Page 1 of 15
"Land Bridge" theory?
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:44 pm
by popelane24
Hi there. I was wondering if anyone can tell me a little more about what I read on here; that is, that the Bering Strait "land bridge" theory of how the first Americans got here isn't sounding so good... (cant remember where I read it). The peopling of the Americas is a fascinating topic.
What are some of the other theories? Boats, I suppose? Ice?
I wonder....
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:04 pm
by Minimalist
Even better than how they got here are the two questions of:
When did they get here and from which direction did they come?
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:30 am
by Charlie Hatchett
What are some of the other theories? Boats, I suppose? Ice?
I think boats and skirting the ice are both plausible.
When did they get here and from which direction did they come?
Those are definitely the big questions. Erectus and Atlantic for early migrations? Later, Solutrean and Atlantic? Land bridge and Pacific for even later migrations?
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:08 am
by Digit
The 'official' line, based on evidence of some age, is that Mongoloid peoples trekked across the land bridge on foot following migrating herds. Once into America apparently they followed an ice free corridor southwards and spread ultimately throughout the continent.
Although we mock the 'club' that scenario is based on the best evidence at the time, unfortunately it became solidified into dogma.
Though reluctant to change opinion is now beginning to swing to the fact that DNA shows that the eastern seaboard of the US was colonised from Europe during the last ice age and that South America possibly from the north, possibly not.
There is strong evidence that the Chinese may have been familiar with the US west coast, pre Colombus, but no evidence, as yet, that they attempted colonisation.
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:39 pm
by Manystones
with reference to DNA ...
Mitochondrial haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North Americans
Ripan S. Malhi, Brian M. Kemp, Jason A. Eshleman, Jerome Cybulski,
David Glenn Smith, Scott Cousins and Harold Harry
Journal of Archaeological Science
Volume 34 (2007) 642-648
ABSTRACT: We analyzed two mid-Holocene (5000 years before present)
individuals from North America that belong to mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) haplogroup M, a common type found in East Asia, but one that
has never before been reported in ancient or living indigenous
populations in the Americas. This study provides evidence that the
founding migrants of the Americas exhibited greater genetic diversity
than previously recognized, prompting us to reconsider the widely
accepted five-founder model that posits that the Americas were
colonized by only five founding mtDNA lineages. Additional genetic
studies of prehistoric remains in the Americas are likely to reveal
important insights into the early population history of Native
Americans. However, the usefulness of this information will be
tempered by the ability of researchers to distinguish novel founding
lineages from contamination and, as such, we recommend strategies to
successfully accomplish this goal.
The 2 individuals were found in the same burial at China Lake, British Columbia and both individuals belonged to haplogroup M.
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:38 pm
by Digit
The plot thickens! But such events are not unlikely given the way that winds and current circle the Atlantic and Pacific and the length of the eastern and western seaboards of the US.
The Spaniards are known to have visited Japan on a regular basis after colonising the Philipines in the 16th century, and they found that sailing back wasn't feasible, and so completed the the circuit of the Pacific down the eastern seaboard of the US. But occasional visits, to perhaps bury any dead, for example, don't amount to colonisation.
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:21 pm
by Barracuda
Which is not the same as disputing the theory that ancient peoples came over from Asia on the land bridge, but just to dispute that that was the ONLY way they came to this Continent
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:37 pm
by Digit
Untill we have a great deal more DNA evidence it is not unreasonable that many attempts, both successful and unsuccessful, were attempted.
It's often ignored by researchers that colonisation of America would have been easier for 'primative' man to accomplish than his more 'advanced' successors.
Stone age man would have had more experience of living off the land with the most basic of equipment and would also have had all he needed when he made land fall.
No need for iron or steel, no need for bricks and mortar, no need for domesticated animals, he had a better chance than the founding fathers.
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:52 pm
by stan
he had a better chance than the founding fathers.
That's a good point, Roy. They know how to survive, particularly along
the coast, which I think was probably a major route of migration on the western side, maybe aided by small boats at some point.
BTW, when we say "founding fathers" here, we mean the guys that
drew up and signed the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, 1776-1783.
I suppose I use the words "settlers" or "colonists" for earlier immigrants who stayed. In any case, what you say is true. The Indians did help the early colonists quite a bit with agriculture.
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:06 pm
by Digit
Thanks for the correction Stan, I've been under the belief that the 'Founding Fathers' was a referrence to the earliest colonists for half a century.
It seems starnge to me that people think that early man couldn't do what was achieved later. People coming over the land bridge wouldn't even know they had crossed over form one continent to another, and to say they couldn't do it by sea I think is erroneous.
Can't remember the details but some time after WW2 a Frenchmen determined that the Atlantic could be crossed without supplies.
He had a theory that sea water could be drunk if you drank it before you dehydrated. If I remember correctly he made land fall in the new world in a couple of months, alive and well.
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:58 pm
by stan
popelane24, where are you?
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:18 pm
by Minimalist
Bosnia?
Hunting for pyramids?
Bering Land Bridge
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:54 am
by Cognito
The Bering Land Bridge "Theory" was promulgated by the same individual who believed Native Americans entered the western hemisphere 3,000bce. This is how the myth started about 1900:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_anti ... esoamerica
It bothers me to no end that modern anthropologists more than a century later believe the same crap. Hrdlicka wasn't in the ballpark with his dates so wouldn't you think he might be in error regarding his "theory"?
Besides, many American tribes' emergence myths tell otherwise. For example, the Hopi came by water and island hopped. As shown on this site previously and elsewhere there are currents that people could ride from Asia to the Americas ... and just follow the migrating food. There are currents from Africa also. It wasn't so difficult.
Here I am
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:04 am
by popelane24
Hey guys sorry I couldnt get back on here I dont have a computer of my own til January.... Im gonna research this one a bit more before I get back on. Thanks for all your replys!
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:10 am
by Digit
You're wasting your time Cog! Eastern north America was colonised from Wales, if you don't believe me ask my neighbours!
What you said about currents is quite correct of course, and according to local stories Prince Madoc sailed from north Wales and reached the continental US. In those days the Great Auk was common and vanished over the western horizon each spring to return in the fall accompanied by youngsters.
A BSc would not be necessary to work out from that there must be land to the west, and as the Auk was edible, a constant supply of food was readily available for sailing in both directions.