A PaleoAmerican Odyssey, part One
Oct. 22nd, 2013 09:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusOn October 15th, I left Eugene for the Paleoamerican Odyssey Conference in Santa Fe. Drove down there with Chantel and Katelyn, who were both presenting posters at the conference.
The conference ran from October 17th through the 19th. The main focus of the conference was the original peopling of the Americas. That is, how and when humans first arrived here. This has been one of the biggest controversies recently in American archaeology. For the last several decades, the theory held that humans crossed over from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge (more accurately known as the now mostly submerged subcontinent of Beringia) during the last great ice age, then traveled down an ice-free corridor through Canada and spread out from New Mexico. These would be the Clovis culture, named after the Clovis points, which are named after Clovis, New Mexico, where they were found.
For a long time, it was believed this was, and would be, the oldest people found in the Americas. In the last couple of decades, though, evidence has begun to emerge that has challenged this idea. Although the subcontinent of Beringia was always free of the great glaciers that covered the northern part of the Americas, it was commonly believed that the glaciers blocked any movement past it.
However, a coastal route from Beringia down along the west coast would have also been possible, as much of the coast itself was not glaciated. Evidence of this was found in Paisley Caves and several other places (as I'll get to later.) The evidence of people being in Oregon and other places long before the existence of the Clovis culture has been steadily mounting. The main purpose of this particular conference was to present and discuss this evidence, which possibly re-writes the whole story that people of my generation would have been taught since grade school.
So, that's the conference I went to, and these are my notes from the conference. Please note that I am not a professional archaeologist. It is something I do and read about in my spare time. So everything I know is based on my understanding of the writings I have read of and conversations I have had with those who have actually done the work and the original research. I have tried here to be as accurate as possible, but it's possible that some aspects may not be entirely accurate. If you desire more than a lay interpretation of the facts, see the original papers, all of which are available through various means. Also, if you are someone who knows better than me about any of this, please feel free to correct me in the comments, either here or on the linked Facebook site, if you see anything that is incorrect, or if you want to provide any further information.
A quick note about naming conventions: Many terms are not always used consistently, or have the same meanings at all time to all people. There doesn't yet seem to be any general consensus on many terms. So here are a few clarifications:
Clovis can mean either the Clovis point, or the culture that created it. It is sometimes also used to refer to the time period that the Clovis culture existed.
Pre-Clovis rarely actually refers to a direct precursor to the Clovis culture, but rather to any culture or time period that is older than Clovis.
Paleolithic is another term that has been suggested for adoption to mean the time before the Clovis period. While a few archaeologists have been pushing this term, as far as I can tell it is not yet widely accepted.
Paleoindian and paleoarchaic are other terms that refer to the people and the time period, respectively, before Clovis. These terms seem to mostly be used by Great Basin archaeologists.
And now, on to the presentations:
October 17th, 2013.
Shortly after 7am, I went to the room where Chantel Saban and Katelyn McDonough both had their poster presentations.
Chantel's was on her Pollen analysis from Paisley Caves. One of the questions raised about the stratigraphy of the site was whether it was possible if DNA had leached down from later levels. This is important as some of the primary evidence of human occupation of the earliest time periods of the site was coprolites containing human DNA. Chantel's work demonstrated that the stratigraphy was actually very intact, with each layer being distinct.
From the program book:
Katelyn's poster at the same time in the same room was about patterns of deposition of artifacts at the same site.
From the program book:
October 17th, 2013:
9:00am. The first talk I went to was on Hokkaido.
From the program book:
Most archaeology in Japan focuses on the long historical record. Pleistocene research in Hokkaido, and in Japan itself, is still in its infancy. Very little so far has been done in that area.
There were several sites mentioned, and a great deal was said about the lithics. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in lithic tools enough to really understand the conclusions regarding tool style. At least, I wasn't at the beginning of the conference, I learned a lot about them throughout. More about that later. But tool style is important as it's an indication of cultural connection (or lack thereof).
Two of the primary tool styles are "Western Stem" and Clovis. The tools in Hokkaido were similar in style and in engineering to the Western Stem, that we find in most of the western US, including Oregon.
Western Stem tools endured in Hokkaido until the Han people came into the area. The Inu are the descendents of the original people in Japan, and current indicate that people may have moved up through Hokkaido before crossing Siberia and into Beringia, and down into the Americas. Much more on that later, as it was kind of the focus of the whole conference.
Other notes of interest are:
Archaologists can tell a lot from lithic analysis, even beyond the morphology and engineering style of stone tools themselves. For instance, of the sites mentioned in Hokkaido, some were permanent residences and some were temporary hunting camps. In the hunting camp, the only lithic flakes found were those that were left over from repairing tools, or using the kinds of tools necessary for processing animals. Pleistocene foragers created specific stone tools for the various jobs of scraping hides, cutting meat, opening bones, etc. Each of these, and a whole lot of other tasks has specific tools which are made in the same way every time. The residential camp, on the other hand, had flakes that would be left over from the original making of points used for hunting (the hunting camps had the kind of flakes that would be left over from repairing, but not manufacturing, such tools). Things such as overshot flakes (the kind that would be removed in processing the "core" (the original rock) to make whatever tools they were planning on making), and other tools that would be used in a residence, but not a temporary hunting camp, were commonly found.
Quick note that this method of analyzing what's left over, from the location, scatter patterns, and so forth, is part of the reason why it's so important not to remove items that are found. Artifacts found "in situ" can provide a wealth of information that is lost if the artifact is removed from its original location.
Futher note of interest: The archaeologist giving the talk mentioned that nothing was known about the flora of any of the sites. About the fauna the only thing he said that there were "several species of mammoth in the area that would have been available as prey."
This was kind of a common theme throughout the conference. The old notion that our ancient ancestors just made stone spears and hunted mammoth still lingers strongly in the imagination, and seems to color a lot of assumptions, even among the world's most learned archaeologists.
9:30am
The Yana RHS site.
From the program book:
The Yana RHS site is in the far northeast of Siberia. There is definitive evidence that there were people living there up to 28,000 - 29,000 years ago. Their symbols are found only in Beringia, though, there is no proof that they crossed into Alaska or down into the Americas.
10:30am
From the program book:
This talk discussed two sites, one at Sun River, one at Gerstle River. The diet of the each was analyzed. At the Sun River site, there was a wide variety of diet, though bison predominates. At Gerstle river, there were no small game or fish found at all. This changed with the Younger Dryas.
The conference ran from October 17th through the 19th. The main focus of the conference was the original peopling of the Americas. That is, how and when humans first arrived here. This has been one of the biggest controversies recently in American archaeology. For the last several decades, the theory held that humans crossed over from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge (more accurately known as the now mostly submerged subcontinent of Beringia) during the last great ice age, then traveled down an ice-free corridor through Canada and spread out from New Mexico. These would be the Clovis culture, named after the Clovis points, which are named after Clovis, New Mexico, where they were found.
For a long time, it was believed this was, and would be, the oldest people found in the Americas. In the last couple of decades, though, evidence has begun to emerge that has challenged this idea. Although the subcontinent of Beringia was always free of the great glaciers that covered the northern part of the Americas, it was commonly believed that the glaciers blocked any movement past it.
However, a coastal route from Beringia down along the west coast would have also been possible, as much of the coast itself was not glaciated. Evidence of this was found in Paisley Caves and several other places (as I'll get to later.) The evidence of people being in Oregon and other places long before the existence of the Clovis culture has been steadily mounting. The main purpose of this particular conference was to present and discuss this evidence, which possibly re-writes the whole story that people of my generation would have been taught since grade school.
So, that's the conference I went to, and these are my notes from the conference. Please note that I am not a professional archaeologist. It is something I do and read about in my spare time. So everything I know is based on my understanding of the writings I have read of and conversations I have had with those who have actually done the work and the original research. I have tried here to be as accurate as possible, but it's possible that some aspects may not be entirely accurate. If you desire more than a lay interpretation of the facts, see the original papers, all of which are available through various means. Also, if you are someone who knows better than me about any of this, please feel free to correct me in the comments, either here or on the linked Facebook site, if you see anything that is incorrect, or if you want to provide any further information.
A quick note about naming conventions: Many terms are not always used consistently, or have the same meanings at all time to all people. There doesn't yet seem to be any general consensus on many terms. So here are a few clarifications:
Clovis can mean either the Clovis point, or the culture that created it. It is sometimes also used to refer to the time period that the Clovis culture existed.
Pre-Clovis rarely actually refers to a direct precursor to the Clovis culture, but rather to any culture or time period that is older than Clovis.
Paleolithic is another term that has been suggested for adoption to mean the time before the Clovis period. While a few archaeologists have been pushing this term, as far as I can tell it is not yet widely accepted.
Paleoindian and paleoarchaic are other terms that refer to the people and the time period, respectively, before Clovis. These terms seem to mostly be used by Great Basin archaeologists.
And now, on to the presentations:
October 17th, 2013.
Shortly after 7am, I went to the room where Chantel Saban and Katelyn McDonough both had their poster presentations.
Chantel's was on her Pollen analysis from Paisley Caves. One of the questions raised about the stratigraphy of the site was whether it was possible if DNA had leached down from later levels. This is important as some of the primary evidence of human occupation of the earliest time periods of the site was coprolites containing human DNA. Chantel's work demonstrated that the stratigraphy was actually very intact, with each layer being distinct.
From the program book:
Chantel Saban
Palynological Perspectives on Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene
Human Ecology at Paisley Caves (35LK3400), Cave 2
Towards the goal of rebuilding the paleoenvironment of the Chewaucan
Basin for the purpose of better understanding and interpreting
the archaeological record, this is an analysis of pollen recovered from
sediments at Paisley 5-Mile Butte (35LK3400), more commonly called
Paisley Caves. The Paisley Caves are a system of eight rockshelters
located in the Summer Lake Sub-basin of Eastern Oregon. Excavations
of these caves have resulted in the discovery of 14,300-year-old coprolites
yielding ancient human DNA, representing some of the earliest
human remains in the New World. Sediments were recovered from
intact stratigraphic context and represent a time span of 7,600 cal BP to
13,600 cal BP. Initial pollen analysis from Cave units 2/6B and 2/4C has
produced a clear record of climate change affecting the Summer Lake
Sub-basin during a time period spanning between 13,600 cal BP to the
time of the time of the Mount Mazama eruption 7,640 cal BP. The goal
is to shed light on the paleoenvironmental context of early human occupants
at Paisley Caves towards better understanding possible adaptive
behaviors of early humans in the Northern Great Basin
Katelyn's poster at the same time in the same room was about patterns of deposition of artifacts at the same site.
From the program book:
Katelyn McDonough, Mark E. Swisher, Dennis L. Jenkins, Patrick W.
O’Grady and Edward B. Davis
An Analysis of Artifact, Bone, and Coprolite Distributions in Paisley
Caves Younger Dryas (Botanical Lens) and Underlying Pleistocene
Deposits
The distribution of artifacts, large mammal bones, and coprolites
recovered from well-dated contexts at the Paisley Caves was examined
to investigate natural and cultural patterns of deposition. Previous anal-
yses of deposits below Mazama tephra produced statistically significant
correlations, suggesting that the distributions are not random, and were
affected by cultural activity. We examine their distributions through
time, using comparative statistical analyses of Pleistocene and Younger
Dryas assemblages.
October 17th, 2013:
9:00am. The first talk I went to was on Hokkaido.
From the program book:
Masami Izuho
Human Technological and Behavioral Adaptation to Landscape
Changes Before, During, and After the Last Glacial Maximum in
Japan
Here I present technological and behavioral adaptations of hunter-gatherers
to landscape changes before, during, and after the Last Glacial
Maximum on the Japanese Islands, which formed two landmasses
during the Upper Pleistocene: Paleo-Honshu Island and Paleo-Sakhalin-
Hokkaido-Kurile Peninsula connected to the far eastern Asian continent.
Through assembling evidence of climate, landscape, flora, and
fauna as well as cultural elements chronologically and geographically
during periods which provide a high density of detailed data across
Japan, I discuss the diversity of human technological and behavioral
adaptations in the insular ecosystem between the cool-temperature and
arctic zones. Differences in adaptation at the local scale between the
insular and continental parts of Asia shed light on the nature of modern
human dispersals and formation of cultural diversity in Eurasia and
Americas.
Most archaeology in Japan focuses on the long historical record. Pleistocene research in Hokkaido, and in Japan itself, is still in its infancy. Very little so far has been done in that area.
There were several sites mentioned, and a great deal was said about the lithics. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in lithic tools enough to really understand the conclusions regarding tool style. At least, I wasn't at the beginning of the conference, I learned a lot about them throughout. More about that later. But tool style is important as it's an indication of cultural connection (or lack thereof).
Two of the primary tool styles are "Western Stem" and Clovis. The tools in Hokkaido were similar in style and in engineering to the Western Stem, that we find in most of the western US, including Oregon.
Western Stem tools endured in Hokkaido until the Han people came into the area. The Inu are the descendents of the original people in Japan, and current indicate that people may have moved up through Hokkaido before crossing Siberia and into Beringia, and down into the Americas. Much more on that later, as it was kind of the focus of the whole conference.
Other notes of interest are:
Archaologists can tell a lot from lithic analysis, even beyond the morphology and engineering style of stone tools themselves. For instance, of the sites mentioned in Hokkaido, some were permanent residences and some were temporary hunting camps. In the hunting camp, the only lithic flakes found were those that were left over from repairing tools, or using the kinds of tools necessary for processing animals. Pleistocene foragers created specific stone tools for the various jobs of scraping hides, cutting meat, opening bones, etc. Each of these, and a whole lot of other tasks has specific tools which are made in the same way every time. The residential camp, on the other hand, had flakes that would be left over from the original making of points used for hunting (the hunting camps had the kind of flakes that would be left over from repairing, but not manufacturing, such tools). Things such as overshot flakes (the kind that would be removed in processing the "core" (the original rock) to make whatever tools they were planning on making), and other tools that would be used in a residence, but not a temporary hunting camp, were commonly found.
Quick note that this method of analyzing what's left over, from the location, scatter patterns, and so forth, is part of the reason why it's so important not to remove items that are found. Artifacts found "in situ" can provide a wealth of information that is lost if the artifact is removed from its original location.
Futher note of interest: The archaeologist giving the talk mentioned that nothing was known about the flora of any of the sites. About the fauna the only thing he said that there were "several species of mammoth in the area that would have been available as prey."
This was kind of a common theme throughout the conference. The old notion that our ancient ancestors just made stone spears and hunted mammoth still lingers strongly in the imagination, and seems to color a lot of assumptions, even among the world's most learned archaeologists.
9:30am
The Yana RHS site.
From the program book:
Vladimir Pitulko, Pavel Nikolskiy, Aleksandr Basilyan and Elena
Pavlova
Yana RHS Site, the Earliest Occupation of Siberia
For years, the initial stage of human habitation within Western Beringia
was supposed to be not older than the Late Upper Paleolithic,with firm
dates younger than the LGM. Discovery of Yana RHS doubled length
of the record of human habitation in NE Asia. Human occupations
at Yana site pre-date the LGM and show that the area was inhabited
almost 30,000 14C years ago. This is the earliest evidence known in the
Arctic. The site yielded a unique evidence for Early Upper Paleolithic
culture of this remote part of the world. Fauna remains that come from
the site belong to almost all species of the local Late Pleistocene habitat.
Reindeer, bison, and horse are most numerous. Three major contexts
compose the Yana archaeological complex. Two of them are lithic contexts
called correspondingly “macro tools” (cores, scrapers, large tools)
and “micro tools” (small scrapers, chisel-like pieces, backed blades
but almost no burins). The third one is presented by well developed
bone/ivory industry that includes hunting equipment, sewing tool kit,
and other implements. Numerous personal ornaments and decorated
artifacts demonstrate highly developed complicated symbolic behavior.
This article presents the data on geology, radiocarbon dating and
artifact collection of the Yana site.
The Yana RHS site is in the far northeast of Siberia. There is definitive evidence that there were people living there up to 28,000 - 29,000 years ago. Their symbols are found only in Beringia, though, there is no proof that they crossed into Alaska or down into the Americas.
10:30am
From the program book:
Ben A. Potter, Chuck Holmes and David Yesner
Technology and Economy among the Earliest Prehistoric Foragers in
Interior Eastern Beringia
In the past decade, the archaeological record of eastern Interior
Beringia (Alaska and Yukon Territory) has seen a transformation in our
understanding of the earliest foragers. This presentation focuses on new
sites, new data and new interpretations of technology and economy
from the region, including emerging models of landscape use and settlement
systems. Patterns of continuity and discontinuity from adjacent
regions (western Beringia and central North America) are evaluated.
Clovis ancestors may be present in Beringia, but they are not easily distinguished
through material culture patterns. Other avenues of inquiry
with different assumptions are needed to understand the anthropological
problem of the colonization of the New World. Recent theoretical
approaches incorporating technological organization and behavioral
ecology have provided ways to explore this early record.
This talk discussed two sites, one at Sun River, one at Gerstle River. The diet of the each was analyzed. At the Sun River site, there was a wide variety of diet, though bison predominates. At Gerstle river, there were no small game or fish found at all. This changed with the Younger Dryas.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-10-24 03:42 am (UTC)It sounds fun.
no subject
Date: 2013-10-24 04:42 am (UTC)2. Relatively certain, though not 100%. I don't know about any papers about the Han -- I'm just parroting what I heard. Though, I did hear it from a professional archaeologist :) I'd do more research, though, before staking the claim in anything more substantial than a blog entry.
3. Perhaps
no subject
Date: 2013-10-24 05:23 am (UTC)I just think it would be interesting if the Koreans were Han (which I thought were further south in the area we know today as China).