14-36,000 Years Ago Winds Across North America From the East

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:55 am

Your suggestion of 'refugees' makes a lot more sense than any ideas of food shortages etc.

Unprovable, though. What evidence could one expect to find of a small scale power struggle within an HG band 20,000 years ago. I can see why scholars would prefer big ticket answers because one might actually expect to find evidence for climate change or starvation.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:06 am

Unfortunately so Min. But as far as I can see Homo had no need to move out of Africa for millions of years on the basis of food shortage. Look at the speed he moved down the coast of South America, I think we should give some credence to the possibility that he simply wished to 'see what was beyond the hill!'
As regards following migrating animal into N/A I find that unlikely as animals tend to migrate in what is in effect large circles dependent on the time of the year, so if man crossed from Asia following Caribou for example, he must have given up following them at some point and headed south.
Why again, I think there's more to this than food.

Roy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:44 am

It's an idea worth considering, Dig....and probably deserves its own thread.

Why do people move now? Why should we assume that their reasons for moving were any different 20,000+ years ago?

Climate change sounds reasonable to a point. However, as we watch the Sahara grow southward it is apparent that a lot of people sit there wondering what hit them. To be certain there are refugees but are they the result of climate change or the conflicts that inevitably seem to follow?

To restate the issue. Do people flee from a gradual threat or do they flee from an immediate threat? The Goths moved West because the Huns scared the shit out of them....not because of climate change.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 am

Do people flee from a gradual threat or do they flee from an immediate threat?

I would say immediate Min. In the past a threat may not even have been perceived until the Hun was knocking on your door.

Roy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:53 am

Yes, but can we apply that model to Africa 75,000 years ago?

HG bands do not generally seem to grow to the size needed to form a major military threat.

I've also got a problem with the "exploration" model. A person might have a desire to explore but whole groups? What kind of leader would strike off into the unknown with women and children unless he had to? Continuing the thought...could a group afford to have a few of its adult males set off on an expedition for any length of time? What happens to the group in the meantime?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:00 am

All good points Min but for generations young men have been doing just that.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country are young men.
In your country there was a shortage of women amongst immigrants as well.
Who knows?

Roy.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:11 am

Minimalist wrote: Do people flee from a gradual threat or do they flee from an immediate threat?

Action is reaction. So from a gradual threat people flee gradually, and from an immediate threat immediately...

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:13 am

Economic refugees looking for work, Dig. They are hardly advancing into new territory. I've got a bunch of them who trim my trees.

But, let's take the idea and run with it. One or two guys say, "we're going to explore the next valley to see what is there." Off they go and six months later they return and tell the chiefs all about it. Unless there was some compelling need, what is the likelihood that the chiefs would say "let's go there?" More likely, they'd say, "that's nice, but we have everything we need right here."

The trick is to identify that compelling need.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:14 am

So from a gradual threat people flee gradually,

Except in Chad and Darfur they sit there and try to farm sand... unless someone comes along and shoots an RPG at them. Then they get the message!

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:26 am

Minimalist wrote:
So from a gradual threat people flee gradually,
Except in Chad and Darfur they sit there and try to farm sand... unless someone comes along and shoots an RPG at them. Then they get the message!

Those that just sit there, just sit there. Those that don't, don't. You can't see those, because they aren't there. They left. Any idea about the giga numbers of refugees in neighboring countries and further afield? Millions! All in search of a safe haven. Those are NOT sitting in the sand, looking at the rubble, and wondering how to grow food on it. They pulled their finger out, took risks, grabbed opportunities. Thousands already walk the streets of Europe, for instance. They got there by adapting to the bewildering array of situations they found themselves in during their odyssee. And are better off now than their brethren that's still staring at the rubble...

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:33 am

Thousands are in Europe....millions remain. Humans have a great capacity for inertia.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:45 am

Minimalist wrote:Thousands are in Europe....millions remain. Humans have a great capacity for inertia.

The inert perish. The adapters don't. There are still millions awaiting the inevitable in the Darfurian rock deserts. There are also millions in neighboring countries. I'm under the impression they easily outnumber the former. If I'd have to gamble I'd say more than 60% left Darfur and Chad in the last decade alone.

E.P. Grondine · Post by **E.P. Grondine** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:54 am

Hi everyone -

An intense discussion.

The problem with this Solutrean - North Atlantic hypothesis is that the distribution of clovis starts from the south coast of North America:

http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/outline ... source.htm

My guess is that this "solutrean" technology came from coastal Africa via South America, as such a model provides the only explanation for the gross physical characteristics of the Yuchee and Ocanachee peoples (5 foot maximum male adult height, "unusual" eye color, hair different from other Native American peoples, etc. )

Then we have the small problem of the finds at Pedra Furada, Brazil.

My current estimate is that clovis technology spread was most likely along the Gulf coast at first, and then along mammoth and eastern bison migrations via salt licks from summer pasture to winter pasture and back.

We do have a North Atlantic passage at 8,350 BCE, Canadian Maritime Archaic, "Red Paint People", which can be dated by the die offs which may possibly have been caused by the introduction of European disease vectors, and the appearance of Dalton Maritime Archaic points, and the existence of the X mt DNA haplogroup in North America.

Just my opinion for now. I greatly enjoyed that image of the ice pack.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri May 08, 2009 11:02 am

Of this total, over two thirds are located in states east of the Mississippi River

Surely EP that would suggest colonisation from the east or north east?

Roy.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri May 08, 2009 11:18 am

E.P. Grondine wrote: [...] My guess is that this "solutrean" technology came from coastal Africa via South America, as such a model provides the only explanation for the gross physical characteristics of the Yuchee and Ocanachee peoples (5 foot maximum male adult height, "unusual" eye color, hair different from other Native American peoples, etc. )

(underscore mine)

"The only explanation"?
I think not. Afaik diet and healthcare play a large part in determining physical characteristics. North-western European caucasians are today on average fully 6 inches taller than their own great-grandparents only 100 years ago.
Medieval (and earlier) European males were on average just 5 feet tall. That is now 6 feet.