Rosemary Mulvey

Prof. Malpass
World Archaeology
19 February 2017

Discussion Summary 1

1. We talked about the Hadza as a model of hunting and gathering societies

that existed as the original lifestyle of our ancient ancestors. It is an
interesting question to compare them to the way of life of the modern people
who entered Europe starting around 40,000 BCE. Do you think the model is
accurate? Why or why not? What might have been different?

I think that the using that Hazda as a model of hunting and gathering
societies to compare to modern people who entered Europe in 40,000 BCE is
not entirely accurate because of the distinct differences in their
environments and their cultures, but close enough to make inform
comparisons. There are a lot of similarities between the Hazda and our first
Europeans, particularly in their societal structure. They are both egalitarian
in status with achieved status whose social organizing principles rely on
kinship. The Hazda grouping system relies on core sets of brothers with fluid
membership for others, and women must marry into other groups. Exactly
how Homo sapiens kinship and marriage systems worked 40,000 BCE is
unclear from the archaeological record, but kinship ties are likely, though
their marriage customs are unknown. There are also similarities in their
informal political leadership, reciprocal economy, and ad hoc religion.
However, there are also some important differences to take into
account between the two groups. Hazda people use very few tools, like the
digging stick, that can be said are more technologically advanced, citing the
poison bow and arrow. The Upper Paleolithic people had hundreds of different
kinds of tools, specialized for certain tasks. I find this to be a strong indicator
of how different these groups are, because the time taken to craft the tools
and the way they would perform tasks would be incredibly different. Hazda
having a bow and arrow would greatly set them apart from the humans
around 40,000 BCE who did not have them yet and had to rely on spears and
Atlatls which were much more inefficient. There is also the environmental
difference of the Hazda being in a hotter climate while the Upper Paleolithic
people lived in a very cold climate. The available resources would have been
different and the Upper Paleolithic people also would have to worry about not
freezing to death which the Hazda do not need to worry about. There is also
evidence from New Women of the Ice Age that the division of labor was not
as strict as it is with the Hazda men hunting and women gathering and
that women likely did help hunt and men did help gather.
I think that the Hazda can be used as a model of hunting and gathering
societies, but it would not be accurate to assume without evidence that all
hunting and gathering societies throughout time are exactly the same,
because that is just false. The different environments and the differences
found from the archaeological record set the two groups apart, but I believe
finding those differences and relying on the commonalities between the two
would present an accurate picture of humans in Europe in the Upper
Paleolithic.

2. Archaeologists use modern remains of other kinds to compare to the

archaeological record. Thinking about what a modern campground looks like
after the Fourth of July holiday (envision it was completely full), how good of
a model would it be for comparing to Monte Verde? Explain.

A modern campground would not be a good model for a comparison

with Monte Verde because while some similarities could be found, they are
not the same kind of settlements and whatever could be found that is similar
would not in actuality be the same as Monte Verde because of that. A
campground after the Fourth of July would be littered with food and trash
remains, evidence of tents, campfires, and barbeques. The camping areas
would be spread out and separated by trees for privacy. Tools like Swiss army
knives and silverware would be left behind. The garbage would be full of
cans and plastic. Monte Verde had the remains of tent structures made of
mammoth skin that were arranged very close together, the remains of
hearths inside and outside of tents, and a shamans tent they were able to
connect with the village that was farther away and there they found many
medicinal plants.
The remains of the modern campground would not look like the
remains of Monte Verde. First, the tents would be too far apart to be the
same type of village that Monte Verde looks like. In a campground, families
or groups of friends each have their own plot in the campground to set up
their tents and have their campfires. These are usually set apart from each
other by trees so that the groups can have their privacy. In Monte Verde, the
tents were set up close to each other, likely for safety. Their campfires were
inside and outside of their tents, which would not happen in a modern
campground for safety reasons. Monte Verde would not have the same
plastic and metal tools as what would be found in a modern campground.
The processed foods like hotdogs and chips would be very different than the
remains of what would be found in Monte Verde, though bones from foods
like ribs or chicken wings might be similar. If there were a first aid station or
tent in the campground, there may be some similarities with the shaman
tent found connected to Monte Verde, but it would not have the same
medical supplies or be as remote from the campsite as the shaman tent.
The modern campground would not be a good model for comparison
with Monte Verde because it is not a permanent settlement, the remains
would be too different, and the conclusions drawn would be inaccurate. The
campsite would have foods and tools that are nothing like what even could
be found in a settlement like Monte Verde because of modern manufacturing,
like hot dogs, marshmallows, and plastic silverware. The layout of the
campsite does not lend itself to being the same type of communal village as
Monte Verde because everyone is so spread out. While generally the remains
of tents and food and fires would be the same, the impermanence of
camping tents would not necessarily lend itself to being preserved in the
archaeological record because the people camping would likely take their
tents home with them. The food remains would be very different because of
modern food processing. The fires would also be different because how
campers would start fires propellants like charcoal, and most food would
likely not be cooked directly in a fire but on a grill. The campground and
Monte Verde are too different to be compared.
3. If Ithaca College was suddenly abandoned today, and archaeologists with
no understanding of our writing system came back in 100 years, which
buildings do you think would be most useful for them to investigate to get a
good understanding of the culture that lived here? They only have time to
study six buildings.

The first building I think they should study would be the library. It is a
large building in a relatively central location which would key the
archaeologists in to its importance. Inside the library they would find all of
the books there, but without knowledge of our writing system, they would
have to perhaps use the pictures on the covers and inside them to figure out
what they are. There are also DVDs and CDs in the library that if they could
access them would be very valuable in figuring out who we are. The art on
display in the library would also be helpful, especially the photographs. There
would also be some food remains which they could study as well.
The second building should be East (or West) Tower. No matter how
they interpret the Towers (as a prison or a castle) they would have a lot of
information from the individual rooms about how people lived in them, in
small groups of two to four or alone. There would be clothing, bedding,
books, food, trash, and bathrooms to study. They would be able to likely find
some DNA samples of humans in the remains as well because freshmen are
disgusting and definitely would leave some behind.
The third building could be Park, because the audiovisual remains of
the people who lived here in the TV shows and movies would be valuable
because they would know what we looked like, how we dressed, and how we
talked even if they could not understand us. Park would probably help them
start to understand our language if they could hear it spoken in the context
of the films preserved in there.
The fourth building could be Campus Center, because it is central and
the evidence of its importance could be found in how well used and occupied
it had been. There would be plenty of food remains to study and they could
probably figure out some reason for all of us to spend time there.
The fifth building could be the Cerrache Center. With the art that would
be left behind that the art majors created, the future anthropologists could
divine something about or culture. It is relatively isolated from the rest of the
campus so it could possibly be given some religious significance, especially
since it is next to a sports field which could be used for ceremonies.
The sixth building could be the chapel. It being multidenominational
could initially be confusing, but as they studied the remains of the library and
of the texts left behind more, I think they eventually would be able to
separate the religions out somehow into some kind of category, especially if
there were other relatively modern sites they could compare the chapel to
for reference, like churches, mosques, and temples.
5. Modern humans moving into Europe starting around 40,000 BCE
encountered Neandertals. By 30,000 BCE, all the Neandertals were gone,
and modern humans were all that was left. How was this possible, given the
fact Neandertals and their ancestors had been successful at inhabiting this
region for at least 500,000 years? Discuss the biological and cultural factors
that might have been involved.

There are many reasons how Neandertals could have disappeared in

the 10,000-year period from first encountering modern humans to their
extinction. These reasons include genetic swamping, disease, and
competition for resources that they lost. While Neandertals were very
successful in inhabiting the region for a very long time, the introduction of
modern humans into the environment eventually overpowered them,
Modern humans could have overtaken Neandertals through genetic
swamping, where through interbreeding humans would have made
Neandertal DNA obsolete as only some of their hybrid offspring would have
been fertile. This theory is supported by the remaining Neandertal DNA found
in many people today. The groups modern humans moving into the area
outnumbered the Neandertal groups living in the region, so if enough
interbreeding took place, genetic swamping would have been possible.
However, there could have been very little interbreeding between
Neandertals and humans. If culturally, humans and Neandertals did not
prefer each other, they could have not interbred very much and Neandertals
could have died out in other ways. If a few people interbred with
Neandertals, the DNA could still be found but without genetic swamping.
Humans moving into the area could have brought unfamiliar diseases
with them that killed off the Neandertals, similar to how European diseases
decimated Native American populations. Humans could have carried tropical
diseases with them into Europe which the Neandertals had no immunity
against and killed them with contact.
Whether or not disease played a part in it, the sheer size difference of
the human groups and Neandertals could have played a part. Humans
travelled in larger groups than Neandertals so they could have outcompeted
the Neandertals for resources in the region. Their more advanced hunting
strategies and blade tools also could have helped them to outcompete the
Neandertals. These advantages can be attributed to the more advanced
cognitive skills of humans that are demonstrated by the emergence of art,
and in the reading The Origin of Language. Firstly, art shows how modern
humans would capture their world in their paintings and figurines, while
Neandertals did not have art in the same way. With language, humans could
talk about not only the present but the past and future which would allow
them to plan and have better hunting strategies which would have been
beneficial. Having better linguistic and cognitive ability could have been key
to humans outcompeting Neandertals, who were relatively smart and very
well adapted to the region.
 Neandertals could have disappeared from the region that had occupied
for over 500,000 years for many reasons involving humans moving into the
area. Diseases brought from the tropical climates that humans had
previously occupied could have killed them, genetic swamping could have
eventually absorbed the species, our they could have been outcompeted for
resources due to humans superior cognitive powers as shown by their
linguistic and artistic abilities, or a mixture of some or all of these reasons.
Culturally and/or biologically, the humans became the dominate species in
the region and the Neandertals were outcompeted.