The adoption of pottery on Kodiak Island: Insights from organic residue analysis

Pottery technology, originating in Northeast Asia, appeared in Alaska some 2800 years ago. It spread swiftly along Alaska’s coastline but was not adopted on Kodiak Island until around 500 cal BP, as part of the Koniag tradition. While in the southeast pottery was used extensively, people on the northern half of the island did not adopt the technology. What drove these patterns of adoption and non-adoption on Kodiak Island? To better understand the role of ceramic technology in the Koniag tradition we used organic residue analysis to investigate pottery function. Results indicate that pottery was used to process aquatic resources, including anadromous fish, but especially marine species. Based on archaeological and ethnographic data, and spatial analysis of pottery distributions and function, we hypothesize that Koniag pottery was a tool inherent to the rendering of whale oil on the southeast coast of Kodiak Island, supporting previous suggestions by Knecht (1995) and Fitzhugh (2001). When viewed in the broader historical context of major technological and social transformations, we conclude that social identity and cultural boundaries may also have played a role in the delayed and partial adoption of pottery on Kodiak Island

Nunalleq, Stories from the Village of Our Ancestors:Co-designing a multivocal educational resource based on an archaeological excavation

This work was funded by the UK-based Arts and Humanities Research Council through grants (AH/K006029/1) and (AH/R014523/1), a University of Aberdeen IKEC Award with additional support for travel and subsistence from the University of Dundee, DJCAD Research Committee RS2 project funding. Thank you to the many people who contributed their support, knowledge, feedback, voices and faces throughout the project, this list includes members of the local community, colleagues, specialists, students, and volunteers. If we have missed out any names we apologize but know that your help was appreciated. Jimmy Anaver, John Anderson, Alice Bailey, Kieran Baxter, Pauline Beebe, Ellinor Berggren, Dawn Biddison, Joshua Branstetter, Brendan Body, Lise Bos, Michael Broderick, Sarah Brown, Crystal Carter, Joseph Carter, Lucy Carter, Sally Carter, Ben Charles, Mary Church, Willard Church, Daniele Clementi, Annie Cleveland, Emily Cleveland, Joshua Cleveland, Aron Crowell, Neil Curtis, Angie Demma, Annie Don, Julia Farley, Veronique Forbes, Patti Fredericks, Tricia Gillam, Sean Gleason, Sven Haakanson, Cheryl Heitman, Grace Hill, Diana Hunter, Joel Isaak, Warren Jones, Stephan Jones, Ana Jorge, Solveig Junglas, Melia Knecht, Rick Knecht, Erika Larsen, Paul Ledger, Jonathan Lim Soon, Amber Lincoln, Steve Luke, Francis Lukezic, Eva Malvich, Pauline Matthews, Roy Mark, Edouard Masson-MacLean, Julie Masson-MacLean, Mhairi Maxwell, Chuna Mcintyre, Drew Michael, Amanda Mina, Anna Mossolova, Carl Nicolai Jr, Chris Niskanen, Molly Odell, Tom Paxton, Lauren Phillips, Lucy Qin, Charlie Roberts, Chris Rowe, Rufus Rowe,Chris Rowland, John Rundall, Melissa Shaginoff, Monica Shah, Anna Sloan, Darryl Small Jr, John Smith, Mike Smith, Joey Sparaga, Hannah Strehlau, Dora Strunk, Larissa Strunk, Lonny Strunk, Larry Strunk, Robbie Strunk, Sandra Toloczko, Richard Vanderhoek, the Qanirtuuq Incorporated Board, the Quinhagak Dance Group and the staff at Kuinerrarmiut Elitnaurviat. We also extend our thanks to three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on our paper.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Peer substance use overestimation among French university students: a cross-sectional survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Normative misperceptions have been widely documented for alcohol use among U.S. college students. There is less research on other substances or European cultural contexts. This study explores which factors are associated with alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use misperceptions among French college students, focusing on substance use.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>12 classes of second-year college students (n = 731) in sociology, medicine, nursing or foreign language estimated the proportion of tobacco, cannabis, alcohol use and heavy episodic drinking among their peers and reported their own use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Peer substance use overestimation frequency was 84% for tobacco, 55% for cannabis, 37% for alcohol and 56% for heavy episodic drinking. Cannabis users (p = 0.006), alcohol (p = 0.003) and heavy episodic drinkers (p = 0.002), are more likely to overestimate the prevalence of use of these consumptions. Tobacco users are less likely to overestimate peer prevalence of smoking (p = 0.044). Women are more likely to overestimate tobacco (p < 0.001) and heavy episodic drinking (p = 0.007) prevalence. Students having already completed another substance use questionnaire were more likely to overestimate alcohol use prevalence (p = 0.012). Students exposed to cannabis prevention campaigns were more likely to overestimate cannabis (p = 0.018) and tobacco use (p = 0.022) prevalence. Other identified factors are class-level use prevalences and academic discipline.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Local interventions that focus on creating realistic perceptions of substance use prevalence could be considered for cannabis and alcohol prevention in French campuses.</p

Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in University or College students

Background Drinking is influenced by youth (mis)perceptions of how their peers drink. If misperceptions can be corrected, young people may drink less. Objectives To determine whether social norms feedback reduces alcohol misuse in university or college students. Search strategy Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Register of Trials; Central; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsyInfo; CINAHL (up to March 2008). Selection criteria RCT or cluster RCT that evaluate social normative intervention with no intervention, alcohol education leaflet or other non-normative feedback intervention Data collection and analysis 2/3 authors extracted data. Included studies were assessed against criteria indicated in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook version 5.0.0. Main results Twenty-two studies were included (7,275 participants). Alcohol related problems: Significant reduction with Web/computer feedback (WF) (SMD -0.31 95% Cl -0.59 to -0.02), three studies, 278 participants. No significant effect of mailed feedback (MF), individual face-to-face feedback (IFF) or group face-to-face feedback (GFF). Peak Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) : Significant reduction with WF (SMD -0.77 95% Cl -1.25 to -0.28), two studies, 198 participants. No significant effect of MF or IFF. Drinking Frequency: Significant reduction with WF (SMD -0.38 95% Cl -0.63 to -0.13), two studies, 243 participants and IFF (SMD -0.39 95% Cl -0.66 to -0.12), two studies, 217 participants. No significant effect of MF. Drinking Quantity: Significant reduction with WF (SMD -0.35 95% Cl -0.51 to -0.18), five studies, 556 participants and GFF (SMD -0.32 95% Cl -0.63 to -0.02) three studies, 173 participants. No significant effect of MF or IF. Binge drinking: Significant reduction with WF (SMD -0.47 95% Cl -0.92 to -0.03) one study, 80 participants, IFF (SMD -0.25 95% Cl -0.49 to -0.02) three studies, 278 participants and and GFF (SMD -0.38 95% Cl -0.62 to -0.14) four studies, 264 participants. No significant effect for MF. BAC: No significant effect of MF and IFF Drinking norms: Significant reduction with WF (SMD -0.75 95% Cl -0.98 to -0.52 ) three studies, 312 participants. Authors' conclusions WF and IFF are probably effective in reducing alcohol misuse. No direct comparisons of WF against IFF were found, but WF impacted across a broader set of outcomes and is less costly so therefore might be preferred. Significant effects were more apparent for short-term outcomes (up to three months). For mailed and group feedback, and social norms marketing campaigns, the results are on the whole not significant and therefore cannot be recommended

Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students.

To determine whether social norms interventions reduce alcohol-related negative consequences, alcohol misuse or alcohol consumption when compared with a control (ranging from assessment only/no intervention to other educational or psychosocial interventions) among university and college students. Search methods The following electronic databases were searched up to May 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (only to March 2008). Reference lists of included studies and review articles were manually searched. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials that compared a social normative intervention versus no intervention, alcohol education leaflet or other 'non-normative feedback' alcohol intervention and reported on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related problems in university or college students. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Each outcome was analysed by mode of delivery: mailed normative feedback (MF); Web/computer normative feedback (WF); individual face-to-face normative feedback (IFF); group face-to-face normative feedback (GFF); and normative marketing campaign (MC). Main results A total of 66 studies (43,125 participants) were included in the review, and 59 studies (40,951 participants) in the meta-analyses. Outcomes at 4+ months post intervention were of particular interest to assess when effects were sustained beyond the immediate short term. We have reported pooled effects across delivery modes only for those analyses for which heterogeneity across delivery modes is not substantial (I2 < 50%). Alcohol-related problems at 4+ months: IFF standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to -0.01 (participants = 1065; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 1.5 points in the 69-point alcohol problems scale score. No effects were found for WF or MF. Binge drinking at 4+ months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02 (participants = 11,292; studies = 16; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to 2.7% fewer binge drinkers if 30-day prevalence is 43.9%. Drinking quantity at 4+ months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05 (participants = 20,696; studies = 33; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a reduction of 0.9 drinks consumed each week, from a baseline of 13.7 drinks per week. Drinking frequency at 4+ months: WF SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05 (participants = 9456; studies = 9; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.19 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk; IFF SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.10 (participants = 1464; studies = 8; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.32 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk. No effects were found for GFF or MC. Estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at 4+ months: peak BAC results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 (participants = 7198; studies = 13; low quality of evidence), equivalent to a reduction in peak PAC from an average of 0.144% to 0.135%. No effects were found for typical BAC with IFF. Authors' conclusions The results of this review indicate that no substantive meaningful benefits are associated with social norms interventions for prevention of alcohol misuse among college/university students. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in this review, to be of relevance for policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings