was well established at the Broken Mammoth site, Alaska, to 11,770 ± 210 14C yr B.P. (WSU-4351)—at least 300 calendar years before our oldest recalibrated Clovis date. The Nenana lithic assemblage shows strong similarities to the Clovis lithic assemblage (17). It is possible that either Nenana people or others with a biface and blade industry traveled through the corridor, and once south of the ice sheets, they developed the technological hallmarks characteristic of Clovis and spread rapidly across the continent. An alternative interpretation is that the instantaneous appearance of Clovis across North America represents the rapid spread of Clovis technology through a preexisting but culturally and genetically undefined human population in North America (18). In this case, Clovis technology could have been introduced to this population through a Late Glacial migration of Clovis or Clovis progenitors or developed in situ from a pre-Clovis technology already in the 1124 Americas. Regardless of which hypothesis is correct, our revised chronology indicates that Clovis technology spread rapidly. Faunal remains associated with dated Clovis sites constrain the timing of the extinction of Proboscideans at the end of the Pleistocene. Mammoths and mastodons were an important source of food and raw materials used to manufacture bone and ivory tools (3), as well as perishable items from soft tissues. Proboscidean remains are associated with seven of the well-dated Clovis sites (Lange-Ferguson, Sloth Hole, Dent, Domebo, Lehner, Murray Springs, and Colby), and the last occurrence of mammoth in the United States is dated at ~10,900 14 C yr B.P. After this time, Clovis and sites of other complexes (e.g., Goshen and Folsom) contained only bison and other extant species. The extinction of mammoth and mastodon coincides with the main florescence of Clovis. Our revised ages for Clovis overlap dates from a number of North American sites that are technologically or culturally not Clovis. The earliest dated sites of the Goshen complex (Mill Iron, Montana; and Hell Gap, Wyoming) (19) overlap the age range of Clovis (Figs. 2 and 3, and Table 1, and table S1). This indicates that Goshen is either coeval with the entire range of Clovis or briefly overlaps the later stages of the Clovis time period. Clovis also overlaps the date for the Arlington Springs human skeleton from Santa Rosa Island, California (Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 1) (20). No artifacts were found with the Arlington Springs human remains, and his cultural affiliation is unknown. The presence of human remains on Santa Rosa Table 1. Summary of 14C dates from Clovis and Clovis-age sites. Single 14C dates, date ranges, and averaged dates are reported. If multiple 14C dates were available from a single-component site, the dates were averaged with the method in (28). All dates are given at 1s SD. n, number of dates. Site Date (14C yr B.P.) Clovis sites (credible ages and Clovis diagnostics) 1. Lange-Ferguson, SD (n = 3) 2. Sloth Hole, FL (n = 1) 3. Anzick, MT (foreshaft ages) (n = 2) 4. Dent, CO (n = 3) 5. Paleo Crossing, OH (n = 3) 6. Domebo, OK (n = 1) 7. Lehner, AZ (n = 12) 8. Shawnee-Minisink, PA (n = 5) 9. Murray Springs, AZ (n = 8) 10. Colby, WY (n = 2) 11. Jake Bluff, OK (n = 3) Clovis sites (indirectly dated and Clovis diagnostics) 12. East Wenatchee, WA (n = 1) Clovis-age sites (credible ages but no Clovis diagnostics) 13. Indian Creek, MT (n = 1) 14. Lubbock Lake, TX (n = 2) 15. Bonneville Estates, NV (n = 1) 16. Kanorado, KS (n = 2) 17. Arlington Springs, CA (n = 1) Problematic Clovis and Clovis-age sites 18. Sheriden Cave, OH (above artifacts, n = 5) Sheriden Cave, OH (below artifacts, n = 2) 19. Blackwater Draw, NM (n = 3) 20. Cactus Hill, VA (n = 1) 21. Wally's Beach, Canada (n = 4) 22. Union Pacific, WY (n = 1) 23. Aubrey, TX (n = 2) 24. Sheaman, WY (n = 3) Ages from other early sites 25. Mill Iron, MT (Goshen) (n = 4) 26. Hell Gap, WY (Goshen) (n = 1) 27. Cerro Tres Tetas, Argentina (pre-Fishtail, n = 5) 28. Cuevas Casa del Minero, Argentina (pre-Fishtail, n = 2) 29. Piedra Museo, Argentina (pre-Fishtail, n = 2) 30. Fell’s Cave, Chile (Fishtail, n = 1) 23 FEBRUARY 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 11,080 11,050 11,040 10,990 10,980 10,960 10,950 10,935 10,885 10,870 10,765 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 40 50 35 25 75 30 40 15 50 20 25
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors