TOEFL 통합 작문

📖 읽기 지문

The discovery of ancient human remains in the Arctic region has led to a controversial hypothesis: that a previously unknown population of humans, called the 'Arctic Ancestors,' migrated to the region as early as 30,000 years ago, much earlier than the accepted timeline of human entry into the Americas (around 15,000 years ago). Proponents of this theory cite three main pieces of evidence. First, stone tools found at a site in northern Alaska have been dated using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) to approximately 28,000 years ago, suggesting human presence. Second, a fragment of a rib bone, discovered in the same layer, yielded a mitochondrial DNA sequence that does not match any known Native American or Siberian population, implying a distinct lineage. Third, the presence of charcoal and butchered animal bones, including those of extinct mammoths, indicates that these early inhabitants hunted large game, which would have required sophisticated survival skills in a harsh environment. These findings, if valid, would overturn conventional models of peopling of the New World.

🎧 듣기 강의

The lecture challenges the reading's claim about an early Arctic population. First, the OSL dating of the stone tools is unreliable because OSL dates the last time sediments were exposed to sunlight, not the time when tools were made. The tools could have been buried and reworked by natural processes, such as rivers or glacial melt, leading to an overestimated age. Second, the mitochondrial DNA from the rib bone is highly questionable. The bone fragment was very small and may have been contaminated by modern DNA from researchers or soil bacteria. In fact, subsequent tests showed that the sequence closely matched a known modern Arctic animal, such as a caribou, not a human. Third, the charcoal and butchered bones do not necessarily indicate human hunting. Natural fires could have produced charcoal, and the bone breakage patterns are consistent with scavenging by carnivores, not with tool use. Furthermore, no cut marks were found on the bones. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to support the existence of an early Arctic human population.