3/30/2021

 


Peopling of the Americas (excuse the font issues - I cannot figure out how to resolve them)

Many years ago, when I was a graduate student, I took a two year long course with Christy Turner on the peopling of the world. Each one of us - or a team in some cases - took a continent. I selected South America. 

It was fascinating to try to figure things out. First I had to try to develop an understanding of the geography and climate as they existed at the time after the ice corridor opened

If the corridor in the ice in Canada did not open until about 10,000 years ago - which is what was estimated at the time - and that was the only way people got to the Americas, which was sort of what they assumed then, that had to be my start date. I assumed they didn't run like 20 year old track stars for the tip of South America - although they seemed to have been present then some 8-9,000 years ago.

Once migrating people arrived in Central America they would have, if they had settled there, created a bottle neck that would have made it difficult for anyone else to get into South America.

However, as people obviously got past the bottle neck, they would have had some problems getting very far into South America.  They would have had problems going down the west coast, as Colombia doesn't have a large or inviting coastal plain. If they had gone to the east, they would soon have run into the Orinoco Drainage. Crossing it would have required some sort of boat. If they had gone down the middle, they had to climb up the side of the Andes. They would have had to climb quite high to reach the intermountain valleys, some of which were blocked by glaciers. If they had somehow made it to Ecuador's coastal plain, which is quite large, they would have had to cross several rivers - the Esmeraldas and the Guayas. If they had tried to continue down the coast, lack of water would have been a problem. Little rain falls around Lima and along the coast of Chile they would have encountered few rivers flowing to the sea. Consequently, finding fresh water would have been problematic. 

I also looked at culture and found that objects like the Jew's Harp was used in the Amazon. There were other similarities with the cultural practices of Australia (assuming the Pacific Islands were not populated until much later).

Further, it was of interest that - if my memory does not fail me - that the coast of Antarctica was land not ice early on - some 6,000 years ago. I began to wonder if some people  had not traveled from Australia, via Antarctica, to the tip of South America and then up into the Amazon Basin.  Early anthropologists did consider that to be a possibility; however for some reason the idea was dropped. I am sure the reasons were good one; however, today I read that indigenous people in South America do share ancestry - genes -with Australians.  The researchers assumed that the ancestors from Australia had traveled via the Bering Strait. I wonder if some didn't come north, via Antarctica. Only time and more evidence can reveal such patterns. Certainly, I ended up feeling that sea  travel had occurred earlier than we thought at the time.

Long ago, perhaps in the 1960s Betty Megger argued that the Japanese visited the coast of South America. She claimed that she  had found similarities in language and anchors that were identical to those used in Japan. Once we had some visitors from Japan and when I showed them a picture of a Valdivia figurine from Ecuador's Sta Elena Province (c. 3000 BC) they immediately said "Jomon". However, her ideas were rejected as "cult anthropology."

Valdivia, Jomon Fishermen, and the Nature of the North Pacific: Some Nautical Problems with Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's (1965) Transoceanic Contact Thesis

Gordon F. McEwan and D. Bruce Dickson

ABSTRACT

Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's (1965) thesis, that storm-tossed Jomon fishermen drifted across the North Pacific to the coast of Ecuador and introduced pottery-making at the Valdivia site, is presented. The thesis is examined from the standpoint of the mechanics of such a voyage. The nature of the surface current patterns in the North Pacific are discussed, together with the weather conditions found along the presumed route, the types of vessels known archaeologically for the early Jomon, and the suitability of such vessels for a trans-Pacific crossing. Finally, the survival problems faced by a crew adrift in an open boat on the North Pacific are presented. It is concluded that contact between Jomon and Valdivian peoples was unlikely to have occurred in the manner suggested by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada. Several possible alternative routes and explanations are advanced.


Archaeology | Studies examine clues of transoceanic contact  

Bradley T. Lepper is curator of archaeology at the Ohio Historical Society.

blepper@ohiohistory.org

https://www.dispatch.com/article/20130519/news/305199804 

Pottery offers a bonanza of information for archaeologists. It represents a revolution in container technology, and the clay from which it is made provides a canvas with many possibilities for self-expression. As a result, differences and similarities in pottery decorations can offer clues about cultural relationships over space and through time.

Residues on pots reveal important clues to how people used their pottery. An international team of scientists reported last month in the journal Nature the results of chemical analyses of the charred gunk on the surfaces of pottery shards from Jomon period sites in Japan. They determined it was composed mostly of the oily residue from cooking ocean fish.

The Jomon culture was mentioned in other news this month. The largest ever genetic study of native South Americans identified a sub-population in Ecuador with an unexpected link to eastern Asia. The study, published in PLOS Genetics, concluded that Asian genes had been introduced into South America sometime after 6,000 years ago -- the same time the Jomon culture was flourishing in Japan.

Back in the 1960s, the renowned Smithsonian archaeologist Betty Meggers argued that similarities between the pottery of the contemporaneous Valdivia culture in Ecuador and Japan’s Jomon culture indicated that Japanese fishermen had “discovered” America about 5,000 years ago.

Few archaeologists took this idea seriously. Gordon McEwan and Bruce Dickson, writing in a 1978 issue of American Antiquity, pointed out significant flaws with the hypothesis.

First of all, Pacific Ocean currents did not provide a direct route from Japan to Ecuador. Second, Jomon dugout canoes were unlikely to have been sufficiently seaworthy to allow a crew to survive an extended voyage across the ocean. Finally, food and fresh water would have been difficult to obtain.

Writing in 1980, Meggers expressed frustration that transoceanic contact as an explanation for cultural similarities was dismissed by dogmatic colleagues as “cult archaeology,” and she complained that “no amount of evidence” could convince them.

I can appreciate Meggers’ frustration, but although it’s likely that no amount of the same type of evidence that she marshaled in support of her original argument could make a thoroughly convincing case, I believe that most archaeologists could be convinced if compelling new evidence for transpacific contact were uncovered.

The discovery of an apparent genetic link between eastern Asians and Ecuadoran natives provides intriguing independent support for Meggers’ hypothesis. Moreover, the fact that Jomon pottery was used predominantly for cooking seafood suggests that Jomon fishermen would have had little trouble feeding themselves on a long ocean voyage.

Transoceanic contact long has been a popular explanation for cultural similarities, such as the occurrence of pyramids in both Egypt and Mexico. Archaeologists have demonstrated, however, that such similarities are largely superficial and meaningless. When closely examined, Egyptian and Mayan pyramids turn out to be fundamentally different things.

Meggers might prove to have been right after all about the origins of Valdivia pottery, but she was wrong to attribute the rejection of her ideas to scientific dogmatism. Meggers simply didn’t have the extraordinary evidence to support her extraordinary claim.


12/20/2020

 Why I wish we lived in Apache Junction


We don't live in Apache Junction, although we live near there in a place that considers Apache Junction to be, well, a hick town. Can you imagine a more historic and romantic name than Apache Junction?  It actually must be, according to my calculations, located on a prehistoric path, perhaps a Hohokam trade route.  I can imagine the people moving back and forth, the petroglyphs that must mark the path, the events that happened, and the items being traded.  

Many of the streets in Apache Junction have historical names (e.g., Remington, Thunderbird, Wells Fargo, Concho, Tomahawk, Wickiup Rd., Conestoga Road, Wagon Wheel Road, Vaquero, Chaparral, Cortez, Cochise, Pima, De Soto, Raindance, Teepee) or biological name (e.g., Ocotillo, Palo Verde, Saguaro, Grease Wood, Iron Wood, Manzanita, Smoketree, Cactus Wren).  The streets offer history lessons or point out what you should know if you want to  understand this area and its history.  It will help you realize what a fascinating place Apache Junction is.

There used to be a large number of rock and gem stores, which I love to visit, and a bunch of funky antique stores. It was a wonderful place and one of the most wonderful places was Buckhorn Baths. 



\https://www.facebook.com/ApacheTrail/posts/this-1944-image-shows-buckhorn-baths-on-apache-trail-and-recker-road-before-they/1585762284838854 /

If you are interested in prehistoric paths, this is a good article to get you started.



12/19/2020

 


Abuelas, Nanas, Grandmothers


It seems that grandmothers have become popular again, credited with promoting the fitness of their descendants. I don't disagree with that premise. I do disagree with several points.


1.  If the children, when they get old, replicate the cultural/behavioral  strategies of the grandmother, then it becomes an ancestral strategy. I am sure that evolutionary biologists look at it generation by generation, but if  you look at it in terms of everyone the grandmother influences, it seems clear that her influence is copied across generations and at any point in time she is, what the Mongolians would say, the one who founds a lineage, perhaps even a lineage going back as far as Genghis Khan. However, no matter how often I repeat myself, my words fall on deaf ears. We cannot escape from kin selection/inclusive fitness. I have to wonder if it is the sole means of explaining cooperation (other than reciprocal altruism - which has tough requirement and thus is tough to test) even in other species. However, I leave that for future generations to solve.


2.  I also agree that when a mother has more than one child she needs  a strategy to get them to cooperate with her and with one another.  Part of that strategy may involve having the grandmother teach them those skills while the mother tends to breast feeding, foraging, preparing food, keeping her husband happy - all cultural practices that she had been taught by her mother and grandmother. That teaching may have been explicit - "Do this!", or it may have been implicit, perhaps described in a story, or it may have been taught by modeling behavior. The how is less important than the result. 


3. The grandmother did more than teach her daughter (as a child) to find nutritious roots. That was only one thing she might have done, but even that she learned from her mother, who learned it from her mother. To try to make this clear, girls learn certain skills by watching their mothers. They learn other skills - probably social skills - from their grandmothers. 

12/18/2020

Education and its discontents

 

Education and its discontents (and contents)


Once upon a time, at least in my imagination, the buildings in which teaching and learning  occurred were designed to be beautiful and to last for centuries. The ideas taught in those buildings centered on logic, education, and the virtues and vices of humanity.

Today, institutions of higher learning are more "institutional" - not designed or built to last forever or inspire the viewer with their beauty. However, although they have lost the beauty element, they continue to teach what we call the humanities. Now it is left to community colleges to teach many of the skills such as plumbing and construction and car repair. 

When I studied drawing long ago in a university, the worst insult you could get from your professor was that your drawing was beautiful. Beautiful meant trite, unimaginative, pattern. If by mistake you did draw something "beautiful" you were asked to take a pencil, pen, knife, or eraser  and slash lines through your mistake.

When I studied literature in a university, our interpretations had to be, if not the interpretation of the professor (which was not always made clear), then a summary of the interpretation of some other scholar with whom the professor agreed. Despite the fact that any narrative can probably have a million possible interpretations, your interpretation if not repetitive was seen a faulty. Has it always been that way, even when the university campus was built to be beautiful and to last generations? Did the students of Socrates have to copy what Socrates said. Apparently so, as that is why we know about his thinking, just as that is the way we know what Confucius and many others have taught. 

However, what concerns me here is  the loss of beauty, which one might mourn as one mourns the loss of one's belief in the goodness of humankind. My real interest here is copying. We are a species know for copying. A first question is how did we get from beauty to practicality?  Did funding inspire the change?  Further, we may copy the virtues listed above or we may join others in rejecting them. By copying I do not mean plagiarism, although that is rampant, but the fact that many faculty and students seem to be expected to copy the ideas, words, postures...of those they accepted as role and thought models when they were graduate students. Where in this picture are the original thinkers, the ones who having learned the accepted models of thought, begin to forge their own way?  More importantly, where in the humanities are the original thinkers - not just those who change a few words or describe the thoughts using academic terms. 

The Liberal Arts include the sciences, which depend on hypotheses that are testable, not on how they fit with prior thinking (that that is there to some significant extent), but  on the falsifiability and strength of their hypotheses. Evolutionary biology is trying to lure the humanities into its realm. I have to wonder though, as despite the fact that they are  using - or reciting - modern Darwinian theory as a base -  they often propose non-testable hypotheses that are, however worded in complex academic terms -- terms not defined either in the paper or dictionaries. Further, to what extent are mistakes made and, worse yet, copied generation after generation? Do interesting hypotheses, albeit nontestable, ever correct themselves or does "science" continue along a path that takes humanities scholars ever more deeply into convoluted errors of thinking.

Don't get me wrong, copying is not necessarily a negative thing. Copying helps a students get As and helps us be seen as members of any particular community. Shibboleths.  As one example, young women who copy sorority girls are modeling behaviors known to be successful in attracting wealthy husbands. There are many possibly examples, but perhaps I am too skeptical. Can one be too skeptical when one lives in a social group created by humans?  

Blaming the victim

Many people in the US today seem to be professional victims. They are very good at it and have even raised it to an art form. These people have no responsibility for what occurs to them. It is fate, historical issues, poverty, disgusting people, or nasty white (or other) men who are to blame.

It is probably a good bet that all of our ancestors suffered. That is a given. We have been on earth as Homo sapiens for some 100,000-300,000 years. One can guess that at least one and probably many of our ancestors suffered at the hands of others. 

This brings us to the topic of blaming the victim. If a young and attractive woman, against the advice of her mother and friends, wears a tiny skirt and low cut blouse and wanders into a strange ghetto at night, does she have to accept any of the responsibility for being raped?

According to Wikipedia,
  • Victim-blaming consists of holding victims of crimes or other misfortunes wholly or partly responsible for what has happened to them.

Wikipedia then provides two examples:

  • For example: a motorist who leaves a car unlocked with the keys in the ignition may seem partly responsible if another party steals the car. Or persons who use verbal abuse may count as partly responsible if they suffer a physical assault.
  • In the context of rape, this concept refers to popular attitudes that behaviour such as flirting or wearing sexually provocative clothing may encourage rape: that such actions resemble leaving one's car with the keys in the ignition or provoking an assault by "winding up" the assailant. In extreme cases people may accuse victims of "asking for it" by not behaving demurely.

This theory, Wikipedia goes on to write, "depends on the view that a prospective victim should know and acknowledge either human nature or other facts of life when making decisions. Thus persons may appear blameworthy if they act recklessly or with negligence. Laws acknowledge this concept in some areas, for example when a driver ignores the rules of the road.