<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Frank Speck's immortal "Reptile Lore of the Northern Indians," <i>Journ
of Am Folklore</i>, 1922 I think.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/31/15 12:11 PM, Roland Bohr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:29B7EAF3B6A02D4A93B2F10A8C3C6394A6097390@ExchDB15.merlin.ca"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0px;
margin-bottom:0px}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hello All,
<br>
<br>
I am looking for information on Algonquian ideas around snakes,
especially for garter snakes in Blackfoot and Plains Cree
cultures. So far, the works of Wissler and Mandelbaum that I
could access, have not yielded much information.
<br>
<br>
Any help with this would be much appreciated. <br>
<br>
Thank you, <br>
<br>
Roland Bohr <br>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">Roland Bohr <br>
Director, Centre for Rupert's Land Studies <br>
5CM12 <br>
University of Winnipeg <br>
515 Portage Avenue <br>
Winnipeg, Manitoba, <br>
R3B 2E9 <br>
<br>
Ph.: (204) 786-9007 <br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF363396"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
ALGONQUIANA [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>] on
behalf of John Steckley [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Steckley@HUMBER.CA">John.Steckley@HUMBER.CA</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 19, 2014 2:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: How Linguists Are Pulling Apart the
Bering Strait Theor<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt">
<p>The Australians are way ahead of us in connecting
Aboriginal languages to specific places. I learned this
reading "Language in Native Title," edited by John
Henderson and David Nash, 2002. Language
classification there, however, is still a series of
knots to be untied.</p>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg"><font color="#000000"
face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> ALGONQUIANA
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>] on behalf of
Bernie [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:plnal@HOTMAIL.COM">plnal@HOTMAIL.COM</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> August-19-14 12:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: How Linguists Are Pulling Apart
the Bering Strait Theor<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I love our "creation story" in the Mi'kmaw culture
too, variations and all. But of course I don't take
them literally any more than I take the christian
bible literally.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Wela'lioq</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>bern francis<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On 2014-08-19, at 1:27 PM, "Michael Sullivan Sr" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sulli720@UMN.EDU" target="_blank">sulli720@UMN.EDU</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Some very interesting points made and
strong opinions expressed here. I wonder though,
why does the so-called "creationist" perspective
bother your "scientifically-sound" camp so
greatly? More imposition I assume. "Think like
us, be like us."
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thankfully, most of us ignorant
"creationists" are taught to respect other
people's beliefs and teachings. If only that
respect was mutual, we might have a chance at
saving some of these languages and cultures that
have endured more than their fair share of
imposition. To deny the truth of a people's
tradition, is to deny the truth of their elders,
a cultural no-no. Like language, a people's
traditions shape them, don't let that bother
you. We've been down that road before. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, while the scientist digs up facts and
measures skulls to "prove" the "creationist"
wrong (for purposes of discrediting Native
American people as being indigenous to North
America), the creationist simply glances outside
into our creator's garden; for that is the all
the "proof" that we need. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chi-miigwech to all of you who post here. I
truly enjoy the read...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at
8:31 AM, Danielle E. Cyr <span dir="ltr">
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dcyr@yorku.ca" target="_blank">dcyr@yorku.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid; margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:1ex">
Worth to mention:<br>
<br>
1- Language changes are faster at the centre
of a linguistic area than farther away from
the centre. The European migrations into the
New World demonstrate it quite clearly. Same
with Icelandic compared to Norwegian. Although
some of us may think that this notion doesn't
apply to Aboriginal languages, my view is
different. For instance, the Mi'gmaq spoken in
Listuguj, QC, is more advanced than that of,
say Burnt Church, NB. Listuguj was considered
the centre (i.e. major hub) of the Northern
Mi'gmaq area and the phonetic erosion there is
way more advanced than at the periphery.<br>
<br>
2- As research in the domain of
grammaticalization shows very clearly,
grammatical change is absorbed by different
speakers at different speeds.<br>
<br>
These two facts allow us to assume that
language change, although constantly in action
through time, is very uneven in space and
among groups of individuals.<br>
<br>
Best to All,<br>
Danielle E.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
>---- Original Message ----<br>
>From: John Steckley <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Steckley@HUMBER.CA"
target="_blank">John.Steckley@HUMBER.CA</a>><br>
>To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a><br>
>Sent: Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 6:24 PM<br>
>Subject: Re: How Linguists Are Pulling
Apart the Bering Strait Theor<br>
><br>
</div>
<div>>Michael:<br>
><br>
>I like the coastal migration model for
the first folks here, possibly coming up
from Southeast Asia, as some geneticists
suggest, but that's not what the writers
were saying. They worked very hard at not
saying what their theory was. But I have
never believed, as there has never been any
evidence backing it up, that major language
change operates at a uniform rate. But then
I also don't believe that long term genetic
mutation happens at a uniform rate, as that
is often assumed but never proven.
Glottochronology has always had a little too
much of the assuming behind it for me to
take it seriously. Language changes most
and fastest when major social events happen,
like intense contact, separation and long
trail migration. And who is to say that the
language change happened in the Americas.
It is just as likely that that diversity
existed in Asia before they came here.
There is no proof either way as yet.<br>
><br>
>John<br>
><br>
>________________________________________<br>
>From: Michael McCafferty [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mmccaffe@indiana.edu"
target="_blank">mmccaffe@indiana.edu</a>]<br>
>Sent: August-18-14 6:11 PM<br>
>To: Algonquian Conference List; John
Steckley<br>
</div>
>Cc: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a><br>
<div>>Subject: Re: How Linguists Are
Pulling Apart the Bering Strait Theor<br>
><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">>The Pacific Coastal
migration model has been around for quite
a while.<br>
>James Dixon is a well known figure in
explaining this path into the<br>
>Americas. There's good evidence that
even during glacial maxima there<br>
>were ice free coastal zones where
bears and humans could and did live,<br>
>as well of course other sea mammals.
The isotopic signature for the<br>
>bone of a young man discovered in one
of Dixon's digs was the same as<br>
>that of a seal. People were drawing
their protein from the sea.<br>
><br>
>The earliest migrants may have come
out of Asia during not the recent<br>
>glacial maximum 14,000 years ago or so
but the *previous* glacial<br>
>maximum, ca. 35,000 years ago, and in
fact are thought to be of the<br>
>original migrants *into* Asia. (See
Kennewick Man, Spirit Cave Man, et<br>
>al.). I haven't talked to all
linguists, but I think there may be a<br>
>somewhat shared sense that it would
take a good 40,000 years for the<br>
>American linguistic diversification to
have taken place, not counting<br>
>new migrants.<br>
><br>
>Michael McCafferty<br>
><br>
>Quoting John Steckley <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Steckley@HUMBER.CA"
target="_blank">John.Steckley@HUMBER.CA</a>>:<br>
><br>
>> Unfortunately, this reads like a
creationist story. It makes<br>
>> reference to old works, such as
that of Jefferson, who was hardly a<br>
>> scholar on the subject. The
language diversity in Australia is<br>
>> greatest in the northern points
where new peoples entered. There is<br>
>> nothing dramatic about saying
that 60,000 years ago there were people<br>
>> there. That has been known
archaeologically for at least 20 years.<br>
>> Africa has far greater language
diversity than the Americas, but then<br>
>> anatomically modern Homo sapiens
has been there for over 100,000<br>
>> years. There might be a small
backwards movement to Asia but the<br>
>> evidence archaeologically and
linguistically is weak.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The worst part of this is that no
counter idea is proposed to Bering<br>
>> Strait. I suspect that they want
to say that people have 'always<br>
>> been here' which is a form of
creationism. We are all Africans, and<br>
>> people who think differently do
not know their science and want to be<br>
>> treated as somehow specially
created. Unfortunately, in this case<br>
>> where there is Smoke there is
only the fire of creationism that does<br>
>> not want to speak its name.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>>> ________________________________<br>
>> From: ALGONQUIANA [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>]
on behalf<br>
>> of Richard Preston [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:prestonr@MCMASTER.CA"
target="_blank">prestonr@MCMASTER.CA</a>]<br>
>> Sent: August-18-14 3:22 PM<br>
>> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank">ALGONQUIANA@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a><br>
>> Subject: Fwd: How Linguists Are
Pulling Apart the Bering Strait Theor<br>
>><br>
>> cheers<br>
>> Dick<br>
>><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.richardpreston.ca/"
target="_blank">http://www.richardpreston.ca/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Begin forwarded message:<br>
>><br>
</div>
>> Fsrom: Jennifer Preston<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jennifer@quakerservice.ca"
target="_blank">jennifer@quakerservice.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jennifer@quakerservice.ca"
target="_blank">jennifer@quakerservice.ca</a>>><br>
<div>>> Subject: Fwd: How Linguists Are
Pulling Apart the Bering Strait Theor<br>
>> Date: August 18, 2014 at 3:17:22 PM
EDT<br>
</div>
>> To: Dick Preston <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:prestonr@mcmaster.ca"
target="_blank">prestonr@mcmaster.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:prestonr@mcmaster.ca"
target="_blank">prestonr@mcmaster.ca</a>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Begin forwarded message:<br>
>><br>
>> From: Daniel Smoke <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a>>><br>
<div>>> Subject: Fwd: How Linguists Are
Pulling Apart the Bering Strait Theor<br>
>> Date: 8 August, 2014 6:42:31 AM EDT<br>
</div>
>> To: Jean Koning <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jean.koning@live.ca"
target="_blank">jean.koning@live.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jean.koning@live.ca"
target="_blank">jean.koning@live.ca</a>>><br>
>> Cc: Al Day <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aday@namerind.on.ca"
target="_blank">aday@namerind.on.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aday@namerind.on.ca"
target="_blank">aday@namerind.on.ca</a>>>,
Pam<br>
>> Palmater<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ppalmater@politics.ryerson.ca"
target="_blank">ppalmater@politics.ryerson.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ppalmater@politics.ryerson.ca"
target="_blank">ppalmater@politics.ryerson.ca</a>>>,
Gary<br>
>> Farmer<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:garytroublemaker@gmail.com"
target="_blank">garytroublemaker@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:garytroublemaker@gmail.com"
target="_blank">garytroublemaker@gmail.com</a>>>,<br>
>> Cyndy Baskin <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cbaskin@ryerson.ca"
target="_blank">cbaskin@ryerson.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cbaskin@ryerson.ca"
target="_blank">cbaskin@ryerson.ca</a>>>,
Raven<br>
>> Redbird <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sfive@rogers.com"
target="_blank">sfive@rogers.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sfive@rogers.com"
target="_blank">sfive@rogers.com</a>>>,
Carrie Lester<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lester.carrie@rogers.com"
target="_blank">lester.carrie@rogers.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lester.carrie@rogers.com"
target="_blank">lester.carrie@rogers.com</a>>>,
Jennifer<br>
>> Preston-Howe<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jennifer@quakerservice.ca"
target="_blank">jennifer@quakerservice.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jennifer@quakerservice.ca"
target="_blank">jennifer@quakerservice.ca</a>>>,
Ken<br>
>> Deer <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kennethdeer104@hotmail.com"
target="_blank">kennethdeer104@hotmail.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kennethdeer104@hotmail.com"
target="_blank">kennethdeer104@hotmail.com</a>>>,<br>
>> Deb Aaaron<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:debaaron@newcreditfirstnation.com"
target="_blank">debaaron@newcreditfirstnation.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:debaaron@newcreditfirstnation.com"
target="_blank">debaaron@newcreditfirstnation.com</a>>>,
Peter Cole <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:coyoteandraven@mac.com"
target="_blank">coyoteandraven@mac.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:coyoteandraven@mac.com"
target="_blank">coyoteandraven@mac.com</a>>>,
Anita Rooke <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:arooke@gcna.com"
target="_blank">arooke@gcna.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:arooke@gcna.com"
target="_blank">arooke@gcna.com</a>>>,
Ward Churchill <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wardchurchill@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">wardchurchill@yahoo.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wardchurchill@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">wardchurchill@yahoo.com</a>>>,
Blanche<br>
>> Meawassige<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:meawassige@gmail.com"
target="_blank">meawassige@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:meawassige@gmail.com"
target="_blank">meawassige@gmail.com</a>>><br>
<div>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Mary Lou and Dan Smoke<br>
>> Adjunct Professors<br>
>> Smoke Signals, #3255 SSC<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://london.ctvnews.ca/more/smoke-signals"
target="_blank">http://london.ctvnews.ca/more/smoke-signals</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/#1/ctvsmokesignals"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/#1/ctvsmokesignals</a><br>
</div>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chrwradio.ca"
target="_blank">http://www.chrwradio.ca</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chrwradio.ca/"
target="_blank">http://www.chrwradio.ca/</a>><br>
<div>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://chrwradio.ca/content/smoke-signals"
target="_blank">http://chrwradio.ca/content/smoke-signals</a><br>
>> 94.9 FM CHRW<br>
>> Sundays 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. EST<br>
>> CHRW 2013 Outstanding Specialty
Program<br>
>> 519 659-4682<br>
>> 519 661-2111 x85083 for messages<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/#%21/groups/150460689234/"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/150460689234/</a><br>
</div>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a>><br>
>><br>
>> From: Daniel Smoke <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a>>><br>
<div>>> Subject: How Linguists Are
Pulling Apart the Bering Strait Theor<br>
>> Date: 8 August, 2014 6:33:19 AM EDT<br>
</div>
>> To: Donald Smoke <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:donaldosmoke@gmail.com"
target="_blank">donaldosmoke@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:donaldosmoke@gmail.com"
target="_blank">donaldosmoke@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/article_media/lingusitic-families-of-american-indians-powell.jpg"
target="_blank">http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/article_media/lingusitic-families-of-american-indians-powell.jpg</a>]<br>
<div>>> Close<br>
>><br>
>> Read more at<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063?page=0%2C0"
target="_blank">
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063?page=0%2C0</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> How Linguists Are Pulling Apart the
Bering Strait TheoryAlex<br>
</div>
>> Ewen<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/advanced/search?fq[0]=ts_field_full_name%3AAlex%20Ewen"
target="_blank">http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/advanced/search?fq[0]=ts_field_full_name%3AAlex%20Ewen</a>><br>
<div>>> 3/19/14<br>
>><br>
>> Over the past few weeks, new
scientific discoveries have rekindled<br>
>> the debate over the Bering Strait
Theory. Two of the discoveries were<br>
>> covered recently in Indian Country
Today. The first "More Reasons to<br>
>> Doubt the Bering Strait Migration
Theory," dealt with the growing<br>
>> problem of "science by press
release," as scientific studies hype<br>
>> their conclusions to the point that
they are misleading; and the<br>
>> second, "DNA Politics: Anzick Child
Casts Doubt on Bering Strait<br>
>> Theory," discussed how politics can
influence science, and the<br>
>> negative effects these
politically-based scientific results can
have<br>
>> on Native peoples.<br>
>><br>
>> RELATED: More Reasons to Doubt the
Bering Strait Migration<br>
</div>
>> Theory<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/08/more-reasons-doubt-bering-strait-migration-theory"
target="_blank">http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/08/more-reasons-doubt-bering-strait-migration-theory</a>><br>
<div>>><br>
>> RELATED: DNA Politics: Anzick Child
Casts Doubt on Bering Strait<br>
</div>
>> Theory<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/11/dna-politics-anzick-child-casts-doubt-bering-strait-theory-153947"
target="_blank">https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/11/dna-politics-anzick-child-casts-doubt-bering-strait-theory-153947</a>><br>
<div>>><br>
>> It is generally assumed that the
Bering Strait Theory has almost<br>
>> universal acceptance from
scientists. So, for example, the New York<br>
>> Times, in an article on March 12,
"Pause Is Seen in a Continent's<br>
</div>
>> Peopling<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/science/linguistic-study-sheds-new-light-on-peopling-of-north-america.html?_r=0"
target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/science/linguistic-study-sheds-new-light-on-peopling-of-north-america.html?_r=0</a>>"
stated unequivocally that "The first
migrations to North America occurred between
15,000 and 10,000 years ago," with the new
wrinkle that maybe on their way from Asia
Indian ancestors laid over in the Bering
Strait region (Beringia) for thousands of
years before traveling on to<br>
<div>>> the<br>
>> Americas.<br>
>><br>
>> Therefore it is usually presumed
that the primary critics of the<br>
>> theory must be anti-science, like
the "creationists" who argue<br>
>> against evolution, or New Age
pseudo-scientific conspiracy theorists.<br>
>> Thus in 1995, when the late Sioux
philosopher Vine Deloria Jr.<br>
>> published Red Earth, White Lies:
Native Americans and the Myth of<br>
>> Scientific Fact and challenged the
Bering Strait Theory, he was<br>
>> savagely attacked by many
scientists who lumped him in with those<br>
>> fringe groups.<br>
>><br>
>> The vitriol that poured from some
of the harshest critics, such as<br>
>> John Whittaker, a professor of
anthropology at Grinnell<br>
</div>
>> College<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_College" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_College</a>>,
who referred<br>
<div>
<div class="h5">>> to Deloria's book
as "a wretched piece of Native American
creationist<br>
>> claptrap," seemed excessive. The
critics also demonstrated that they<br>
>> clearly did not comprehend
Deloria's argument. Red Earth, White Lies,<br>
>> embroidered by Deloria's wry
sense of humor and rambling musings,<br>
>> shows he was not anti-science,
but rather anti-scientist. In<br>
>> particular, he was against those
scientists who held narrow views of<br>
>> the world, who had no respect for
other people's traditions, who<br>
>> fostered a cult of superiority
either for themselves or for their<br>
>> society, and who were afraid to
search for the truth unless it<br>
>> already conformed with
established opinion.<br>
>><br>
>> Deloria also argued that science,
when studying people, was not<br>
>> neutral. In his view, some
scientific theories harbored social and<br>
>> political agendas that were used
to deprive Indians and other<br>
>> minorities of their rights. Many
of the assumptions that underlay<br>
>> certain scientific principles
were based on obsolete religious or<br>
>> social views, and he urged
science to shed these dubious relics. The<br>
>> issue for Deloria was not science
vs. religion (or tradition), it was<br>
>> good science vs. bad science, and
in his view, the Bering Strait<br>
>> Theory was bad science.<br>
>><br>
>> Nor was Deloria alone in this
opinion. Since it was first proposed in<br>
>> the late 16th century, and
especially in its most recent incarnations<br>
>> in the late 19th and the 20th
centuries, the most vociferous critics<br>
>> of the Bering Strait Theory have
been scientists. Even among<br>
>> archaeologists and physical
anthropologists, generally the most<br>
>> dogmatic proponents of this
theory, it has always been extremely<br>
>> factious. And the abuse they
would heap upon each other was no less<br>
>> acidic than that they spewed on
outsiders.<br>
>><br>
>> In 1892, when the geologist
George Frederick Wright published his<br>
>> massive study, Man and the
Glacial Period, which challenged some of<br>
>> the tenets of the Bering Strait
Theory as it was then formulated, he<br>
>> was attacked, as David J. Meltzer
pointed out in First Peoples in a<br>
>> New World, "with a barrage of
vicious reviews which were<br>
>> unprecedented in number and
savagery." One critic of the book,<br>
>> William John McGee, the head of
the Bureau of American Ethnology,<br>
>> "was especially bloodthirsty,
labeling Wright's work absurdly<br>
>> fallacious, unscientific, and an
'offense to the nostrils,' then<br>
>> dismissing him as 'a betinseled
charlatan whose potions are poison.<br>
>> Would that science might be well
rid of such harpies.'"<br>
>><br>
>> To understand just one of the
many scientific criticisms of the<br>
>> Bering Strait Theory, we go
halfway around the world to the<br>
>> continental mass known as the
Sahul, which includes Australia, New<br>
>> Guinea and surrounding islands.
Like the Americas, it had long been<br>
>> assumed by archaeologists that
the Indigenous Peoples who lived in<br>
>> that region had migrated there
from Asia just a few thousand years<br>
>> ago. It then came as a massive
shock to those same archaeologists<br>
>> when in 1968, near Lake Mungo in
Southeastern Australia, the<br>
>> geologist Jim Bowler discovered
the remains of a cremated woman who<br>
>> was subsequently
radiocarbon-dated to be between 25,000 and
32,000<br>
>> years old. Lake Mungo Woman, as
she came to be known, was repatriated<br>
>> to the Aboriginal community in
1992.<br>
>><br>
>> Yet this discovery had already
been anticipated by other scientists,<br>
>> for example, the linguists. The
Sahul is one of the most<br>
>> linguistically diverse areas in
the world, home to more than 1,000<br>
>> languages, about one-fifth of the
world's total. The linguists had<br>
>> already predicted that the "time
depth" required to achieve this type<br>
>> of linguistic diversity was
clearly not in the thousands of years,<br>
>> but in the tens of thousands of
years. Subsequent archaeological<br>
>> finds have now pushed back the
date of human occupation of Australia<br>
>> to a minimum of 45,000 years ago
and possibly 60,000 years ago.<br>
>><br>
>> The only area in the world that
has a comparable level of linguistic<br>
>> diversity as the Sahul is the
Americas, and in certain very important<br>
>> respects, the Americas were even
more diverse. Since the very first<br>
>> period of contact between
Europeans and Indians, observers had<br>
>> marveled at how many different
languages and cultures were to be<br>
>> found. Thomas Jefferson, among
the leading scientists of his day,<br>
>> wrote in 1785 in his Notes on the
State of Virginia.<br>
>><br>
>> Imperfect as is our knowledge of
the tongues spoken in America, it<br>
>> suffices to discover the
following remarkable fact. Arranging them<br>
>> under the radical ones to which
they may be palpably traced, and<br>
>> doing the same by those of the
red men of Asia, there will be found<br>
>> probably twenty in America, for
one in Asia, of those radical<br>
>> languages, so called because, if
they were ever the same, they have<br>
>> lost all resemblance to one
another.<br>
>><br>
>> Today, linguists call Jefferson's
"radical languages," language<br>
>> families or stocks, each made up
of numerous languages and dialects.<br>
>> As Jefferson saw it, this
diversity clearly pointed to the great age<br>
>> of American Indians; "A
separation into dialects may be the work
of a<br>
>> few ages only, but for two
dialects to recede from one another till<br>
>> they have lost all vestiges of
their common origin, must require an<br>
>> immense course of time; perhaps
not less than many people give to the<br>
>> age of the earth."<br>
>><br>
>> Based upon the linguistic
evidence, Jefferson believed that "a<br>
>> greater number of those radical
changes of language having taken<br>
>> place among the red men of
America, proves them of greater antiquity<br>
>> than those of Asia," and led him
to speculate that Asians may have<br>
>> been the descendants of early
American Indian migrations from the<br>
>> Americas to Asia.<br>
>><br>
>> Exactly how diverse the American
languages were became clearer in<br>
>> 1891, when the famed explorer and
director of the Bureau of<br>
>> Ethnology, John Wesley Powell,
released the monumental work, Indian<br>
>> Linguistic Families North of
Mexico. In his introduction, Powell<br>
>> explained that, "The North
American Indian tribes, instead of<br>
>> speaking related dialects,
originating in a single parent language,<br>
>> in reality speak many languages
belonging to distinct families, which<br>
>> have no apparent unity of
origin." Powell grouped the American
Indian<br>
>> languages in the U.S. and Canada
into 58 language families (or<br>
>> stocks) that could not be shown
to be related to one another.<br>
>><br>
>> Since Powell's day his
classification has been modified somewhat
and<br>
>> attempts to link many of these
language stocks together to create<br>
>> "super stocks" have met with
mixed success. Although what constitutes<br>
>> a family, stock or super stock is
a matter of continuing debate among<br>
>> linguists, today it is generally
accepted that there are 150<br>
>> different language stocks in the
Americas. To give some perspective<br>
>> to this diversity, there are more
language stocks in the Americas<br>
>> than in the rest of the world
combined.<br>
>><br>
>> One of the 150 New World language
stocks, Eskimo-Aleut, also spans<br>
>> the Arctic and so has Asian and
European relatives. Another language<br>
>> super stock, Na-Dené, composed of
the language stocks Athabaskan,<br>
>> Tlingit and Eyak, and located in
Alaska and the northwest coast (but<br>
>> also in the southwestern U.S.),
is also believed to have relatives in<br>
>> Asia, possibly the Yeneisian
languages of central Siberia.<br>
>><br>
>> It has long been suggested, and
the issue is not particularly<br>
>> controversial, that peoples
speaking Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dené moved<br>
>> back and forth between Asia and
the Americas. A new study published<br>
>> on March 12 in the journal PLoS,
"Linguistic Phylogenies Support<br>
>> Back-Migration from Beringia to
Asia," found that Na-Dené is not<br>
>> descended from Yeneisian (as the
Bering Strait Theory would infer)<br>
>> but the other way around, that
there was a "back-migration into<br>
>> central Asia than a migration
from central or western Asia to North<br>
>> America." (As an aside, the
study, true to "science by press release"<br>
>> fashion, argues that this
supports the "Beringian Standstill"<br>
</div>
</div>
>> hypothesis-that Indians paused in
Beringia for thousands of years<br>
>> before colonizing the New World-but
the study only examined the<br>
<div>
<div class="h5">>> Na-Dené language
stock, whose speakers still live in the
Alaskan part<br>
>> of Beringia to this very day, and
so it would seem the study would<br>
>> just as easily support the
Na-Dené view that they have been there<br>
>> since time immemorial.)<br>
>><br>
>> Other than Eskimo-Aleut and
Na-Dené, linguists have yet to find any<br>
>> connection with any language
stocks of the Americas and those of<br>
>> Asia. Along with the tremendous
hemispheric diversity, this created<br>
>> serious doubts about the dates
proposed by archaeologists and<br>
>> physical anthropologists for
Indian origins. At the beginning of the<br>
>> 20th century it was held to be at
most 10,000 years and generally<br>
>> only 5,000 years. In 1916, Edward
Sapir, among the most important and<br>
>> influential linguists in history,
countered the prevailing<br>
>> archaeological view; "ten
thousand years, however, seems a
hopelessly<br>
>> inadequate span of time for the
development from a homogeneous origin<br>
>> of such linguistic
differentiation as is actually found in
America."<br>
>> Instead he argued that, "the best
piece of evidence of great<br>
>> antiquity of man in America is
linguistic diversification rather than<br>
>> archaeological."<br>
>><br>
>> One of America's greatest
scientists, Franz Boas, generally<br>
>> considered to be the father of
modern anthropology and an important<br>
>> linguist in his own right, in his
classic study, Race, Language, and<br>
>> Culture, published in 1940, wrote
that not only were American Indian<br>
>> languages "so different among
themselves that it seems doubtful<br>
>> whether the period of 10,000
years is sufficient for their<br>
>> differentiation," but that the
evidence of extremely ancient Indians<br>
>> would some day be found, and
that, "all we can say, therefore, is<br>
>> that the search for early remains
must continue." Indeed, Boas was<br>
>> among the first to propose, based
on the evidence from an expedition<br>
>> that he led to the Bering Strait
region in 1897, the "back migration"<br>
>> from the Americas to Asia<br>
>><br>
>> Linguists were not the only ones
who recognized the importance of the<br>
>> linguistic evidence. The great
British paleo-anthropologist Louis<br>
>> Leakey firmly believed that the
linguistic evidence showed that<br>
>> Indians were likely to be many
tens of thousands of years old and<br>
>> possibly much older, and shortly
before his death in 1972 he began to<br>
>> sponsor fieldwork in the Americas
in the hopes of proving this. But<br>
>> most American archaeologists and
physical anthropologists, where the<br>
>> dogmatism of the Bering Strait
Theory is most pronounced, dismissed<br>
>> or ignored the linguistic
evidence, leading people and the
mainstream<br>
>> press to assume that linguists
were silent on this subject, even<br>
>> though the reverse was true.<br>
>><br>
>> Starting in 1987, the tensions
between the proponents of the Bering<br>
>> Strait Theory and linguists
turned into open warfare as<br>
>> archaeologists and geneticists
used a highly disputed (and now<br>
>> completely discredited) theory by
the linguist Joseph Greenberg to<br>
>> claim that the linguistic
evidence now (after hundreds of years of<br>
>> refuting it) showed that Indians
migrated from Asia to the New World<br>
>> around 15,000 years ago. The
dispute led to a torrent of scientific<br>
>> papers by the world's most
prominent linguists denouncing the use of<br>
>> "non-science" and faulty data to
back the Bering Strait Theory. The<br>
>> archaeologists and geneticists
largely ignored the objections,<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>>> forcing a group of linguists-led
by Lyle<br>
>> Campbell<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Campbell%20L%5Bauth%5D"
target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Campbell%20L%5Bauth%5D</a>>,<br>
</div>
<div>>> author of the standard work in
that field, American Indian Languages:<br>
>> the Historical Linguistics of
Native America, and Ives<br>
</div>
>> Goddard<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Goddard%20I%5Bauth%5D"
target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Goddard%20I%5Bauth%5D</a>>,<br>
<div>>> curator at the National Museum
of Natural History at the Smithsonian<br>
>> Institution and the linguistic and
technical editor of the massive<br>
</div>
>> Handbook of North American Indians-to
write to the American Journal<br>
<div>>> of Human Genetics in 2004 and
condemn the widespread use of<br>
>> pseudo-scientific linguistic
"evidence" in genetic studies about<br>
>> Indian origins.<br>
>><br>
>> The dispute also led the
influential linguist, Johanna Nichols, to<br>
>> publish "Linguistic Diversity and
the First Settlement of the New<br>
>> World," in the journal Language in
1990. In her introduction, she<br>
>> first made two important scientific
points: the diversity of the<br>
>> languages of the New World is due
to "the operation of regular<br>
>> principles of linguistic
geography;" and that the linguistic and<br>
>> archaeological evidence from the
Sahul clearly contradicted the<br>
>> attempts to assign early dates for
the Bering Strait migration, since<br>
>> the assignment of early dates in
the New World would create a<br>
</div>
>> scientific anomaly; "but such a
discrepancy-one of at least an order<br>
>> of magnitude-must be assumed if we
adhere to the Clovis [15,000 years<br>
<div>>> ago] or received chronology
[20,000 years ago] for the settlement of<br>
>> the New World."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Mary Lou and Dan Smoke<br>
>> Adjunct Professors<br>
>> Smoke Signals, #3255 SSC<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://london.ctvnews.ca/more/smoke-signals"
target="_blank">http://london.ctvnews.ca/more/smoke-signals</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/#1/ctvsmokesignals"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/#1/ctvsmokesignals</a><br>
</div>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chrwradio.ca"
target="_blank">http://www.chrwradio.ca</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chrwradio.ca/"
target="_blank">http://www.chrwradio.ca/</a>><br>
<div>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://chrwradio.ca/content/smoke-signals"
target="_blank">http://chrwradio.ca/content/smoke-signals</a><br>
>> 94.9 FM CHRW<br>
>> Sundays 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. EST<br>
>> CHRW 2013 Outstanding Specialty
Program<br>
>> 519 659-4682<br>
>> 519 661-2111 x85083 for messages<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/#%21/groups/150460689234/"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/150460689234/</a><br>
</div>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dsmoke@uwo.ca" target="_blank">dsmoke@uwo.ca</a>><br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This
email and attached material are intended<br>
>> for the use of the individual or
organization to whom they are<br>
>> addressed and may not be
distributed, copied, or disclosed to other<br>
>> unauthorized persons. This
material may contain confidential and/or<br>
>> personal information subject to
the provisions of the Freedom of<br>
>> Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of<br>
>> Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, and/or the Personal Health<br>
>> Information Protection Act. If
you receive this transmission in<br>
>> error, please notify me
immediately and delete this message. Do
not<br>
>> email, print, copy, distribute,
or disclose this email or its<br>
>> contents further. Thank you for
your co-operation and assistance.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and
attached material are intended for the use
of the individual or organization to whom
they are addressed and may not be
distributed, copied, or disclosed to other
unauthorized persons. This material may
contain confidential and/or personal
information subject to the provisions of
the Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
and/or the Personal Health Information
Protection Act. If you receive this
transmission in error, please notify me
immediately and delete this message. Do
not email, print, copy, distribute, or
disclose this email or its contents
further. Thank you for your co-operation
and assistance.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="garamond, serif">Michael
Sullivan</font>
<div><font face="garamond, serif">Lac Courte
Oreilles Ojibwe</font></div>
<div><font face="garamond, serif">PhD Candidate-
Linguistics</font></div>
<div><font face="garamond, serif">University of
Minnesota</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Algonquiana mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org">Algonquiana@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/algonquiana</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>