[kingu]

I’ve never been a fan of the land bridge theory for human colonization of the Americas. But there seems to be a whole lot of people who are deeply invested in it.

Oceanic or coastal migration makes far more sense, especially for fishermen following their catch, vs trying to chase (possible) herd migrations in some of the most difficult terrain around.

[blam]

"Oceanic or coastal migration makes far more sense, especially for fishermen following their catch, vs trying to chase (possible) herd migrations in some of the most difficult terrain around."

I think they came every way possible.

[dirtboy]

I think both are possible. One does not exclude the other. Ancients would have persued whatever method suited their technology and skills.

[Fraxinus]

I favor the coastal route, with strings of campsites up the rivers. This would have allowed those living on the arctic steppe desert to access both the herds at choke points, aquatic resources, and the greater vegetation present near the rivers.

The people living near the river mouths would have had usable boats, even if I doubt that they could or would willingly travel more than 3 days by boat before camping on land. This is due to the ability to store potable water and average time between storms.

[lepton]

in some of the most difficult terrain around.

---

How difficult of a terrain were the lowlands? They’d have had a lot of silt on them, so more likely to be plains and low hills, yes?

[American in Israel]

In the dead of winter in cold years you can walk across the ice to Russia. No need to wait 10,000 years...