3. 注意
1) 新观点原因的发展：新陈代谢率高，胡萝卜素
2) 两个解释和有点还有缺点作者: wsywsywsy 时间: 2013-9-17 23:07
[V1]
还有一篇是考古，美洲大陆的原始人移居
[V2]
主旨：讨论最早欧洲人到美洲大陆是坐船过去的还是走过去的
结构：长篇，三段：提出一个theory(考古学家一直反驳的)，但说这个theory近来得到了support —> 提出一个验证这个theory的方法—> 又分析了这个方法难以实现
关键词：【Europeans, America…by boat… 】
(1) 最早的欧洲人是怎么到美洲大陆的问题一直是科学家讨论的….有一个Theory说欧洲人最早是by boat 到的美洲，这个观点考古学家一直不接受。但是近来这个观点得到了一些支持。。。 (中间什么什么。。。忘了) 有人说了欧洲人可能是by boat怎样怎样，走到一个食物充足的地方歇一会儿，再上路，然后再到一个地儿歇一会儿再上路。。。，就这样到了美洲大陆;因为如果不是by boat的话，欧洲人早在15000年前就横跨了什么什么大陆，但这个大陆那个时候是cover all by ices，所以导致步行到美洲的方法不成立。。。而且欧洲人不可能在15000年前到的美洲，因为如果在15000年欧洲人就到了美洲，那就说明他们在短短1000年之间横跨了那个什么什么大陆，这与考古学家的观点是相悖的。
(2) 第二段有个人提出了一个人验证欧洲人by boat的方法。。。 (具体的记不清楚了。。。)
(3) 第三段又说这个方法难以验证，因为当年欧洲人的路线，就是可考证的sites现在都deep buried in ocean。。。【貌似有题Q3】
问题：
Q1. 问了文章的主旨：
Q2. 问了文章的结构：
我选得是就是我上面写的那个：一个长期不被认可的观点得到了一些support; 然后又提出验证这个support的一些方法及困难
注：Q1和Q2 有点像，大家到考场上仔细辨别。。。我记得这篇考了两道很像的题
Q3. 好像问的是为什么这个方法难以验证?
记不清楚了。。。。
[V3]
说的是美国1830年到。。。。年(记不得了)这段时期里面人口从农村往城市转移的一个trend，老的观点认为这个移民潮中，黑人和白人的情况是差不多的，但是作者认为不是这样的。作者分析了移民潮出现之前，黑人和白人的不同。黑人由于在移民潮之前有拥有更少(可能还是更差)的土地，后来人口越来越多，黑人的经济状况就更差了。所以在这个移民潮中，黑人更多的迁往大城市。(这篇没什么看懂，所以印象也不深刻)。
考古已确认：
33*. American Native Origin的研究
说是由于坐船去美洲大陆的说法太不靠谱，科学家在多少年以前一直对此不以为然，普遍认为是在冰川时期从阿拉斯加走过去的。
然后根据研究，在多少年之前，不具备走过去的条件。然后在多少年(大概1000年左右吧)之后，就有证据表明美洲有人啦。
所以他们得在这段时间从北走到南。作者认为这样是feat(还是什么词的)，大概就是说这个速度很不靠谱。
于是第二段就开始讨论，有人就觉得从海上划船过去挺好，不过划船的话，很难找到证据来证明。(这边是有题的，好像是个细节题)
因为有当初证据的地方被水淹了，成深海区啦。在最后就说什么，就挺有必要去探索深海区，发掘证据什么的。
Q1. 主旨题
其中有一项就是给理由，要去探索深海区什么的，不过狗主没选这个，大家可以讨论下。
Q2. 针对黄色部分的细节题
考古
人类何时到达美洲，还有争议。考古的发现显示的最早时间的14,700年前。
第 一个假说是，通过陆路。说人们可以通过COASTAL JOURNEY 沿海岸走，因为爱斯基摩皮船(kayak)太小不太可能做跨海的交通工具。由于ice age，人类不可能于15,700年前通过陆路到达美洲(讲了原因“冰呀，海呀什么的”)。还讲了什么向南走，一个月可以走20里。多少年后到了南美。但是旧观点有个问题，就是人移动的速度太快了不合理
第二个假说是，学者F提出的新观点：通过海路，支持的理由是坐船移动的速度合理。但是因为冰河融化，当时沿岸可住人的地区现在都在海底，即使有证据也被淹没了。转折，最新海底考古有证据支持沿岸的确有住人，但是这个证据对於支持海路说还是薄弱的。结论是陆路或海路尚无定论，但对於F学者提出的海路迁移开始时间点(14,000~15,000年前)是普遍被接受的。
Q1. 有主旨题。
Q2. 第二段全(假说部分)highlight了，问作用。
Q3. 好像有个15,000到15,500的数字题~
参考文献：
Transportation to the New World is a big topic for debate. 提出问题If the early Americans did cruise巡航 around the continent in canoes and kayaks, might the first settlers have arrived by boat as well? For decades the archaeological community rejected this notion (Ice Agehunters could never have carried all their weapons and left over mammoth meat in such tiny boats!), but in recent years the idea has gathered more support.旧观点反对经由海路假说
One reason for the shift: the nagging困扰的 problem of just how fast people can make the journey from Alaska toTierra del Fuego. 旧观点的问题症结点Consider Dillehay's 14,700-year-old Monte Verde site. According to the previously accepted timeline, people could have made the journey from Asia on foot no earlier than 15,700 years ago(before this time, the ice sheets extending from the North Pole covered Alaskaand Canada completely, making a land passage impossible). If this entry date is correct, the Monte Verde find would indicate that the first settlers had to make the 12,000 -mile trip through two continents in only 1,000 years. In archaeological time, that's as fast as Marion Jones(地球上跑得最快的女人). 提出反对旧观点的理由:行走速度太快? One way to achieve this pace , however,would be by traveling along the Pacific coastlines of North and SouthAmerica in boats. 转折, F提出海路假说新观点Knut Fladmark, a professor of archaeology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC, first suggested this possibility in the 1970s and remains an advocate of a coastal entry into the Americas. If people had a reason to keep moving, he says, they could have traversed both continents in 100 years. 支持理由:速度符合Fladmark estimates that traveling at a rate of 200 miles a month would have been quite reasonable; the settlers no doubt stopped during winter months and probably stayed in some spots for a generation or so if the local resourceswere particularly tempting. Fladmark's theory, though enticing won't be easy to prove. 让步,提出缺陷Rising sea levels from the melting Ice Age glaciers in undated thousands of square miles along the Pacific coasts of both continents. Any early sites near the ocean that were inhabited before 13,000 years ago would now be deep underwater. 新观点的弱点Recently a few enterprising researchers have attempted to dredge挖出 up artifacts from below the Pacific. In 1997, for example, Daryl Fedje, an archaeologist with Parks Canada (which runs that country's national parks system), led a team that pulled up a small stone tool from 160 feet underwater just off the coast of British Columbia. 提出证据证明新观点The single tool, which Fedje estimates to be around 10,200 years old, does establish that people once lived on the now submerged land but reveals little about the culture there. Excavating underwater sites might turn out to be the only way to prove when humans first arrived on this continent.提出对证据的质疑? And for many researchers this is still a very open question 因为证据力不足，海路说尚未定论, with answers ranging from 15,000 years ago to as far back as 50,000 years ago. When Fladmark first proposed the idea of a coastal migration, the entry date of 14,000 or 15,000 years ago was orthodoxy.公认的,持普遍赞同的
结论是有关F的新观点的开始时间点(14,000~15,000年前)是被普遍接受作者: wsywsywsy 时间: 2013-9-17 23:08
56. 古代人类的研究：
※ 主题思路：
原始人的思维成型于什么时候；新旧观点驳斥；
旧观点：大多数人认为人类智力发生在4W年前；
新观点：人类的智力远早于4W年前发展出来；
※ 引申：
认识阅读第二段的细节和对第一段内容的反驳；
第三段提出的结论；作者: wsywsywsy 时间: 2013-9-17 23:15
Recent discoveries in New World archaeology along with new scientific methods for analyzing data have led to new ideas regarding the origin of the first peoples of the Americas and their time of arrival.
The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an "ice-free corridor" between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.
There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.
If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.
So far scientists have found no technological affinities to relate Clovis to the Asian Paleolithic. However, Europe may have possible lithic precursors to Clovis. The Solutrean culture of western Europe, dating between 24,000 and 16,500 years ago, shows a similar lithic technology to that used to produce Clovis tools. The two cultures also share bone-shaping techniques, pebble-decorating artistry, the unusual tradition of burying stone tools in caches filled with red ocher, and other traits.
In addition to archaeological research on ancient human sites, ancient skeletal remains show a range of physical attributes suggesting separate migrations of different populations of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) from Asia. The handful of human skeletons dated over 8,000 years ago show some regional variation, but as a group their skulls differ markedly from the broad faces, prominent cheekbones, and round cranial vaults that characterize modern–day American Indians. These ancient specimens have long and narrow cranial vaults with short and relatively gracile faces. Two examples are the 9,400-year-old Spirit Cave Man from Nevada and the most recently discovered 8.900-year-old Kennewick Man found in Washington State in 1996. Physical anthropologists see a greater similarity in these crania to certain Old World populations such as Polynesians, Europeans, and the Ainu of Japan. Only one early specimen, Wizards Beach Man, a Nevada skeleton dated to 9,200 years ago, falls within the range of variability of contemporary American Indians, an exception that requires further scientific validation. Crania with American Indian morphology appears by at least 7,000 years ago.
The similarity of the ancient crania to Polynesians suggests that one early source of migrants to the Americas was Asian circumpacific populations. These populations were succeeded in Asia by the recent expansion of modern Mongoloids (i.e., Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc.), and in America by the ancestors of recent Native Americans. Whether individual skeletons or specific early groups were directly related to later peoples is unknown. Early migrants may have been replaced through competition or changed through gene flow by later arrivals. At this time, scientists are not ruling out the possibility of a migration from Europe.
Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor.
Studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families, some consisting of a single isolated language. Further research is expected to reduce this number, but the degree of diversity is thought to have required tens of millennia to develop through a combination of immigration into the New World and diversification through the accumulation of normal linguistic changes through time. Claims that these languages descend from only three (or even fewer) separate linguistic stocks at a time depth of only a dozen millennia are regarded by most specialists as extremely unlikely. Newer proposals have explored deep structural affinities among American Indian languages with circum-Pacific Old World languages. Unraveling the linguistic history of the New World poses a highly complex set of problems that will be under investigation for years to come.
In summary, scientists are examining archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence to determine who the first Americans were, when they arrived in the New World, and what happened subsequently. New discoveries in one field of study can cause reinterpretations of evidence not only from the same field but also from other fields. There is no doubt that future discoveries and analyses, unbound from the Clovis limit, will shed more light on a changing picture of New World prehistory.
