Curriculum Integrating Ancient American Anthropology into 7th Grade Literature Classes

Curriculum Integrating Ancient American Anthropology into
7^th Grade Literature Classes

Susan R. Pecastaing Miller

Academic Setting

Student Population – School and Classes

The target student population is ninety percent Hispanic, ninety percent low income (as told by number of “free lunch” students), thirty percent special education (including learning disabled and behaviorally challenged), and thirty-percent limited English proficient (LEP). There is also a large population of students from nearby Isleta Pueblo, many immigrant students (mainly from Mexico), and a small contingent of African- and Caucasian-Americans. Interestingly, there are no Asian or Asian-American students.

           Further, many students come from rural backgrounds (last year, a man tried to shoot his pig that had wandered onto the school grounds!), a cultural aspect that, when combined with a long-standing Hispanic cultural power (including early marriages as well as a beautiful variety of cultural celebrations – such as Cinco de Mayo), creates students with interesting viewpoints on school and their places in the world. These students are often outside of the perspectives of much of America, a fact that creates both a wonderful individuality and a harsh friction with the rest of American culture.

        One of my classes is a regular seventh grade class with students that reflect the above-noted diversity as well as the standard diversity of skill-levels, gender, maturity levels, and behavioral differences within any given class in America. My second class is considered to be “enriched” seventh graders – again, a class that proposes to be a challenge in usual and unusual ways. Because my classes are not similar in baseline skill characteristics, I have opted to allow each of them to create their own rubrics for grading (see lesson plans) with some guidance from me, of course.

Unit Goals and Objectives

This unit takes aim at many goals, but most particularly I hope to allow the students to reach toward Albuquerque Public Schools and New Mexico State Standards as described in the individual lesson plans. These goals are well thought out and surely have the value of input from a number of resources to which a regular teacher is not privy.

Further than this, though, the target school shares the universal goal of increasing literacy among our student population. This unit aims to provide an opportunity for students to read about issues that are applicable to their own cultures (particularly to the Native American culture, but also to the recent immigrant populations and the Hispanic students who can trace their heritages to immigrants). The controversial theories of migration and cultural ownership are themes that seem applicable to the student population, and hopefully the themes will motivate students to read.

More specific goals and objectives are included in my specific lesson plan, a project that will require ten days for completion. This detailed plan and the other plans outlined seem to be the backbone of any good curriculum. So with that, let it be said that general goals of this unit are:

1. Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend information that                                       is read, heard, and viewed.

2.      Students will communicate effectively through speaking and writing.

3.      Students will use literature and media to develop an understanding of people, societies, and the self.

These are the so-called “strands” of the New Mexico State Academic and Albuquerque Public School Standards toward which this curriculum strives. For a more detailed version of these standards, see the Implementation section.

Finally, though these standards set high goals, they do not really address one aspect that will be maintained as a curricular goal of this unit; that aspect is creativity. Given the beauty of the cultural milieu in the target school, there is of necessity a focus on what the students bring to the classroom as much as on what the teacher brings. Thus, creativity will be highly valued in the final products of these 7^th grade literature students.

Context and Background

General Introduction

It will be assumed that this unit will be taught by certified Language Arts teachers; thus, the background will be in the area of anthropology (with a focus on archaeology) such that an English teacher will have enough information and references to proceed with the lesson plans provided.

Guidelines for Verification of Archaeological Discovery

Brian M. Fagan notes the following scientific strictures on dating archaeological discoveries:

                             Clearly defined stratigraphy, and a clear understanding
                       of the stratigraphic context of the finds, and the formation of the
                        layers in which they were found. Reliable and consistent radiocarbon dates, or
                        dating established by some other widely accepted chronological method.
                        If possible, field and laboratory evidence from other disciplines
                        to support the chronological and geological context. A good
                        example of such evidence would be concordant pollen samples.
                             The presence of humanly made artifacts in a primary stratigraphic context,                              artifacts that are established as being of human manufacture according to strict                              scientific criteria. (143)

            Even with these guidelines, it is clear when reading even a minimal amount of information put forth by even the most honored and stable archaeologists that there is much room for controversy about the meaning of “facts” within the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology. Thus, the first task at hand in organizing a curriculum seems to be to find an approach the makes a voluminous amount of often contradictory information available to a classroom teacher.

            The major import of the guidelines will be as a map for final analyses of information gained through archaeological searches. These discussions will follow from simple presentations of archaeological data and will include discussions of controversial issues as well as simple tools and tool making.

Guidelines for Organization of Archaeological Data

There are many ways in which to organize archaeological information, but one that seems most accessible to a teacher of seventh grade literature is the one proposed and outlined by E. James Dixon (152). His organization is basically a pictograph that has time (broken into large geographically inclusive traditions) as the defined y-axis characteristic and smaller traditions or complexes (broken into geographical location of these less-inclusive traditions and complexes) as the x-axis characteristic. Dixon includes pictures of representative stone weaponry.   My own representation below is a simpler one more in line with information to be taught in a middle school classroom.

Table of Chronology for Western Traditions and Complexes in North America – 8,000 B.P. to 12,000 B.P.



Figure 1.

            Note that stonework (made for hunting and food-processing) is the most available artifact for defining these traditions simply because it is the artifact that withstood the corruption of time (“biodegradables” such as wooden shafts and atlatls degrade, of course). This pictograph is a little obscure on first-glance but studying it brings about an organizational understanding based on chronology, location, and tool-making traditions. There are, however several other valuable methods of analysis which reveal cultural traditions.

            One such type of study is “palynology,” the study of pollen residue in dated strata. This type of study can, as Fagan says of the Bering land bridge, “illuminate” like a “searchlight.” This type of evaluation is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that there was a Beringia, a cold land bridge that connected Alaska and Siberia between 18,000 and 13,000 years ago (108).

            Further understanding of at least the geographical organization of information can be gained by looking at another picture. The geographical locations that partially define the y-axis of Figure 1 are delimited in the following picture:



Figure 2.

Thus, after an overview of migratory hypotheses (how people came to America), a teacher should be able to develop a chronological overview of the different early American cultures using Dixon’s organization.

Migration to the American Continents

There seems to be some general consensus among archaeologists that early modern humans from northern Asia (Siberia) migrated across the Bering Strait to what is present-day Alaska when much of the ocean of that area was frozen ice. As stated by Brian M. Fagan:

                             We have now identified the most likely ancestors for the first Americans –
                            Sinodont late Palaeolithic hunters and foragers with a dental and genetic                               morphology remarkably similar to that of the American Indians, who subsisted off                               big game, smaller animals, perhaps fish, and some wild vegetable foods. At                               some point, a few of these people, with a culture developed over thousands of                               years, walked or paddled eastward, across the Bering Strait, the only                              logical route into the Americas (98).

Again, a picture reveals what would take many words:

Figure 3

            It is worth noting the similarities between the early (approximately 35,000 and 15,000 years ago) cultures of what is now Siberia and what is now Alaska. Of particular note is the work of Christy Turner, et al., in comparing the teeth of North American Indians and those of eastern Asians (thus Fagan’s reference to “sinodont” in the quote above). However, there is some recent controversy regarding the method of transportation of these early migrants. While the above-proposed Beringian land route has been widely accepted as a viable method of migration, there are still some archaeologists and anthropologists who believe that people migrated from Asia via water. There seems to be some evidence that such a migration would have been possible. Boats typical of modern Native Alaskan populations harken back to the earliest technologies and suggest that a sea migration might have been possible. This is not the only controversy worthy of note in this field.

Migratory Controversy

There are two seemingly conflicting theories on migratory patterns after 12,000 BP, (that is, after migration from Asia). The first proposal is of an “ice-free corridor” that is supposed to have appeared between two glaciers during the last ice age (circa 14,000 BP). These glaciers are the Cordilleran and the Laurentide. Another proposed theory maintains the possibility of migration along the western coast. The following pictures illustrate the two proposed theories of migration - the midcontinental route through an ice-free corridor (Figure 4) and the northwestern coastal route.



Figure 4.



Figure 5.

Sorting the Traditions and Complexes

In presenting the traditions and complexes noted in Figure 1, it seems reasonable to sort them according to chronology and then according to region. To expedite understanding of this organization, a simple picture of possible sites older than 11,500 will be presented. Then, the early complex of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest will be followed by the early traditions of the Far West and Mexico, which will, in turn, be followed by the early complexes of the Great Plains. The later traditions and complexes will also be ordered by region – Alaska/Pacific Northwest, Far West/Mexico, Great Plains.

Possible Sites Older than 11,500 BP

The main factor evident in Dixon’s discussion of these sites is their inability to be solidly dated such that there is a general consensus among the anthropological world as to their order in the archaeological schemata. In fact, this consensus seems to hinge on finding human remains that can be reliably dated. To this point, there is some indication of possible human remains at only Mammoth Meadow (“Hair?” as Dixon would have it) and Pendejo Cave in New Mexico (“Hand Prints?” says Dixon). It seems that until human remains can be undeniably connected to sites that date before 11,500 BP, there will be no general agreement that humans lived in North America prior to that time. Artifacts, correct stratigraphy, environmental context, and appropriate dating are not enough (Dixon 87). Still, it is well to note sites that present any or all of the four criteria needed to verify their chronological existence.



Figure 6.

Early Traditions and Complexes

To consider the Early Traditions in accordance with Dixon’s schemata is to accept that American cultures existed in several areas (as proscribed above) between 11,500 BP (before present) to 10,000 BP. Included in this larger chronologically defined concept of tradition are smaller complexes and traditions from different geographical areas of the Americas; that is, the early American cultures occurred in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest as the Nenana Complex, in the Far West and Mexico as the Western Fluted and Western Stemmed Point Traditions, and on the Great Plains as first, the Clovis Complex (11,500 BP to 11,000 BP), and then the Folsom Complex.

Early Traditions and Their Regions

Alaska and Pacific NW Far West and Mexico Great Plains

1. Nenana Complex
1.Western Fluted Point tradition

2. Stemmed Point tradition

1.Clovis complex

2. Folsom Complexes

*** These two complexes are considered to be in what is called the PALEOINDIAN tradition.

Figure 7.

The Nenana Complex

According to Dixon, the Nenana Complex dated from approximately 11,600 to 10,000 BP. The migratory people of this era lived in “small camps located on bluffs with panoramic views” (Dixon 172) for short periods of time. They lived in open-air camps possibly using skin tents and built fires using bones as fuel. Further, they appear to have had a working trade relationship with other tribes in the complex. Sites for this complex are included on the following map of the interior of Alaska:

Figure 8.

            There is some argument as to how these settlements, proposed as the earliest, came to exist (see above). The on-going argument seems to be between a land crossing (from Siberia to Alaska via a now flooded “Beringian land bridge”) and water crossing (Fagan 106 ff). This disagreement is a productive one for student research (see lesson plans).

The Western Fluted Point Tradition

This tradition occurred from approximately 11,500 to 10,500 BP (Dixon 196). Although there is no hard archaeological evidence to support the adaptation of the people of the era to a total maritime subsistence, there is speculation that there was use of watercraft simply because there is an “obvious maritime focus of many of these early sites” (Dixon 202). These were a sedentary people who crafted fluted point weaponry similar to Clovis points found in the Great Plains area. There are many sites that have been excavated, and unlike in the Nenana Complex of the far north, human remains have been found at several of the sites, the most famous being Arlington Man (see Figure 9, site #19) from the site with the same name. Other sites included in this tradition range from the upper Washington Wenatchee site to the lower Mexican Santa Isabel Istapan site.

Western Stemmed Point Tradition

Just as the Fluted Point Tradition gained its name from the stone artifact points, which remain as its legacy and proof of existence, so the stemmed point dart head was the basis for the tradition of that name. Artifacts include leaf-shaped projectile points and bifaces, contracting stem points, choppers, scrapers, hammer stones, and abraders, as well as an antler wedge, a “nondetachable barbed-bone point” (Dixon 203), and tooth pendant and bone awls as well as a pair of fiber sandals circa 9,000 BP. The tradition is called the “Old Cordilleran.” Sites that reflect this tradition include the Mostin site, the Borax Lake site (north of San Francisco), Tulare Lake, and the Marmes Rock shelter.   The following picture shows the various archaeological sites of the Far West.

                                                 Figure 9.

Clovis Complex

The Clovis Complex of the Great Plains area is dated at approximately 11,500 to 10,900 BP (Dixon 215). This complex is named after Clovis, New Mexico, because the original discovery was at Blackwater Draw near Clovis, New Mexico. It was here that firm documentation places fluted projectile points in association with mammoth remains. The Clovis sites were all found accidentally while moving earth for other reasons (Dixon 220), and so it is notable both that there is little hope for new discoveries of caches. There are very few documented Clovis sites as compared to the numerous sites associated with the Far Western/Mexican tradition:





Figure 10.

            It is with Clovis culture that nonutilitarian artifacts appear. There are caches of beautiful tools made from “the finest lithic materials” (Dixon 219).   The “largest and most spectacular of all the caches” (Dixon 220) appears to be the Anzick location in Montana. Artifacts made of material other than stone (ivory and bone) have been found at many of the Clovis sites as well. Caches of useful tools appear to be more common. Some are material that was too heavy to carry and so was stashed for later retrieval. Still migratory, the Clovis people nevertheless surpassed other cultures in their “economic diversity” (Dixon 219). Eggs, reptiles, amphibians, roasted wasp nests, seeds, deer, rabbit, squirrel, fish, and turtle have all be documented as food which was processed by the Clovis people. Thus, Clovis culture has been newly characterized as a gatherer culture rather than as a culture dependent on big game.

            The Clovis people’s culture disappeared abruptly. There is some agreement that a drought (aptly named the Clovis Drought) “may have contributed to the extinction of the mammoth and the demise of Clovis culture” (Dixon 222), but there is certainly not absolute agreement.

The Folsom Complex

An enigma related to the sudden disappearance of the Clovis culture is how Folsom culture superseded Clovis with such rapidity, perhaps “within a period of a hundred years or less” (Dixon 223). The Folsom Complex is dated from approximately 10,900 to 10,200 BP. There seems to be a connection between the two cultures in that both manifest a Goshen point. Dixon considers the Goshen point as a possible transitional tool between the Clovis and the Folsom cultures (Dixon 223).

            The “hallmark of Folsom culture is the Folsom projectile point which is recognized throughout the Americas for its unique design, exceptional workmanship, and the high-quality raw materials from which they are manufactured” (Dixon 223).   The Folsom point is uniquely fluted on the sides. By the time of the Folsom culture, the mammoth had become extinct, and so bison became the main Folsom sustenance. In addition to bison, the culture used “deer, rabbit, antelope, fox, wolf, coyote, turtle, prairie dog, and possibly camel” for subsistence. These people wore “tailored skin clothing” made by using bison and camel fleshers, sewed with bone needles, and decorated with beads. They lived on the Great Plains but had hunting camps in the Rocky Mountains as well.

Later Traditions (circa 10,500 – 8,000 BP)

Again there may be some confusion regarding the organization of the complexes and traditions of the later cultures defined in Figure 1. This text follows an organization similar to the one followed for the early traditions; that is, it moves from Alaska and the Pacific Northwest to the Far West and Mexico to the Great Plains complexes and traditions. Again, a picture helps:

Later Traditions and Their Regions

Alaska & Pacific NW Far West and Mexico Great Plains

1. American Paleoarctic tradition

      2. Denali complex

      3. Northwest Coast
       Microblade tradition

     4. Northern Paleoindian            tradition

    5. Pebble Tool tradition

1.    Desert Archaic      Tradition

2. San Dieguito/Sulphur
    Spring complexes

Hell Gap complex

Agate Basin complex

     3. Cody complex

     4. Plainview complex

*** All of these complexes are considered to be in what is called the PLANO tradition.

Figure 11.

American Paleoarctic Tradition

Artifacts associated with this tradition include “wedge-shaped microblade cores, microblades, blades and blade cores, core bifaces, antler arrow points slotted to receive microblades, grooved stone abraders and waste flakes” (Dixon 173, 175). Near the ocean, the main means of sustenance was marine mammals, and there seems to be some indication that these people hunted in the winter on sea ice. Also, the weaponry suggests a dependence on terrestrial inland mammals, specifically mammoth.

Northwest Coast Microblade Tradition

Originally called the Early Boreal tradition and later a number of other names (to confuse everyone), Dixon decided to call the tradition by a descriptive name which includes the location and “hallmark technology” (Dixon 178). Microblade technology is particularly interesting in that it seems more sophisticated than the standard technology. More will be said on this in a final section on different kinds of stone technology.

Denali Complex

These locations are in the interior of Alaska and in the Yukon Territory, specifically the interior regions of Beringia that have no coastal or marine economy. Weaponry found at these sites include “bifacial biconvex knives, end scrapers, large blades and blade-like flakes, prepared microblade cores, core tablets, microblades, burins, burin spalls, worked flakes, and retouched flakes” (Dixon 175). The following picture shows the locations of the American Paleoarctic and Northwest Coast Microblade traditions and the Denali Complex sites.



Figure 12.

Northern Paleoindian Tradition

The finding of fluted projectile points in eastern Beringia has led scholars to assume a relationship between Paleoindian points from eastern Beringia and those from the Great Plains (Clovis and Folsom complexes) of North America. It is here that the atlatl was also used (see weaponry section below).   There is no evidence of microblade technology. The disappearance of the Northern Paleoindian Tradition is as enigmatic as that of the Clovis tradition mentioned above. The sites, which have yielded Paleoindian artifacts, include the following:



Figure 13.

Pebble Tool Tradition

There is paucity of information on this tradition in Dixon and none in Fagan; however, some interesting information can be gleaned. This coastal tradition seems to have adapted microblade technology to their weaponry. They existed between northern Oregon and Alaska. Dixon notes that this tradition is “similar to the Old Cordilleran” tradition that was found in the Western Stemmed Point tradition. It seems that either the Old Cordilleran tradition was a land-based culture that adapted itself to a coastal existence, or that the Pebble Tool tradition was adapted to an inland existence (Dixon 195).

Desert Archaic Tradition

Again, Dixon scarcely passes over a tradition that he delineates clearly in his pictured chronology (Dixon 152, 206). The positing of this tradition seems to be an attempt to “provide unity” to the many Western Stemmed Point sites. This stage is seen as a “level of economic, social, and political development consisting of band-size social units depending on scheduled, semi nomadic foraging” (Dixon 206); however, the Paleoindian stage also was characterized by this type of social organization. A more significant development in terms of human progress was the use of stones for grinding seeds into flour. The widespread usage of this technique in the Far West of North America was a precursor to the development of agriculture.

San Dieguito and Sulphur Spring Complexes

One of the most notable sites (because of the large number and strict analysis of the artifacts found) in the Far West Tradition are the Whitewater Draw and Sulphur Spring sites in Arizona and the San Dieguito complex in California. The

            . . . San Dieguito/Sulphur Spring complexes occur throughout the region following Clovis              times. The general foraging pattern of these cultures, which appears to emphasize seed             collection and grinding, may have provided the foundation upon which subsequent plant             domestication was developed, ultimately giving rise to the complex societies of Mesoamerica       (Dixon 209).

These complexes are defined by leaf-shaped knives and projectile points, ovoid domed side scrapers, engraving tools, and crescents (Dixon 207). Sites which evidence the San Dieguito complex include C. W. Harris and Ventana Cave in Arizona (see Figure 9). The Ventana Cave is believed to be a place where there was a meeting and, perhaps, meshing of the western San Dieguito and eastern Folsom cultures, but there is some evidence that the San Dieguito culture was predominant (Dixon 208).

            What was known as the “Cochise culture” was defined near Whitewater Draw in Arizona (see Figure 7), and it was divided into three phases. The oldest phase was defined as the Sulphur Spring complex. This complex had milling stones, scrapers, axes, and hammer stones (Dixon 208).

            There is some indication that there was a relationship between the San Dieguito and Sulphur Spring cultures; however, there is little hard evidence that a similarity existed except that the cultures are chronological siblings. The cultures appeared in Mexico after the Clovis culture and the seed collection and grinding of at least the Sulphur Spring complexes may have been a precursor to the “plant domestication” which gave “rise to the complex societies of Mesoamerica” (Dixon 209). Some researchers believe that the sedentary lifestyle of those cultures was easily supported by the abundant marine life (Ibid).

Hell Gap and Agate Basin Complexes

The Great Plains finds may be divided into northern and southern complexes according to their location relative to the Platte River. The Hell Gap and Agate Basin sites in Wyoming fall in the northern sector. While each of these complexes has its own main site, they may be found together at Hell Gap, Wyoming, so it seems logical to discuss them together. These complexes manifest points that are constricted at the base (for binding to a shaft) rather than just being fluted. It is assumed that they post-date Folsom and Clovis because the constricted-base points have been found stratigraphically above the earlier complex sites.

            There is some indication that Hell Gap points were derived from Agate Basin points with a “gradual change from constricting- and round-based points to straighter-based points with more pronounced shoulders” (Dixon 230). There is a famous bone bed at the so-called Jones-Miller site in northeastern Colorado, which shows:

                        that an artificial impoundment constructed of snow and possibly brush was used to                          drive the animals into a low area, possibly using water to create an icy down-hill                          entry that would prevent the animals from climbing back up the slippery slope.                        Once driven into the impoundment, they were dispatched by darts tipped with Hell                          Gap type projectile points. The bison were all females and calves, indicating that                          these were winter nursery herds. A post mold was identified within the impoundment.                        Around it were found several unusual artifacts not normally associated with                         kill sites. They include what appears to be a fragment of a flute made of antler, a                          miniature stone projectile point less than one inch in length, and the bones of a                          butchered wolf or dog. These items suggested . . . that this feature could possibly                          reflect activities similar to those recorded for some northern Native American tribes,                          including the Cree and the Assiniboin, who placed offerings around a post or tree                          near the center of the trap (Dixon 232).

Some parallel-stemmed projectile points have been found at Hell Gap and Agate Basin, which indicate some overlap of the Cody complex with the Hell Gap and Agate Basin complexes.

The Cody Complex

The Cody Complex produced distinctive “stemmed knives” (Dixon 232), and the technology reverted back to the split-shaft hafting technique of the Great Plains from the Agate Basin socket hafting techniques. At least two main sites are mentioned by Dixon as places, which manifest Cody complex artifacts. The first is Mammoth Meadow, Montana, (see Figure 6) where “an occupation attributable to the Cody complex” (Dixon 64) lies above older sites including some proposed to be older than 11,500 BP. A second site at Lamb Spring, Colorado, (Figure 6) provided evidence of a bison kill again located over ostensibly much older sites. The Lamb Spring Cody complex artifacts are notable because they have caused some confusion in dating of the older sites (Dixon 71).

Plainview Complex

“In the southern Great Plains, Folsom is followed directly by Plainview,” states Dixon (234). Just as Clovis culture received its name from the city in New Mexico near which they were first discovered, so the Plainview complex received its name from a bison kill site discovered in 1944 during road construction near Plainview, Texas (Dixon 234). Plainview points are similar to Folsom points but lack the fluting. Other sites have been discovered in Colorado (Olsen-Chubbock and Jurgens), Waco, Texas (for Horn Shelter 2 site, see Figure 14 below), and three sites near Lime Creek, Nebraska (central Great Plains). These latter three sites have early dates (circa 10,500 BP). The Olsen-Chubbock site in Colorado is noted for the in-depth research data gathered from it (spawning an archaeology increasingly interested in faunal remains as a source of information) by Joe Ben Wheat (Dixon 235).

            There is some indication that during the end of the Plano era, deglaciation allowed contact between people in eastern Beringia and the Rocky Mountains, and further, there was a shift in settlement pattern, which concentrated people more in the foothill regions along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains (Dixon 237).

The End of the Plano Tradition

The Plano tradition (Hell Gap, Agate Basin, Cody and Plainview complexes) disappeared because of drought, which caused a drop in human and animal populations, and meant the end of communal bison hunts (Dixon 238).

Sites in North America where Human Remains Older than 8,000 B.P. Have Been Found



Figure 14

Stone Weaponry and Tools – Terminology and Examples

Flintknapping is the art of sculpturing stone implements. Of course, the earliest Americans were adept at flintknapping because their survival depended upon the ability of sculpt weapons that were proficient for killing animals for food (mainly mammoth and later bison) and then making tools that would aid in processing the animals (scrapers) and supplying food in an edible manner (metates and manos). So it is interesting to supply a vocabulary (very simple) to provide a basic understanding of the language of flintknappers. The following is a short alphabetized list of some of the more important terms:

     1.       Atlatl – a stick with a hook on the end such that a dart can be notched into it. The atlas              allows for great force (due to increased length of the       lever) to be imparted to a thrown              dart or spear.

      2. Bifacial – flaked or carved on both sides (as opposed to leaving one side not flaked or              carved)

     3.      Burins – a flint-cutting tool with a beveled point.

     4.   Chert – a flint-like stone used for stone tools and weapons – sometimes mistaken for flint,              this stone is actually made of silicon.

     5. Fluting – the act of chipping off grooves on the sides of a stone point such that they are sharp             from top to bottom; the part of the stone that is fluted.

    6.      Hafting – the act of putting blades or points onto the shaft of a spear or dart; the part of the            shaft that allows the addition of the point or blade. There are two main hafting techniques –             split shaft and socket. Split shaft hafts involve making a split in the shaft and inserting the point             into the slit. Socket hafting means making a groove on the outside of the shaft into which fits             the bottom end of the point such that the shaft and point form a smooth head.

    7.      Mano – a stone tool used to grind corn (see metate).

    8.      Metate – a stone flattish bowl into which grain is poured such that it m may be crushed with a             mano.

9.      Microblades – small blades that are hafted by putting them into slits at the tip of a dart shaft (similar to the way that feathers are fitted onto an arrow shaft in a contemporary weapon).

10. Obsidian – a clear black stone with which to make tools and weapons.

      11. Scrapers – a stone tool used to skin animals.

Implementation

Introduction

One focus for this unit, in literary terms, will be the comparison of descriptive writing and persuasive writing. Further, the trait of organization will be the major concern for student writing (in 6-trait plus one terms). Students will be introduced to different methods of organization.

            A second focus of the unit will be evaluating the relevance of texts, both written and on the computer. Students will be introduced to methods of deciding relevance and of deciding the difference between fiction and non-fiction and the gray area of writings in between (the historical novel).

            A third focus of the unit will be teaching students the value of their own lives as resources for their writing.

Albuquerque Public School and New Mexico State Standards

Specifically, these are the New Mexico State and Albuquerque Public Schools Standards that will be the focus of the following lesson plans:

Albuquerque Public Schools Language Arts Standards

Strand I: Reading Process

Content Standard: The student employs appropriate reading strategies to read and interpret increasingly complex texts for a variety of purposes.

             7^th Grade Performance Standard: Reading Strategies

               2.      Organizes information that is read: summarizes the information explains the importance of the                            information, describes connections between related topics/information

      Strand II: Reading Analysis

Content Standard: The student examines literature from a variety of authors, cultures, and genres and makes connections among a variety of literary works.

7^th Grade Performance Standard: Literary Applications

14. Interprets and synthesizes information that is read, heard, or viewed

    (Also Strand III: Expressive Language: Writing Strand IV: Expressive Language: Speaking               Strand VI: Research)

New Mexico State Content Standards: Language Arts

     Strand A: Reading and Listening for Comprehension

Content Standard I: Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend information that is read, heard, and viewed.

            Benchmark I-A: Listen to read, react to, and interpret information

Grade 7 Performance Standard (ii): (Students will) Respond to informational materials that are read, heard, or viewed by: summarizing the information, determining the importance of the information, making connections to related topics/information, monitoring comprehension, drawing inferences, generating questions.

Benchmark I-B: Gather and use information for research and other purposes.

Grade 7 Performance Standard (ii): (Students will) Interpret and synthesize information by responding to information that is read, heard, or viewed.

Grade 7 Performance Standard (iv): (Students will)
Examine critical relationships between and among elements of a research topic.

Benchmark I-C: Apply critical thinking skills to analyze information

Grade 7 Performance Standard (ii): (Students will) Refine critical thinking skills and develop criteria that evaluate arguments and judgments by: stating a firm judgment; justifying the judgment with logical, relevant reasons, clear examples, and supporting details . . .

            Strand C: Literature and Media

Content Standard III: Students will use language, literature, and media to gain and demonstrate awareness of cultures around the world.

Benchmark III-B: Identify ideas and make connections between literary works.

Grade 7 Performance Standard (i): (Students will) Identify examples of distortion and stereotypes in literary works.

Lesson Plans

Day One

On the first day of this unit, the teacher will begin reading a fictional account of life in early America. One suggestion is Jean M. Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear. It should be made very clear that this is fiction. Juxtaposed to this fiction will be an account of life in early America as actually proposed by archaeologists. The students will be asked to verbally compare the readings, and be told that at the end of the semester (after this unit is completed) a written comparison/contrast essay will be a part of their final exam. From this point on, the reading will be the sponge activity for each day. The students will take turns reading from the fictional text.

Day Two

The sponge activity will begin the day. A second day of reading from a non-fictional account of life in early America will follow. Students will be given a family tree handout asking about their own family heritage. Discussion will follow with students giving verbal accounts of what they know of their own family histories. The handout will be assigned as a take-home activity. Students will inquire about their family trees and return with their papers filled in on Day Three. Further students will be asked to bring some artifact that reflects their family and/or its history.

Day Three

After the sponge activity, students will share their family trees. Family trees will be collected for future use. Artifacts will be placed on a table. (The teacher may bring some “artifacts” – just in case!) Students will go to the table, choose an artifact (not their own), and, at their desks, write an explanation for the artifact of their choice. As a control, the teacher will provide a paper (see documentation for example) for this activity that will guide the students in their search for an “archaeological” explanation of each artifact.

            The teacher will ask several students to read their explanations aloud. After all the students who have chosen any given artifact have read their explanations, the person who brought the artifact will explain its actual significance. A discussion will follow about the accuracy of imagination, and the teacher will give the students a paper that describes what archaeological data is and how it evaluated as to its significance and truth (see “Guidelines for Verification of Archaeological Discovery” above). Here there is a crossover to science in that deductive reasoning and the scientific method can be used to organize writing. The focus of the final paper/project will be the trait (according to 6-trait plus one) of organization.

Other types of organization will be introduced here, too.

            For homework, students will be asked to have one of their relatives describe another family member that the student has not met. The students will be given a paper to guide them in their questioning (see Documentation section).

Day Four

After the sponge activity, students will be asked to write a two-paragraph description of the relative using this organization:

1.      Physical traits

2.      Psychological traits (emotional and mental)

3.      Social information (What did they do?; Are they alive?; if not, How did they die?, etc.)

Students will then be asked to draw a picture of this person to the best of their ability. Creativity will be counted, but drawing ability will not. These papers will be handed to the teacher.

            The teacher will review types of organization of papers, and read a 6-trait book (usually an elementary text) and/or a text or texts written by a seventh grade student or students, which exemplify good and bad organization.

Day Five

After the sponge activity, students will review organization methods. The teacher will hand back the essays (edited) from the previous day. Students will pair up and read their essays aloud to each other. Students will make suggestions to each other. The teacher will call each student individually to read their papers aloud privately to the teacher, and he/she will also make suggestions. Students will begin to rewrite these short essays.

Day Six

After the sponge activity, the students will continue rewriting their essays. Two-paragraph descriptive essays will be handed in for evaluation before the end of class.

Students will then go to the computer to type them. At this point, students will be instructed to go to the web and try to discover a lineage for their respective surnames.   They may copy or paraphrase the information they find to share with the class. That sharing will be the final activity of the day.

Day Seven

A homemade video of a dig (west of Albuquerque), a visit to an ancient pueblo (Bandelier), and a flintknapper making stone points for weapons will be shown. Students will be required to take notes, and they will show understanding by defining words that are used and explained in the video (see documentation as well as Stone Tools and Weaponry section above). Any unclear information and/or definition will be discussed and clarified in class. All notes and definitions will be handed in at the end of the class.

Day Eight

After the sponge activity, the students will be introduced to a prehistoric dig kit. Two students will be elected as demonstrators. The other students will be required to “take notes,” but paper will be provided for them. It will noted that at a point in the future they will be required to come up with ideas for grading such that a grading rubric of their own can be generated.

            On this day, the focus will be Activities 1 and 2 (a model activity and a bone activity). Students will work in pairs to complete the results sheet (see documentation). Part of the activity will include defining vocabulary words.

Day Nine

After the sponge activity, the students will elect two new people as demonstrators. Activities 3 and 5 (on Moh’s hardness scale and crystalline impressions) will be completed. The focus will be on deductive reasoning. Again, a guide paper will be used. A list of review vocabulary words will be added for the students to define so that they demonstrate their learning.

Day Ten

Students will view the Nova presentation on Kennewick Man in preparation for their final projects. Students will be required to take notes to hand in at the end of the class. A short discussion will ensue about the ramification of Kennewick Man and about the controversy surrounding his discovery. The teacher will share with the students extra information that has been gleaned from the Albuquerque Teachers’ Institute class.

            This class will wrap up the loose ends of other days. An extra day may be required to actually get ready for the final project. Such things as recent discoveries, the difference between fact and fiction, issues of sovereignty, issues of race (as in the Bill Bass approach to skull identification), The Sandia Man controversy, personal stories not previously shared, issues regarding paper organization, etc., might be on the agendas for any extra days. Any extra time should be spent on honing discussion and thinking skills such that the students will be prepared to lucidly discuss and argue salient points of the Kennewick controversy.

Lesson Plan: Week 3 and 4

Student Instructions: We will be working on this project for one week. You may rotate positions (see below), but only one person may be in one role each day.

           1.      Choose a group of 4 people.
            2.      Choose one person to be the leader.
            3.      Choose one person to be the scribe.
            4.      Choose one person to operate the computer.
            5.      Choose the last person to provide any other assistance necessary (talking to teacher,                      getting equipment necessary such as discs, scissors, etc.)

Your job will be to solve the Kennewick Question. Your group will be provided with a disc that has links to a number of articles on K-Man. You will be responsible for reading as many of these articles as you need to support a case for an opinion as to:

WHO HAS THE RIGHTS TO THE KENNEWICK SKELETON?

Your group will come up with the following:

1.       A one page descriptive paper showing that you understand the facts of the Kennewick case.

2.       A three page final persuasive paper stating your case and supplying a deductive argument for your position. Organize your paper like this:

a.       The issue

b.       The claimants and their viewpoints

c.        The laws (3, please) that are pertinent to the issue

d.       Your reasons for choosing your claimant

3.       A five-slide PowerPoint presentation to the class.

Be prepared as a class to develop a grading rubric for the papers (you may follow 6-traits writing if you wish) and for the presentations.

GROUP TIMELINE:

     Day 3: Your group will have read and shared at least 6 articles.
      Day 5: Your group will have read and shared 8 articles and will have written a description (one         page) of Kennewick Man and two theories as to his origins.
      Day 6: Your group will hand in a preliminary draft of you final paper.
      Day 7: Your group will have written 3 criteria for a grading rubric for the paper and 3 criteria         for a presentational rubric.
      Day 10: Your group will have a three-page position paper (organized according the guidelines         above) and a five-slide PowerPoint presentation. You will hand in the paper and make the
      presentation.

KENNEWICK MAN – THE CONTROVERSY

Excerpt from Skull Wars by David Hurst Thomas, pages xix and xx:

In late July 1996, the coroner of Benton County, Washington, showed James Chatters a skull that had washed out from a Columbia River cut-bank in the town of Kennewick. Chatter runs an archaeological consulting firm that, among things, helps the local coroner’s office identify the human skeletons and assorted body parts that occasionally turn up. “Bones are my thing,” says Chatters. “I just love puzzles.

            . . . Laying out the nearly complete skeleton on a lab table, he took a series of measurements on the skull and long bones, then framed his preliminary forensic conclusion: male, Caucasoid, 40-55 years old at death, height about five feet nine inches. The fellow had lived a rough life. His skull had been fractured, chest crushed, and a chipped elbow reduces the use of his left arm. Some sort of large projectile – maybe a bullet or piece of shrapnel – had penetrated well into the right side of this hip. The man had survived this injury and the bone had healed over, sealing the object deep inside.

            Chatters tried x-raying the pelvis, but nothing showed up – the projectile wasn’t metal. A CAT scan showed that it was a stone spear point with a distinctive leaf-shape. Deep inside this man’s hip was a “Cascade point” like those used by hunters of the Columbia Plateau between 4,500 and 9,000 years ago.

            But Chatters had some doubts. . . . The badly worn teeth suggested a high-grit diet more typical of ancient Indian populations Euro American pioneers, and the lack of cavities also suggested Native American origins. The skull just looked, well, old. Dogged by inconsistencies, Chatters sent a scrap of hand bone to Erv Taylor, whose radiocarbon laboratory at the University of California (Riverside) is one of the world’s best.

            The lab called back three weeks later with the new that would change Chatters’ life: the bone sample was 9,200-9,500 years old. . . . Chatters e-mailed several archaeologists across the country asking for advice: “Subject: Need Help ASAP.” As he said months later, “I knew then it would get very hot and heavy, which it did within 10 minutes.”

            So began the furious controversy over Kennewick Man . . . .

There are claimants for this skeleton:

The Umatilla Native American tribe who claims the skeleton as their ancestor.

The Asatru Folk Assembly who claims the skeleton is actually descended from their European ancestors.

A group of eight archaeologists who claim the bones for archaeological research.

Articles on Kennewick Man

Start your research by clicking this link to find many articles of interest about Kennewick Man.

Documentation

The following pages are addenda to the information and lesson plans above.

Illustrations of Tools

                            Folsom Points

Notice the fluting on the edges of these Folsom points as opposed to the non-fluted points from Agate Basin (left three dart points) and Plainview (right three points) below. The far right Folsom point above is made of chert. The far right Plainview point below is made of obsidian.



Agate Basin and Plainview Points

The Agate Basin and left two Plainview points have bases that fit in slotted shafts (sliced down the middle: arrow goes in slot; leather strip wraps around to hold point in place). The far left Plainview point has a base that fits into a socket (in the exact shape of the straight base) on the side of the shaft and is then wrapped. The points were meant to be lost as opposed to losing the whole shaft. It was, I guess, easier to make a point than to true a shaft.

Handout #1 – a Family Tree

Handout # 2 – A Guide for Questions about Family Member

Who is Your Ancestor?

This is a set of questions to guide you in finding out about your ancestor. Remember, this must be a person you have never met but with whom someone in your family is very familiar (think of the common root for “family” and “familiar”!).

Name of Ancestor_____________________________________________________

Birth date ___________    Date of Death (if applicable) __________ Sex ________

Describe how this person looks (looked) ___________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Describe the personality of this person _____________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Tell something significant about this person (something they did?) _______________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Why was this person chosen? ____________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Anything else significant? Their social life? How they died? How they lived?

Handout # 3 - Activity # 1 – Make a Model

As you watch the demonstrators build a model dinosaur fossil, answer the following questions.

1.      Unlike the model created, igneous rocks rarely contain fossils. Think of a possible reason for this and write it here:

2..      Describe the scientific model after it dries overnight:

3..      Which part of the activity seemed to require the most time and patience?

4.       Do you think you would like to be a scientist who finds out about prehistoric life or human history by digging for fossil remains of plants and animals?

Handout # 4 – Identifying Rocks and Bones

What Happened?

As the demonstration proceeds, fill in the chart below. After the students have finished the demonstration, answer the questions.

Specimen Color Texture Layered Banded Buoyant

Obsidian

Pumice

Scoria

1.      Why is the obsidian (also know as volcanic glass) so smooth and glassy?

      2.      Pumice is formed from lava that spews out under or near water. List two unique
            characteristics of pumice.

     3.      Scoria is a “cindery” form of basalt which cools from under the upper surface of basalt flows.            Name one characteristic, which pumice and scoria have in common.

Handout # 5 – Mohs’ Hardness Scale

A simple but very important way geologists have of identifying minerals is to test their hardness using a system know as Mohs’ Scale. This system is based on a comparison of minerals of know hardness from 1 to 10 with # 1 being softest (talc) and # 10 being the hardest (diamond). Here is a list of the Mohs’ Scale minerals:

1.      Talc – easily scratched by a fingernail

2.      Gypsum – harder than talc but scratched by fingernail

3.      Calcite – easily scratched by copper penny

4.      Fluorite – harder than calcite but scratched by copper penny

5.      Apatite – easily scratched by iron nail or steel knife

Specimen	Color	Texture	Layered	Banded	Buoyant
Obsidian
Pumice
Scoria