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,

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. Monte Verde had the remains of tent structures made of mammoth skin that were arranged very close together. and barbeques. Archaeologists use modern remains of other kinds to compare to the archaeological record. though bones from foods like ribs or chicken wings might be similar. evidence of tents. and the conclusions drawn would be inaccurate. the tents would be too far apart to be the same type of village that Monte Verde looks like. 2. If there were a first aid station or tent in the campground. which would not happen in a modern campground for safety reasons. In Monte Verde. The modern campground would not be a good model for comparison with Monte Verde because it is not a permanent settlement. The garbage would be full of cans and plastic. The processed foods like hotdogs and chips would be very different than the remains of what would be found in Monte Verde. 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. how good of a model would it be for comparing to Monte Verde? Explain. The layout of the . the tents were set up close to each other. 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. and plastic silverware. The remains of the modern campground would not look like the remains of Monte Verde. campfires. like hot dogs. there may be some similarities with the shaman tent found connected to Monte Verde. 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. likely for safety. First. The camping areas would be spread out and separated by trees for privacy. the remains of hearths inside and outside of tents. The different environments and the differences found from the archaeological record set the two groups apart. Tools like Swiss army knives and silverware would be left behind. the remains would be too different. Monte Verde would not have the same plastic and metal tools as what would be found in a modern campground. A campground after the Fourth of July would be littered with food and trash remains. Thinking about what a modern campground looks like after the Fourth of July holiday (envision it was completely full). but it would not have the same medical supplies or be as remote from the campsite as the shaman tent.because that is just false. and a shaman’s tent they were able to connect with the village that was farther away and there they found many medicinal plants. A modern campground would not be a good model for a comparison with Monte Verde because while some similarities could be found. These are usually set apart from each other by trees so that the groups can have their privacy. Their campfires were inside and outside of their tents. marshmallows.

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. While generally the remains of “tents” and “food” and “fires” would be the same. The fires would also be different because how campers would start fires propellants like charcoal. The food remains would be very different because of modern food processing. .campsite does not lend itself to being the same type of communal village as Monte Verde because everyone is so spread out. The campground and Monte Verde are too different to be compared. and most food would likely not be cooked directly in a fire but on a grill.

how we dressed. especially since it is next to a sports field which could be used for ceremonies. 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. There would be clothing. . It is relatively isolated from the rest of the campus so it could possibly be given some religious significance. 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. The second building should be East (or West) Tower. mosques. and archaeologists with no understanding of our writing system came back in 100 years. and temples. and how we talked even if they could not understand us. 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 fourth building could be Campus Center. bedding. It is a large building in a relatively central location which would key the archaeologists in to its importance. The fifth building could be the Cerrache Center. I think they eventually would be able to separate the religions out somehow into some kind of category. If Ithaca College was suddenly abandoned today. 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. books. the future anthropologists could divine something about or culture. in small groups of two to four or alone. but without knowledge of our writing system. but as they studied the remains of the library and of the texts left behind more. The sixth building could be the chapel. trash. The art on display in the library would also be helpful. food.3. It being multidenominational could initially be confusing. 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. Inside the library they would find all of the books there. especially if there were other relatively modern sites they could compare the chapel to for reference. 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. especially the photographs. With the art that would be left behind that the art majors created. they would have to perhaps use the pictures on the covers and inside them to figure out what they are. The first building I think they should study would be the library. There would also be some food remains which they could study as well. because it is central and the evidence of its importance could be found in how well used and occupied it had been. 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. like churches.

Humans could have carried tropical diseases with them into Europe which the Neandertals had no immunity against and killed them with contact. the DNA could still be found but without genetic swamping. Their more advanced hunting strategies and blade tools also could have helped them to outcompete the Neandertals.5. given the fact Neandertals and their ancestors had been successful at inhabiting this region for at least 500. so if enough interbreeding took place.000 years? Discuss the biological and cultural factors that might have been involved. the sheer size difference of the human groups and Neandertals could have played a part. while Neandertals did not have art in the same way. While Neandertals were very successful in inhabiting the region for a very long time. they could have not interbred very much and Neandertals could have died out in other ways. However. Firstly. and competition for resources that they lost.000 BCE encountered Neandertals. disease. all the Neandertals were gone. 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. . similar to how European diseases decimated Native American populations. the introduction of modern humans into the environment eventually overpowered them. Whether or not disease played a part in it. Modern humans moving into Europe starting around 40. there could have been very little interbreeding between Neandertals and humans. who were relatively smart and very well adapted to the region. If a few people interbred with Neandertals. Humans travelled in larger groups than Neandertals so they could have outcompeted the Neandertals for resources in the region. genetic swamping would have been possible. These reasons include genetic swamping. By 30. Modern humans could have overtaken Neandertals through genetic swamping. Humans moving into the area could have brought unfamiliar diseases with them that killed off the Neandertals. These advantages can be attributed to the more advanced cognitive skills of humans that are demonstrated by the emergence of art. This theory is supported by the remaining Neandertal DNA found in many people today. and modern humans were all that was left. art shows how modern humans would capture their world in their paintings and figurines. How was this possible.000-year period from first encountering modern humans to their extinction. where through interbreeding humans would have made Neandertal DNA obsolete as only some of their hybrid offspring would have been fertile. There are many reasons how Neandertals could have disappeared in the 10. If culturally. humans and Neandertals did not prefer each other. The groups modern humans moving into the area outnumbered the Neandertal groups living in the region.000 BCE. With language. and in the reading The Origin of Language. Having better linguistic and cognitive ability could have been key to humans outcompeting Neandertals.

the humans became the dominate species in the region and the Neandertals were outcompeted. or a mixture of some or all of these reasons. 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. Culturally and/or biologically. . Diseases brought from the tropical climates that humans had previously occupied could have killed them.000 years for many reasons involving humans moving into the area. Neandertals could have disappeared from the region that had occupied for over 500.