<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">John W. (Jack) Ives</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sally Rice</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Language and Technological Thresholds in Na-Dene Prehistory</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nanaimo</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The interdisciplinary nature of the ice patch research in the southern Yukon suggests some additional interdisciplinary avenues of enquiry in Athapaskan language family history, with broad implications for the Na-Dene language stock. The ice patch finds come from an area that is well within the &quot;center of gravity&quot; for Na-Dene languages, no doubt falling within or near the proto-Athapaskan homeland. Through application of historical linguistic methods, we have well defined ideas for what the artifacts being recovered were called, when they were in use (such as *q'? for 'arrow' or *.th??? for 'bow'). This might be regarded merely as a curiosity, but the comparative lexical data that allows such historical reconstructions is exceedingly valuable in discerning how technological shifts played out against key episodes of linguistic divergence within Na-Dene. Here we examine the distribution of terms for weaponry and pottery in Na-Dene languages, and evaluate that information against the archaeological record. Use of either linguistic or archaeological data to the exclusion of the other results in misleading conclusions, with a far clearer picture emerging through consideration of both. Although adoption of the bow and arrow has figured prominently in some theories of Athapaskan expansion in western North America, it is clear that this technology did not play a causal role. Other, complex natural and cultural factors were at play.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>