11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 1 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

drarchaeology.comExploration

Search

Origins

The Northeastern Corner of the Southwest

n.b. We will rewrite this section as we get an opportunity.

The Hopi, Zuñi, Keres, and Jemez Pueblo people account for their origins by emergence from underground (Kirchhoff1954; see Pueblo Texts), The Tanoan-speaking Pueblos (except Jemez) believe in emergence from underwater. The Navajobelieve in emergence from underground fleeing rising water (Zolbrod 1984; see Navajo Texts), and the Jicarilla Apachebelieve in emergence from underground in pursuit of light (Russell 1898; Goddard 1911; see Apache Texts).

In their cosmogonic* accounts, these people recognize that living creatures are born. Our progenitors are gendered andincrease occurs through reproduction (Farella 1984). The Pueblo accounts note that the people were created here, in place,in the Southwest. The Navajo accounts have some people created in the Southwest and some created in California andmigrating east to Dinétah (Matthews 1883, Stephen 1930, Goddard 1933, Wheelwright 1942 Fishler 1953, O'Bryan 1956).

*cosmogonic: the creation or origin of the world or universe or the theory of the creation of the universe, contrast with

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 2 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

cosmology - a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe.

Open any anthropology or archaeology text book and you will read:

'The earliest inhabitants of America were hunters who migrated from the Asian mainland across the BeringStraits land bridge between 40,000 and 25,000 B.C.E. ' (European Voyages of Exploration: Latin AmericaUniversity of Calgary The Applied History Research Group)

or words to that effect. In most instances this will be followed by a map, like the one below titled, "Routes of the FirstAmericans," from an American History textbook, showing possible routes of the migrants as they moved south into theAmericas. Current Anthropological theory holds that the ancestors of Modern Native Americans migrated to the Americasfrom Asia in waves approximately 14-16000 years ago and possibly earlier.

That a land bridge between Asia and North America existed during the last ice age is strongly supported by geologicalevidence. Ocean water locked up in glacial ice lowered sea levels to the point where a corridor up to 1600km or more wideexisted between Siberia and Alaska. See Paleoenvironments and Glaciation in Beringia National Science Foundation

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 3 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

(Office of Polar Programs) and the National Park Service (Beringian Heritage Project Bering Land Bridge NationalPreserve)

The animation below shows that ice sheets blocked migration into N America from Asia prior to 15000 years ago leavingopen the question as to how the inhabitants of older sites migrated to the Americas.

Link to Laurentian Ice animated map quicktime movie

Despite the maps and the theory presented ubiquitously in anthropological texts, there is no definitive, direct,empirical, archaeological evidence that people migrated into North and South America over a land bridge acrossthe Bering Straits. There are no archaeological sites that we can be sure mark the movements of the earliest migrants.

Supporters of the Beringia migration theory argue that melting ice and rising sea levels have flooded archaeological sitesand wiped out evidence of the earliest inhabitants of the region. Granted that this explanation for the lack of evidence iscorrect, on the basis of the land bridge migration theory, we would still expect to find a progression of sites from north tosouth— from oldest sites in Alaska to youngest sites in Tierra del Fuego. However, no empirical, archaeological evidenceof such a temporal progression across the Americas has yet been discovered. Some of the oldest sites in the Americas havebeen found in Chile (Dillehay and Pino 1997), Venezuela, California and the Carolinas. Until recently, relatively few oldsites have been found in the parts of Alaska that were not inundated by rising seas after the end of the Ice Age. (SeeMochanov and Fedoseeva 1996 Dyuktai Cave. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia)This relative lack of evidence does not invalidate the theory but it does raise a question:

Why does "Science" advance a theory in the absence of evidence as if it were established fact?

Why does Western science not acknowledge that the Navajo and the Pueblo and the Apaches, Ute and every other nativegroup in the Americas have a account of their origins and none of them posit a migration from Asia over a land bridge?

The land bridge migration theory was first proposed by José de Acosta, S.J. in 1590 in Historia Natural y Moral de lasIndias, 140 years before Danish captain Vitus Bering proved the connection of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans in 1733-43,and nearly 60 years before the strait had first been "discovered" and reported by the Cossack explorer Dejneff in 1648(Dejneff 's discovery had been forgotten by the following century and the strait was "rediscovered" by Bering. See theentry in the Catholic Encyclopedia .) José de Acosta's account was a systematic, scientific, geographic account of theAmericas. However the land bridge theory he advanced was without empirical evidence and developed against atheological background. The grounding for the theory was that the inhabitants of the Americas must have been descendantsof Adam and Eve and therefore there must have been a physical connection to human origins in the "Old World".

When Columbus sailed west to search for a new way to Asia, he knew that the lands he ‘discovered’must be on the east coast of the 'earth island'( — Eurasia + Africa) because he knew there was no otherland. He called the people that he met Indios as a generic term because he knew they lived east of theIndus River.

Despite differences between what he saw and the descriptions of earlier travelers, Columbus knew thathe could not have discovered a completely new world because European cosmology held that therewas only one world.

The idea of a ‘New World’ would imply that another world, in addition to the one, god-created world,existed. That would also imply that new people, not descended from Adam and Eve existed. Either of these notions wouldhave been heresy. To account for the discrepancies between expectation and observation Columbus suggested that he haddiscovered the lost paradise containing the Garden of Eden.

Neither Columbus nor Vespucci could discover a new world. They could not discover what they could not conceive of as apossibility. For that, the European world-view had to change.

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 4 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

In 1507 the academy of St. Dié, Lorraine, looking at the voyages of Vespucci, Dias, de Gama, Columbus, Cabral, andCabot, published a new cosmology in Cosmographiae Introductio which resulted in the rapid publication of a world mapby Martin Waldseemüller:

jpg sid(23Mb)

The world was still one, but there was a fourth part, not a continent but an island, surrounded by water. They named itAmerica, a feminized form of Vespucci’s name, to correspond to the feminine names Europe and Asia (Library ofCongress).

By the then current Western theology — Christian, Islamic and Jewish — the history of the human race, the sons of Noah,had to be revised to account for the new discoveries. Although this new land was not connected to the old earth island, thepeople there, in order to be descendants of Adam and Eve, must be connected to the Old World.

The issue of whether the "Indians" were human was debated for almost 100 years. It was addressed directly by Pope PaulIII early on in the May 29, 1537 papal bull Sublimus Dei (also seen as Sublimus Deus and Sublimis Deus) in which thepope declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be rational beings with souls, denouncing any idea to the contraryas directly inspired by Satan. He condemns Indian slavery and declares their right to liberty and property, concluding witha call for their evangelization. See papalencyclicals.net

The bull had a strong impact on the Valladolid debate which occurred 13 years later. In 1550, Charles V, Holy RomanEmperor and King of Spain, summoned the Council of the XIV to Valladolid to determine the nature of the Indians, how tochristianize them, what sort of beings they were, and what their intellectual and religious capacity for receiving Europeancivilization might be.

The Jesuit theologian Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, relying mostly on the histories of Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, arguedfor three hours that Indians were slaves by nature according to the definition of Aristotle. This idea supported theencomiendaro, a force labor system which turned Indians into serfs, allowed the natives to be christianized by violence andjustified their enslavement for profit.

Dominican friar of Chiapas, Bartolomé de Las Casas, presented testimony for five days, arguing that the natives were like

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 5 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Europeans in humanity, civility, ability to learn, and artistry. Las Casas won the debate and the king abolished theencomienda but it was restored a short time later when colonists in Peru protested that they could not continue sendingshipments of gold and silver without it (See Keen 1998).

By the thinking of the time, if the Indians were human, they must be descendents of Adam and Eve and must have arrive inthe "New World" from the "Old". For the next several hundred years that religious idea was the driving force behind theland bridge theory.

The religious underpinnings have now been supplanted by the evolutionary argument: there is no evidence of humanshaving evolved in the the Americas but there is substantial evidence that humans did evolve in Sub Saharan Africa andhave subsequently moved out over the earth from their African Origins. Africa is connected with Eurasia and Eurasia wasconnected by the Beringia land bridge to the Americas so that must have been the route that early migrants took.

An alternative set of theories — the watercraft migration theories — have people immigrating to the Americas inwatercraft along the west coast, along the Atlantic sea ice, across the Pacific like the later Polynesians, and a southwardmigration from Australia and Tasmania, hopping Subantarctic islands and then proceeding along the coast of Antarctica tothe tip of South America sometime during the last glacial maximum. All theories seek to link American Indians to "OldWorld" origins to reconcile their existence with Christian thought and later with evolutionary theory.

Today historical linguistics, ethnographic comparisons, archeological investigations, physical anthropology and mtDNAgenetic analysis are used to verify the land bridge hypothesis.

But the question we put above remains:

Why does "Science" advance a theory in the absence of evidence or where evidence is equivocal as if it wereestablished fact? And, why does Western science not acknowledge that the Navajo and the Pueblo, Apaches, Uteand every other native group in the Americas have an account of their origins and none of them posit a migrationfrom Asia over a land bridge?

The answer is, essentially, culture clash. Western science fails to take the opinions of American Indians seriously.

Different societies have different social imaginaries. The term social imaginary was coined by Charles Taylor. The socialimaginary is the way our contemporaries imagine the societies they inhabit and sustain.

Taylor (2004;23) says,

By social imaginary, I mean something much broader and deeper than the intellectual schemes people mayentertain when they think about social reality in a disengaged mode. I am thinking, rather, of the ways peopleimagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and theirfellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underliethese expectations

There are important differences between social imaginary and social theory. I adopt the term imaginary (i)because my focus is on the way ordinary people "imagine" their social surroundings, and this is often notexpressed in theoretical terms, but is carried in images, stories, and legends. It is also the case that (ii) theory isoften the possession of a small minority, whereas what is interesting in the social imaginary is that it is sharedby large groups of people, if not the whole society. Which leads to a third difference: (iii) the social imaginaryis that common understanding that makes possible common practices and a widely shared sense of legitimacy.

Anthropology seeks to bridge different social imaginaries, or at its best it should do so. The origin stories for people of theSouthwest (both Native American and European American) are grounded in cultural images, stories and legends. Thefailure of Western science to acknowledge the understanding and insight inherent in Native American origin stories —those society's social imaginaries — has been a source of conflict and friction and ultimately limits our ability tounderstand one another (See Deloria 1995).

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 6 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Objectivism, Relativism and Pluralism

Have you ever been in a situation where there was a misunderstanding or conflict and you felt, or knew, that the resolutionlay in reconciling different standpoints? When people misunderstand one another sometimes the source of thatmisunderstanding comes from them having different world views or perspectives — different values. We say they arecoming from different places.

If the misunderstanding is explicitly about ethical questions, there are potentially many different views. One person orgroup might hold that justice is the most important issue. Someone else cares most about fairness; another respect; anothertolerance; or doing one's duty, or happiness, or doing the right thing, or maximizing good, or avoiding harm or maximumefficiency or following God's commands or being a good person.

What are the sources of these different views?

Max Weber once said,

The imposition of meaning on life is the major end and primary condition of human existence (Weber — Scienceas a Vocation, 1919).

Our values, norms and the sources of meaning in our lives are part of conceptual and cultural constructions called

'horizons' by Gadamer and Nietzsche

'worldviews' by Dilthey, 'genre de vie' by Vidal,

'epistemes' by Foucault,

'forms-of-life' by Wittgenstein

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 7 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

'constellations of absolute presuppositions' by Collingwood

'paradigms' by Thomas Kuhn,

and 'character' by Alisdair MacIntyre

All of these thinkers are trying to get at the ideas expressed by "social imaginary". Whatever the term we use tocharacterize constructions human beings impose on their world to make sense of it, we all have them. These frameworksare active processes expressed in language and forms-of-life. People use frameworks of feeling and understanding to definethe world, its organization, processes and direction. These constructions define how people judge their lives and determinehow full or empty their lives are.

These constructions are our sources of identity — what Charles Taylor (1989) calls "the sources of the self."

A society's origin stories embody core principles of their social imaginary.

At different times in history and in different places in the world, social imaginaries have been based on such things as

the belief in an hierarchical chain of being in the universe, the call of God made clear in revelation, a theory of correspondence between heaven and earth, the guidance of dreams obtained on a spirit quest, or the space of glory in the memory and song of the tribe.

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 8 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

If we are going to successfully resolve our hypothetical ethical misunderstanding, we might force a single viewpoint on allof the participants - "I'm right, you're wrong, this is how it is".

However, such a heavy handed approach would not respect the personal and multicultural diversity that we encounter inthe world. It might well fail to preserve justice, fairness, and respect, etc. — the very values over which the people in ourhypothetical disagreement are at odds.

One term for this heavy handed approach is ethnocentrism — projecting our own values and beliefs on to others withoutadequately taking their social imaginary into consideration — claiming one set of views (our own) is universal andtherefore trumps all others.

If we are going to avoid ethnocentrism, we need to discern the different assumptions that people are making, what it is theyare trying to accomplish, what they value, their sources of meaning, and bridge the misunderstanding by finding commonground — often, a common language and ways of understanding the world, that expresses differences in comparableterms.

Anthropology can help us do that. Learning the major theories, getting more precise definitions of terms, learning about thedifferent ways or categories of thinking about (and living) culture helps us clarify our thoughts, understand and empathizewith others, and gives us tools to help solve the difficult situations we all face.

That said, most philosophies (and most religions) maintain that there is only one truth, that two contradictory propositionscannot both be true, that all people, everywhere, at all times, if they are seeking truth, are striving toward the same ends.How can we reconcile this philosophical "monism" with personal and multicultural diversity?

Western thought has long sought universal norms that would apply forever, to everyone, in all situations: objective truth.It seeks a single objective foundation for knowledge against which all are judged (e.g., Plato's Theaeteus, Descartes'Meditations , Kant's Critiques, Rawls' Theory of Justice, Habermas' theory of communicative action). Such moraluniversalism insists we judge others solely by our own criteria, resulting, potentially, in an illegitimate ethnocentricprojection of our values onto others.

For the most part, Western science views culture top-down, as an expression of theory. It tries to justify systematized setsof rules through logic and consistency or coherence, looking for a single, universal, objective foundation for judgment.This objectivism almost inevitably slides into ethnocentrism as some privileged understanding of rationality is falselylegitimated by claiming for it an unwarranted universality.

However culture, as a social practice, lived from the bottom-up, goes beyond codified rules to touch our sources ofmeaning, clarifying for us our understanding of our selves and our lives both individually and in the many collectivities ofwhich we are a part.

Ideally, we as social scientists want to be able to gain the clarity, precision and understanding that comes from contrastingvarious cultural systems. However to use this knowledge we need to know what cultures are both logically from the topdown and empathetically and experientially from the bottom up — understanding them in social practice, as an integralpart of all our lives and the lives of others, as well as in theory.

In social science in general, to move beyond ethnocentrism, we need to be open to changes in our own world view as weengage others in discourse to solve our mutual problems. To avoid ethnocentric prejudice we must move beyond objectivistexplanations to understanding and interpretation that makes sense of agents by contrasting their self-understanding withour own. In coming to know others we expand our horizons and come to deeper understanding of our selves. This alsohelps us understand science's "situatedness" — the importance of geographical and historical perspective in understandingnatural and human phenomena (Geertz 1983; Taylor 1985b; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Barnes and Duncan 1991).

Other societies may be incomprehensible in terms of our own frameworks and we must strive for a perspective thatexplains what they do and shows it to make sense to us under their description. This is not to suggest that we should solelyadopt the point of view of the "other" assuming all societies are relative and cannot be compared (Winch 1964). Taylor

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 9 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

(1985a) calls this kind of cultural relativism the "incorrigibility thesis" because describing cultures solely in their ownterms rules out accounts which show them up as wrong or confused—they are incapable of being corrected or critiqued,i.e., incorrigible. Our discourses should explain what the agent is doing and they should improve upon common-senseunderstanding.

When judging others, how can we avoid making cross-cultural study an exercise in ethnocentric prejudice?

The answer lies in confronting other's social imaginaries while authentically being open to change in our own viewpoints.This is close to Gadamer's (1975) 'fusion of horizons'. Openness to change in theoretical stance and self-understanding ofthe researcher is missing from the grand totalizing theories of science — e.g., psychoanalysis, sociobiology, marxism,cultural ecology, environmental or economic determinism etc.

Our investigation should challenge both our language of self-understanding and theirs, maintaining science's own, proper,critical role. We seek a language of clearly understood contrast that compares our framework and the other's framework asalternative possibilities in relation to some human constants at work in both.

We are always in danger of seeing our ways of being as the only conceivable ones. The language of perspicuous contrastallows us to make finer distinctions, sensitive to the other's perspective. In finding this language we redescribe what we andothers are doing. If done while authentically open to change in our normative viewpoints, such activity provides theflexibility to alter our own self-understanding and avoid ethnocentricity. Potentially, understanding is increased, the rangeof possible human expression is enlarged, we gain new tools with which to approach human problems and achieve socialscience as cultural critique.

Even if we grant the desirability of contrasting social imaginaries to get a deeper understanding of one another, how doesthe modern researcher accomplish that fusion of horizons with historic and more problematically, prehistoric culturalothers?

There is no simple or easy answer. Where we have knowledge of stories, legends and the key ideas of a society we canproject those ideas back in time to their predecessors, mindful that even the most conservative societies' social imaginarieschange over time. Where the stories, legends and the key ideas have been lost, our ability to extrapolate stops and we mustbe much more cautious in our assumptions.

The trap for modern archaeology to avoid is to ignore the knowledge of Native American societies that we do have and toreduce our theories to environmental or economic determinism. Western science knows almost nothing about the socialimaginary of Paleo or Archaic peoples. The challenge for archaeologists is to build on the knowledge of the Ute, Pueblo,Navajo and Apache people striving to incorporate the insights and understanding of their descendents into our theories andinterpretations of their ancestors. If we can combine this deep, rich source of knowledge with the empirical data from thefield and lab our theories will be much better and our insight vastly improved.

In what ways might any of the following references be made better if they were to take into account the social imaginariesof modern Native American people regarding their own origins?

S!'a Naghái Bik'e Hózhó

Bik'e Hózhó

New World Colonization BibliographyAdovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, D. R. Pedler, and R. Stuckenrath 1998. Two decades of debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter.North American Archaeologist 19(4):317-341.

Adovasio, J. M. and D. R. Pedler. 1997. Monte Verde and the antiquity of humankind in the Americas. Antiquity 71:573-

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 10 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

580.

Adovasio, James M. and Ronald C. Carlisle. 1988. The Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Science 239:713-714.

Adovasio, James M., J. Donahue, and Robert Stuckenrath. 1990. The Meadowcroft Rockshelter radiocarbon chronology1975-1990. American Antiquity 55(2):348-354.

Adovasio, James M., J. Donahue, and Robert Stuckenrath. 1992. Never say never again: Some thoughts on could haves andmight have beens. American Antiquity 57(2):327-331.

Anderson, David G. and J. C. Gillam. 2000. Paleoindian colonization of the Americas: Implications from an examinationof physiography, demography, and artifact distribution. American Antiquity 65(1):43-66.

Anderson, David G. and J. C. Gillam. 2001. Paleoindian Interaction and Mating Networks: Reply to Moore and Moseley.American Antiquity 66(3):530-535.

Bandi, Hans-Georg. 1999. Beringia and the peopling of the New World. Review of Archaeology 20(1):15-16.

Bonnichsen, Robson and D. G. Steele. 1994. Introducing First Americans research. In Method and Theory for Investigatingthe Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 1-6. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon StateUniversity.

Borrero, Luis A. 1999. The prehistoric exploration and colonization of Fuego-Patagonia. Journal of World Prehistory13(3):321-355.

Bradley, Bruce and Dennis Stanford. 2004. The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route to the NewWorld. World Archaeology 36(4):459-478.

Bryan, Alan L. 1977. Developmental stages and technological traditions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences288:355-368.

Butzer, Karl W. 1996. Ecology in the long view: Settlement histories, agrosystemic strategies, and ecological performance.Journal of Field Archaeology 23:141-150.

Carlisle, Ronald C. 1989. Americans before Columbus: Ice Age origins. Ethnology Monographs.

Chatters, James C. 2000. The recovery and first analysis of an early Holocene human skeleton from Kennewick,Washington. American Antiquity 65(2):291-316.

Chrisman, Donald, Richard S. MacNeish, Jamshed Mavalwala, and Howard Savage. 1996. Late Pleistocene human frictionskin prints from Pendejo Cave, New Mexico. American Antiquity 61(2):357-376.

Crawford, Michael H. 1992. When two worlds collide. Human Biology 64(3):271-279.

Dansie, Amy. 1997. Early Holocene burials in Nevada: Overview of localities, research and legal issues. Tuohy, Donald R.and Dansie, Amy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):4-14

Dillehay, Tom D. 1992. Earliest hunters and gatherers of South America. Journal of World Prehistory 6(2):145-203.

Dillehay, Tom D. 1999. The Late Pleistocene cultures of South America. Evolutionary Anthropology 7(6):206-216.

Dillehay, Tom D. 1989. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 11 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Dillehay, Tom D. and M. Collins. 1988. Early cultural evidence from Monte Verde in Chile. Nature 332:150-152.

Dillehay, Tom D. and David J. Meltzer. 1991. Peopling of the New World: problems, processes and prospects. BocaRaton, Florida: CRC Press.

Dincauze, Dena F. 1984. An Archaeological Evaluation of the Case for Pre-Clovis Occupations. Advances in WorldArchaeology 3:275-323.

Drew, Darrell L. 1979. Early Man in North America and Where to Look for Him: Geomorphic Contexts. PlainsAnthropologist 24(86):269-281.

Edgar, Heather Joy Hecht. 1997. Paleopathology of the Wizards Beach Man (AHUR 2023) and the Spirit Cave Mummy(AHUR 2064). Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):57-61.

Engelbrecht, William E. and Carl K. Seyfert. 1994. Paleoindian watercraft: Evidence and implications. North AmericanArchaeologist 15(3):221-234.

Fedje, Daryl W. and Tina Christensen. 1999. Modeling paleoshorelines and locating early Holocene coastal sites in HaidaGwaii. American Antiquity 64(4):635-652.

Ferring, C. R. 1994. The role of geoarchaeology in paleoindian research. In Method and Theory for Investigating thePeopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 57-72. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon StateUniversity.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 2004. The Kennewick follies: "New" theories about the peopling of the new world. Journal ofAnthropological Research 60.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 1999. Older than we thought: Implications of corrected dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity64(1):95-115.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 2000. The peopling of the new world: Present evidence, new theories, and future directions. Journal ofArchaeological Research 8(1):39-103.

Fitzgerald, Richard T. and Terry L. Jones. 2003. On the Weight of the Evidence from Cross Creek: A Reply to Turner.American Antiquity 68(2):396-399.

Goddard, Ives and Lyle Campbell. 1994. The history and classification of American Indian languages: What are theimplications for the peopling of the Americas? In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas.Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 189-207. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.

Gruhn, Ruth. 1994. The Pacific Coast route of initial entry: An overview. In Method and Theory for Investigating thePeopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 249-256. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon StateUniversity.

Guidon, N. and B. Arnaud. 1991. The chronology of the New World: Two faces of one reality. World Archaeology23(2):167-178.

Guidon, N., et al. 1996. Nature and age of the deposits in Pedra Furada, Brazil: Reply to Meltzer, Adovasio, and Dillehay.Antiquity 70:408-421.

Guthrie, R. D. 2006. New carbon dates link climatic change with human colonization and Pleistocene extinctions. Nature441 (11 May 2006).

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 12 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Heath, David. 2000. A look at some of the earliest known Americans. Central States Archaeological Journal 47(3):146-149.

Hey, Jody. 2005. On the number of New World founders: A population genetic portrait of the peopling of America. PublicLibrary of Science: Biology 6(3).

Hrdlicka, Ales. 1925. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1923: The origin and antiquity of the AmericanIndian. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Hrdlicka, Ales. 1907. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 33: Skeletal remains suggesting or attributed to early man inNorth America. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Hrdlicka, Ales. 1912. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 52: Early man in South America. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution.

Irwin, Henry T. 1971. Developments in early man studies in Western North America, 1960-1970. Arctic Anthropology8:42-67.

Jantz, R. L. and Owsley, Douglas W. 1997. Pathology, taphonomy, and cranial morphometrics of the Spirit Cave mummy.Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):62-84.

Jelinek, Arthur J. 1992. Perspectives from the Old World on the habitation of the New. American Antiquity 57(2):345-347.

Kaestle, Frederika. 1997. Molecular analysis of ancient Native American DNA from western Nevada. Tuohy, Donald R.and Dansie, Amy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):85-96.

Kornfeld, Marcel. 1980. Early Man in North American and Where to Look for Him: A Reply. Plains Anthropologist25(90):357-362.

Kunz, Michael L. and Daniel H. Mann. 1997. The Mesa Project: Interactions between early prehistoric humans andenvironmental change in Arctic Alaska. Arctic Research of the United States 11:55-62.

Lahr, Marta M. 1995. Patterns of modern human diversification: Implications for Amerindian origins. Yearbook ofPhysical Anthropology 38:163-198.

Lynch, Thomas F. 2001. On the road again... Reflections on Monte Verde. Review of Archaeology 22(1):39-43.

MacNeish, Richard S. 1978. Late Pleistocene adaptations: A new look at early peopling of the New World as of 1976.Journal of Anthropological Research 34(4):475-496.

McKern, Will C. 1942. The first settlers of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Magazine of History 26:153-169.

Meltzer, David J. 1994. The discovery of deep time: A history of views on the peopling of the Americas. In Method andTheory Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 7-26. Corvallis, Oregon:Oregon State University.

Meltzer, David J. 1988. Late pleistocene human adaptations in eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 21-52.

Meltzer, David J. 1989. Why don't we know when the first people came to North America? American Antiquity 54(3):471-490.

Meltzer, David J., James M. Adovasio, and Tom D. Dillehay. 1994. On a Pleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada,Brazil. Antiquity 68(261):695-714.

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 13 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Merriwether, D. A., Francisco Rothhammer, and Robert E. Ferrell. 1995. Distribution of the four founding lineagehaplotypes in Native Americans suggests a single wave of migration for the New World. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 98:411-430.

Moore, John H. and Michael E. Moseley. 2001. How Many Frogs Does It Take to Leap around the Americas? Commentson Anderson and Gillam. American Antiquity 66(3):526-529.

Moss, Madonna L. and Jon M. Erlandson. 1998. Early Holocene adaptations on the southern northwest coast. Journal ofCalifornia and Great Basin Anthropology 20(1):13-25.

Neves, Walter A. and Max Blum. 2000. The Buhl burial: A comment on Green et al. American Antiquity 65(1):91-193.

Neves, Walter A., et al. 2005.A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of theNew World. Journal of Human Evolution 48(4):403-414.

Neves, Walter A., et al. 2003. Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Santana do Riacho, Brazil: Implicaitons fo rthesettlement of the new world. Journal of Human Evolution 4:19-42.

Nichols, Johanna. 1995. The spread of language around the Pacific rim. Evolutionary Anthropology 3(6):205-215.

Owsley, Douglas W. and Richard L. Jantz. 2001. Archaeological Politics and Public Interest in Paleoamerican Studies:Lessons from Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man. American Antiquity 66(4):565-576.

Parenti, Fabio, Michel Fontugue, and Claude Guerin. 1996. Pedra Furada in Brazil and its 'presumed' evidence: limitationsand potential of the available data. Antiquity 70:416-421.

Preston, Douglas. 1997. The Lost Man. The New Yorker 73(16):70-81.

Rogers, Richard A., L. A. Rogers, and L. D. Martin. 1992. How the door opened: The peopling of the New World. HumanBiology 64(3):281-302.

Ruhlen, Merrit. 1994. Linguistic evidence for the peopling of the Americas. In Method and Theory for Investigating thePeopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 177-188. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon StateUniversity.

Schanfield, Moses S. 1992. Immunoglobulin allotypes (GM and KM) indicate multiple founding populations of NativeAmericas: Evidence of at least four migrations to the New World. Human Biology 64(3):381-402.

Sims-Williams, Patrick. 1998. Genetics, linguistics, and prehistory: Thinking big and thinking straight. Antiquity 72:505-527.

Slobodin, Sergey. 1999. Northeast Asia in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. World Archaeology 30(3):484-502.

Stafford, Thomas W.Jr. 1994. Accelerator C-14 dating of human fossil skeletons: Assessing accuracy and results on NewWorld specimens. In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G.Steele, eds. Pp. 45-55. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.

Staller, John E. 2003. An examination of the paleobotanical and chronological evidence for an early introduction of maizeinto South America: A response to Pearsall. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:373-380.

Steele, D. G. and Joseph F. Powell. 1994. Paleobiological evidence of the peopling of the Americas: A morphometric view.In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 141-163. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 14 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Steele, D. G. and Joseph F. Powell. 1993. Paleobiology of the First Americans. Evolutionary Anthropology 2(4):138-146.

Steele, D. G. and Joseph F. Powell. 1992. Peopling of the Americas: Paleobiological evidence. Human Biology 64(3):303-336.

Steele, James, Jonathon Adams, and Tim Sluckin. 1998. Modelling paleoindian dispersals. World Archaeology 30(2):286-305.

Steyn, Maryna and Maciej Henneberg. 1995. Pre-Columbian presence of treponemal disease: A possible case from IronAge southern Africa. Current Anthropology 36(5):869-873.

Straus, Lawrence G. 2000. Solutrean settlement of North America? A review of reality. American Antiquity 65(2):219-226.

Surovell, Todd A. 2000. Early paleoindian women, children, mobility, and fertility. American Antiquity 65(3):493-508.

Swedlund, Alan and Duane C. Anderson. 1999. Gordon Creek woman meets Kennewick man: New interpretations andprotocols regarding the peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64(4):569-576.

Szathmary, Emoke J. E. 1994. Modelling ancient population relationships from modern population genetics. In Method andTheory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 117-130. Corvallis,Oregon: Oregon State University.

Taylor, R. E., C. V. Haynes Jr., and Minze Stuiver. 1996. Clovis and Folsom age estimates: Stratigraphic context andradiocarbon calibration. Antiquity 70:515-525.

Taylor, R. E. and Louis A. Payen. 1979. The role of archaeometry in American archaeology: Approaches to the evaluationof the antiquity of Homo sapiens in California. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Michael B. Schiffer,ed. Pp. 239-285. New York: Academic Press.

Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy. 1997. New information regarding Early Holocene manifestations in the WesternGreat Basin. Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 40(1):24-53.

Turner II, Christy G. 2003. Three Ounces of Sea Shells and One Fish Bone do not a Coastal Migration Make. AmericanAntiquity 68(2):391-395.

Waguespack, Nicole M. and Todd A. Surovell. 2003. Clovis Hunting Strategies, or How to Make Out on PlentifulResources. American Antiquity 68(2):333-352.

Wallace, Douglas C. and Antonio Torroni. 1992. American Indian prehistory as written in the mitochondrial DNA: Areview. Human Biology 64(3):403-416.

Wheeler, S. M. 1997. Cave burials near Fallon, Nevada. Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy. Nevada Historical SocietyQuarterly 40(1).

Whitley, David S. and Ronald I. Dorn. 1993. New perspectives on the Clovis vs. Pre-Clovis controversy. AmericanAntiquity 58(4):626-647.

Xinzhi, Wu. 1994. Pleistocene peoples of China and the peopling of the Americas. In Method and Theory for Investigatingthe Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 73-78. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon StateUniversity.

Young, David E., et al. 1994. Low-range theory and lithic technology: Exploring the cognitive approach. In Method and

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 15 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 209-237. Corvallis,Oregon: Oregon State University.

Destinations

Resources

Dinétah Mesa Verde Chaco Aztec Salmon

CRM

Mileposts

Compliance Laws Regs Register NM CO AZ

Tools

Info

Quads Biblio Sitemap

Cultural Studies

Projects

Cultures FolkloreEthnology Publications

Cultural Geography

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 16 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm

Culture Areas

Origins

Language

Paleo

Archaic

Pueblo

Ute

Apache

Navajo

Historic

Navigation

HomeAbout UsServicesContact UsCareers

11/15/13 5:26 PMOrigin Emergence Migration Theory Myth — Dykeman Roebuck Archaeology

Page 17 of 17http://drarchaeology.com/culthist/origins.htm