Archaeologica.org

I think of it as more a "spreading" action than a migration. More and more people in an area made the ones on the fringes of that area move further out and evetually that meant moving to another continent. This may have taken several thousand years to even be noticeable. It's like dropping a drop of dye into water. It spreads out gradually until all the water is the same color. Diffusion, I believe it is called. That's how people spread out. It wasn't a conscious effort to colonize new territory. It just happened over time.

That idea works better for a sea borne movement in the south than a trek up north along the edge of a glacier.

So be it.

I see a several possible scenarios.

Small numbers of modern humans came to North and South America long before the Bering Land Bridge migration, and:

1. They were NOT successful in populating the continents, and were gone where other humans arrived via the Bering Land Bridge.

2. They were here in very small numbers when other humans arrived via the Bering Land Bridge, and were annihilated and/or assimilated by the new comers.

3. My supposition, very small numbers were quickly annihilated and/or assimilated in North America, but had more time to establish themselves in South America before the newcomers arrived. The new comers eventually dominated, but the original peoples were not totally eradicated, and there may be some genetic traces left.

i have to disagree with the majority, and maintain that few of the earliest humans to set foot in the new world would have been women. the way they got here was undoubtedly by boat, and most likely by accident. i doubt many women went out to fish or hunt on the open ocean, and storms would be the most likely cause of winding up on these shores, with slight chance of returning to your point of departure. my guess is some females also got here by chance, but not many.

even now, eskimo men generally do the hunting and fishing, for example.

The women got here somehow at some point or there never would have been a viable population. How? Mail order?

BTW: Have I ever mentioned that a guy from Northern California paddled a 18' by 24" kayak from here to Hawaii?

Needdless to say, he is an interesting character....

marduk wrote:http://www.answers.com/topic/emigration

You spell it your way and we'll spell it our way.

Barracuda wrote:BTW: Have I ever mentioned that a guy from Northern California paddled a 18' by 24" kayak from here to Hawaii?

Needdless to say, he is an interesting character....

You never mentioned that to me, 'Cuda, but it is pertinent to this thread. If one guy can do it alone then a group could accomplish it much more easily, seems to me. I don't know the prevailing currents in the pacific though.

marduk wrote:http://www.answers.com/topic/emigration

i know the difference between an emigrant and an immigrant. the people i'm talking about were not emigrants, as they did not intend to wind up here on new shores. far from it, in the vast majority of cases 50,000 or more years ago, i'm sure.

Frank Harrist wrote:The women got here somehow at some point or there never would have been a viable population. How? Mail order?

i allowed for small numbers of women being among those arriving by chance in the new world 50,000 or more years ago.

i would say large numbers of women emigrated here only after they could make the journey on foot.

Women then were not the delicate flowers we know today. They were tough and the men needed them around. Probably somewhere between what I proposed and what you, Gruna, proposed. Maybe not as many as in the regular family unit but a few, just for fun and to do all the work.

Frank Harrist wrote:Women then were not the delicate flowers we know today. They were tough and the men needed them around. Probably somewhere between what I proposed and what you, Gruna, proposed. Maybe not as many as in the regular family unit but a few, just for fun and to do all the work.

you are a brave man, or single.

Both!