Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings

Homework answers / question archive / Iroquoian culture which is one of the indigenous nations of Canada we have to profile their art culturally and historically, in a 1000 –1250 word essay, Chicago Manual of Style, double spaced and 12-point Times New Roman font

Iroquoian culture which is one of the indigenous nations of Canada we have to profile their art culturally and historically, in a 1000 –1250 word essay, Chicago Manual of Style, double spaced and 12-point Times New Roman font


Iroquoian culture which is one of the indigenous nations of Canada we have to profile their art culturally and historically, in a 1000 –1250 word essay, Chicago Manual of Style, double spaced and 12-point Times New Roman font. we will research the People’s artwork, history and culture utilizing academic resources. Research should include: how their art has changed over time, prominent artists from the Nation, and how their art contributes to or is influenced by their culture. I have attached 2 articles in pdf form that must be used for research purpose tutor is free to add any 1 more open source articles in order to meet the rubric criteria. Rubric Focus: Total Art history of the Indigenous Nation... How their culture contributes to their art... Prominent artists... Format/citation, spelling/grammar...


Linguistic Clues to Iroquoian Prehistory M I C H A E L A . S C H I L L A C I , Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, M1C 1A4, Canada. Email: C R A I G K O P R I S , Wa?dat Yano? hšetsih, Washington, DC, USA S Ø R E N W I C H M A N N , Leiden University Centre of Linguistics, The Netherlands, and Laboratory of Quantitative Linguistics, Kazan Federal University, Russia G E N E V I E V E D E W A R , Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Scarborough This paper employs a quantitative analysis of lexical data to generate a tree describing the historical relationships among Iroquoian languages. An alternative to glottochronology is used to estimate the timing of branching events within the tree. We estimate the homeland of the language family using lexical and geographic distance measures and then compare this estimate with homeland determinations in the literature. Our results suggest that Proto-Iroquoian dates to around 2624 bc, and that the Finger Lakes region of west-central New York is the most likely homeland. The results also revealed a strong relationship between linguistic dissimilarity and geographic distance, likely re?ecting the isolating effects of spatial separation on the magnitude of linguistic exchange. The timing of language divergences seems to coincide with important events observable in the archaeological record, including the ?rst evidence for the use of corn in New York and Ontario. The development of important Iroquoian cultural attributes such as the longhouse, matrilocal residence, and the intensi?cation of agriculture all coincide with a period which saw most of the internal language divergences. Key words: Iroquoian, archaeology, language, linguistics, ASJP Linguistic data have the potential to contribute in a unique way to our understanding of prehistory, both regionally and globally. In North America, there are numerous examples in the literature of linguistic data contributing to archaeological reconstructions of culture history (e.g., Davis 1959; Fiedel 1987, 1990, 1991; Ortman 2012). Most archaeological reconstructions of North American prehistory using linguistic data have relied on glottochronological estimates of language divergence based on the proportion of shared cognates, which are determined through analysis of sound correspondences, phonetic similarity, and semantic af?nity. We attempt here to contribute to the study of Iroquoian prehistory by estimating historical relationships among Iroquoian languages and the timing of their divergence through quantitative analyses of lexical data. In addition, we identify the regional homeland of the Iroquoian language family using geographic and lexical data. Although we explore possible temporal corresponSubmitted April 24, 2016; accepted October 25, 2016; published online July 21, 2017. Journal of Anthropological Research (Fall 2017). © 2017 by The University of New Mexico. All rights reserved. 0091-7710/2017/7303-0004$10.00 448 LINGUISTIC CLUES TO IROQUOIAN PREHISTORY | 449 dences between the timing of language divergence and important developments in Iroquoian prehistory as re?ected in the archaeological record, our objective is not to evaluate directly speci?c models regarding Iroquoian origins presented by archaeologists, nor is it our aim to tie speci?c archaeological cultures or traditions to Iroquoian protolanguages. Instead, our intention is to present a chronological and geographic context based on linguistic data that may inform archaeological inquiry. The origin of Iroquoian-speaking peoples has received considerable attention in the academic literature, particularly by archaeologists interested in linking archaeological cultures with Iroquoian ethnolinguistic identity. Most of the archaeological literature has focused on Northern Iroquoian origins and prehistory, rather than the entire language family. Until recently, two prevailing hypotheses regarding Northern Iroquoian origins have been put forward by archaeologists: (1) the migration hypothesis and (2) the in situ hypothesis. The speci?c details and historical development of these hypotheses have been reviewed thoroughly elsewhere (e.g., Birch 2015, Crawford and Smith 1996; Hart 2001; Martin 2008; Snow 1995; Trigger 1970; Warrick 2000; Williamson 2014). Brie?y, migration hypotheses place the origin of NorthernIroquoian-speaking peoples outside of New York and Ontario. Stothers (1977) placed their origins in the Midwestern United States, perhaps within the Hopewell cultures of the Middle Woodland period (300 bc–ad 500),1 whereas Snow (1995) suggested Northern Iroquoian origins could be found within the Clemson’s Island culture (ad 750– 1300) of central Pennsylvania (also see Snow 1996). In both of these scenarios, the migration from the south or southwest brought Northern-Iroquoian-speaking peoples to what is now New York, Ontario, and Quebec by the time of European contact. The in situ hypothesis, on the other hand, posits an autochthonous development of NorthernIroquoian-speaking populations in the southern Great Lakes region, including much of southern Ontario and western and central New York, as well as the shores of the St. Lawrence River near its western end. In New York, the timing of this development may have coincided with the emergence of the Late Woodland period (ca. ad 500– 1600), though deeper temporal roots in the Middle Woodland (ca. 300 bc–ad 500), or even Late Archaic (4000–1000 bc) periods has been suggested (e.g., Wright 1984). In Ontario, this in situ development coincides with the earliest appearance of maize (Crawford and Smith 1996) associated with the Princess Point complex (ad 500– 1000) of the initial Late Woodland period of southern Ontario. Although not well described in the literature for either the in situ or migration hypotheses, the origins of Southern Iroquoian (Cherokee) and the Tuscarora-Nottoway-Meherrin linguistic groupings would be attributable either to separate migrations to the southeastern United States at some point in prehistory, assuming the in situ model, or might have been surviving representatives of an earlier, larger distribution of Proto-Iroquoian and/or Proto– Northern Iroquoian speakers, with a possibility of multiple migratory events within the same general geographic domain. This latter scenario presents the possibility of an Iroquoian homeland to the south of present-day Northern-Iroquoian-speaking groups, perhaps within the central Appalachian region. 450 | JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH FALL 2017 Although the debate regarding the origins of Iroquoian-speaking peoples as a collective ethnolinguistic entity continues, the current discourse on Iroquoian prehistory recognizes that the historical process of Iroquoian ethnogenesis was likely complex and heterogeneous (Birch 2015:270). The use of ethnogenesis as a concept in archaeology recognizes that the development of a collective ethnic identity often comprises multiple intersecting components including shared biology, culture, language, and history. Data sets relating to material culture, language, and genetic relationships, however, may not overlap or provide similar temporal and geographic patterning (see Chrisomalis and Trigger 2004). This re?ects the fact that biological populations and their culture and languages do not always develop, or evolve, as bounded ethnic packages (Ortman 2012:2–3; also see Bateman et al. 1990; Campbell 2015). Similarly, shared cultures and languages do not necessarily develop or evolve in the same way among populations through time. For example, Snow (2009:9) has pointed out that the overall continuity of a language over time is often better than linguistic continuity of a given speech community, assuming multiple speech communities comprise that language. It is thus important not to confuse a language with the community that speaks it. As was recently asserted by Ortman (2012), the key to solving this puzzle may be to view all of these data sets separately and employ methods that allow culture, language, genes, and people to derive from different sources, and change in different ways. Ethnogenesis, therefore, may sometimes involve multiple social and biological processes involving multiple peoples and cultures from different geographic regions (Ortman 2012; Schillaci and Bustard 2010). The process of ethnogenesis eventually leads to the development of cohesive and integrative cultural mechanisms, including rituals and various forms of social organization, as well as a collective identity. That process is likely dynamic and heterogeneous, involving both regional (in situ) and extraregional (migration) components. Also, as pointed out by Birch (2015:306), the process of Iroquoian ethnogenesis was not restricted to a speci?c event or point in time marking Iroquoian origins, but rather continued throughout the precontact and contact periods, with cultural change accelerating during periods of coalescence, migration, population expansion, and incorporation. Given the likely complex and heterogeneous nature of Iroquoian ethnogenesis, it is not surprising that recent attempts to identify Iroquoian ethnic groups archaeologically using ceramic design variation have been unsuccessful (Hart and Engelbrecht 2012). THE IROQUOIAN LANGUAGE FAMILY Nine languages currently comprise the Iroquoian language family of eastern North America, with an additional eight or more languages spoken at the time of European contact. These languages are divided into two main groupings: Southern Iroquoian, with Cherokee as its sole representative, and Northern Iroquoian, represented by Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, Wendat (Huron), Wyandot (Petun), and Tuscarora, as well as historical languages no longer spoken, such as Susquehannock, Nottoway, Meherrin, Neutral, Wenro, Erie, and the Laurentian languages (Hoche- LINGUISTIC CLUES TO IROQUOIAN PREHISTORY | 451 lagan, Stadaconan). Northern Iroquoian divides into two subgroups. The ?rst, which has been termed Coast Iroquoian by Kopris (2001), is made up of Tuscarora and two historically documented languages, Nottoway and Meherrin (Mithun 1984). The second, and largest, of these subgroupings, which has been referred to by Mithun (1984) as Lake Iroquoian, includes the Huronian languages currently represented by Wendat and Wyandot, and the languages of the Five Nations of New York represented by Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk. As pointed out by Mithun (1984), because the documentation of historical languages no longer spoken is fragmentary and incomplete, their position within the language group is uncertain. Nonetheless, the available evidence seems to indicate that Nottoway and Meherrin likely group with Tuscarora (Rudes 1981), while Susquehannock, Neutral, Wenro, Erie, and Laurentian fall within the Lake Iroquoian grouping (Mithun 1981, 1984). The structure of historical relationships among Iroquoian languages has been examined in a variety of ways, including counts of shared cognates (Blin-Lagarde 1972; Hoffman 1959; Julian 2010; Lounsbury 1961), measurements of mutual intelligibility (Hickerson et al. 1952), and the identi?cation of phonological and morphological innovations (Chafe and Foster 1981). With the exception of the analysis of phonological innovations by Chafe and Foster (1981), which differs only in its placement of Cayuga, all of these methods have produced a structure of historical relationships that re?ect the widely accepted groupings described in the previous paragraph (cf. Lounsbury 1978: ?g. 1; Mithun 1984: ?g. 15.2). Language trees generated using the percent shared cognates presented by Hoffman (1959) (based on 48 words), BlinLagarde (1972) (111 words from the Swadesh 200-word list), and Julian (2010) (Swadesh 100-word list) are largely similar (Figure 1). Accordingly, the numerical values for percent cognates shared for those languages common to all three studies (Table 1) are highly correlated, ranging from rs50.893 to rs50.952 (where rs is Spearman’s correlation coef?cient; for all three correlations, p

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

16.89 USD


Already member?

Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts