pre clovis america

[Beagle]

Well Barracuda, I guess my thinking on that is that any group that made their living from the sea learned seafaring pretty quickly. Those groups may have been around for well over 50,000 years.

The Polynesian expansion seems to have occurred in a number of waves of exploration/expansion.

[john]

i'm leaning to coast and pack ice hopping, using vessels propelled by paddles rather than sails. far slower, but gets there all the same. outstanding point here is that none of the arctic peoples that i know of developed sailing vessels. haven't done the research, but as far as i know, sailing vessels only appeared on the n/s american horizon far, far, after the continents had been occupied. and the ancient aussies only had 50 miles of open water to cross. paddled vessels, again. also, food sources tend to concentrate along shorelines, which strengthens the argument for coast hopping as opposed to bluewater crossings.

john

[Minimalist]

I can see groups of hunters following marine mammals along a coastline.

What is somewhat more difficult to see is any mass migration carried out in such a manner.

[john]

I can see groups of hunters following marine mammals along a coastline.

What is somewhat more difficult to see is any mass migration carried out in such a manner.

you're exactly right.

point I. hunter-gatherers and no mass migration prior to - throw some noodles on the wall - about 9k bp. Prior to 9k scattered bands following a 50k old tradition. No population density to speak of, and a correlative lack of physical evidence.

point II. recession of the ice about 10k bp, allowing "mass land bridge migration" from russia/asia - 7k to 3k bp? By peoples at least partially versed in the neolithic tradition. Strong population growth, and a correlative increase in physical evidence.



john

[Minimalist]

Prior to 9k scattered bands following a 50k old tradition

What exactly do you mean by "tradition?"

[john]

Prior to 9k scattered bands following a 50k old tradition

What exactly do you mean by "tradition?"

well i could quote the aussie aboriginals, their "dreamtime", i.e. that you are so completely in synch with your environment, your life, that "time", as perceived by the western mind, doesn't exist. this concept is consistent in many, if not all aboriginal (hunter-gatherer) cultures.

so the difference here is the non-temporal continuum perceived by hunter-gatherers vs. the temporal (historical) construct created by modren man.

john

ps

read, i think its called, "the bicameral mind", by p. jaynes. first published in the sixties. some good insights there.

pps

what i'm striking at here is non-temporal tradition vs. "history". non-temporal tradition in aboriginal peoples seems to be incredibly strong and long-lived and accurate, whereas history seems, in general, to be (with a few exceptions) propaganda. further crippled by a linear ( historical) sense of time, rather than a non-linear (being) sense of time.

[Minimalist]

I don't know.....I sort of envision separate bands who would be far more likely to bash other bands in the head.

I just don't see anyone posting signs that say "Gone To America....Follow Us."

[grunabona246]

i think it's a reasonable assumption that most of the people who came to the new world in ancient times were male, thus limiting population growth severely for a very long time. most people who hunt and fish are male, even today. whether blown here by accident, or coming here as explorers, most of these males would have had limited opportunity to reproduce until a significant female population developed over time.

i'm relatively sure evidence will eventually be found of human occupation of both new world continents at least 50,000 years ago, probably more.

[Frank Harrist]

I think there was more likely to be whole families in the groups rather than mostly males. After all the males hunt to provide for the family and if they were on a different continent it would be difficult to get the food back to them. The males wouldn't just abandon them. Also the females did most of the gathering and processing of the meat. They would be an important part of the group and not a burden as some would see them. So there may have been more males than females, but there would also be a significant number of females, probably in the same proportions as the ones who didn't migrate to NA. The males couldn't survive wothout the females and vice versa. That's just my opinion, but it seems logical to me.

[Minimalist]

Given the high rates of childbirth mortality it seems likely that there would have to have been more women than men.

You've got two models here. One, that isolated hunting parties ended up here by accident and Two, that there was some intentional mass migration.

The first seems unlikely to have achieved the observed result of the populating of two continents.

The second seems unlikely for a lot of reason.

I wonder if there is a third option?

[Frank Harrist]

It was probably a combination of the two. Some got here by accident and when they finally found their way back they told others and then migrations started, on a small scale at first, but you know the monkey see monkey do way of people. Lots started coming eventually.

[stan]

Three or four small vessels carrying three or four families who banded together for mutual aid and self defense
(like a small village on boats.)
might have have been able to establish a population...with
sufficient gene pool.
Frank is right about the women. In virtually all amerindian
cultures, particularly the Inuit, they made the clothing, and of course took care of the babies. Cooking was not an issue early on, probably.

[Frank Harrist]

In most if not all NA cultures the women did everything except hunt and go to war. The men helped, at least among the Caddo, with the planting, after agriculture became common. Women were the herbalists, they gathered everything that wasn't meat. They processed/butcherd the meat on a big kill, like a bison. They tanned the hides and sewed the clothing, they wove the baskets and after pottery arrived they are the ones who made it. All this and they gave birth and tended to children. Them was some women there buddy!

[Frank Harrist]

BTW we're getting into my territory now that we are talking about NA cultures, so maybe I can contribute more than just jokes and wisecracks.

[Minimalist]

It was probably a combination of the two. Some got here by accident and when they finally found their way back they told others and then migrations started, on a small scale at first, but you know the monkey see monkey do way of people. Lots started coming eventually.

"Getting back" seems to be a shaky supposition. It's one thing to suggest that a group of hunters could have gotten caught up in the currents that sweep up along the Asian coast and head for Alaska....but those same currents would certainly complicate any attempt to return.

Further, assuming we are dealing with neolithic hunter/gatherer clans, who is to say that such a group could survive the loss of some of its hunters for any length of time. Even if they did AND the hunters got back AND the hunters found them....why would anyone say anything more than "that's nice...glad to have you back...have a piece of sea lion?"
People don't migrate for no good reason. The hunters would have to get back and do a selling job of monumental proportions.