Discovery casts doubt on Bering land bridge theory

Contra Costa Times ^ | July 30, 2003 | Allison Heinrichs

[NukeMan]

An archaeological site in Siberia, long thought to be the original jumping-off point for crossing the Bering land bridge into North America, is actually much younger than previously believed, shaking the theory that the first Americans migrated overland during the final cold snap of the last great ice age.

[SauronOfMordor]

Given that the Australian aborigines settled there around 50K BC, what's the big deal about assuming people from Siberia managed to cross over to Alaska at a fairly early time?

[Dog Gone]

Yeah, but how did they cross the Panama Canal?

[NukeMan]

"I don't see this at all. That's a diffusion rate of around 10 miles per year. Even non-nomadic people can achieve that"

Ever since I have been old enough to understand the meaning of the Bering Strait migration theory, I have turned over this very same question in my mind. There just doesn't seem to be enough information to answer it dispositively. 10 miles/year surely doesn't sound so tough, but why do it at all? And why was the migration primarily South vice Easterly expansion? We may never know because we cannot think like they did, and the motivation for a 'rapid' 10 miles/year (if indeed that is what it was) is forever beyond us. Frustrating.

[SauronOfMordor]

They would not only have had to be very nomadic but able to adapt to the multitude of changing climates (each containing a different mix of new plant and animal life) as they travelled from North to South America. That is a pretty tall order.

As Physicist pointed out, that's only 10 miles/year. We don't know what kind of poulation pressure would have impelled them to keep moving as new people crossed over behind them. If we assume a coastal fishing people, they could move their villages large distances without trouble and not caring that much about minor changes in climate

[Question_Assumptions]

When you move North to South, the climate changes are not minor. Jared Diamond wrote a book explaining some of the implications of West-to-East migration vs. North-to-South migration on cultures and civilizations. I'm sure that these problems are coastal, as well (e.g., if you hunt seals and use the skins to make boats, what do you do when the species you hunt stops?).

[SauronOfMordor]

And why was the migration primarily South vice Easterly expansion?

If they were fishers, they would have followed the coast southward

[B Knotts]

making it highly unlikely that people could have traversed the thousands of miles from Siberia in such a short period

Maybe they took I-5.

[blam]

"Given that the Australian aborigines settled there around 50K BC, what's the big deal about assuming people from Siberia managed to cross over to Alaska at a fairly early time?"

'First Americans Were Australian'

[genefromjersey]

Suggest to these same scientists the "Native Americans" might have started from here ,and migrated to Asia,and you will undoubtedly be treated to a long, cool silence...

[RightWhale]

the land bridge is mostly underwater

Even now the local residents go way out on the ice hunting. You can still cross from Alaska to Siberia on foot if you go on the ice, and it's not an easy trip, although you need permits. Another thing is why it would take 1000 years to go from top to bottom of the Americas. If somebody wanted to he could have walked all the way in a few months.

[Dog Gone]

Suggest to these same scientists the "Native Americans" might have started from here ,and migrated to Asia,and you will undoubtedly be treated to a long, cool silence...

Which would be deserved, I think. There's plenty of evidence of human settlement in Asia over many thousands of years. It's the evidence in the Americas that is spotty and recent.

That's not to say that there couldn't have been any groups migrating west, but it's pretty clear that the population here arrived from somewhere else. There was no evacuation from the Americas.

[genefromjersey]

Based on what evidence ?

[Dog Gone]

Where have Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon human remains been found? Surely, you've heard of them. Nothing remotely similar has ever been found in the western hemisphere.

If you're suggesting a theory contrary to established scientific thought, the burden is on you to provide the evidence. Asking a question isn't enough.

[genefromjersey]

Would Pennsylvania be close enough ?

[Dog Gone]

Sure. Tell me where in Pennsylvania those fossils have been located. I'm open to new ideas.

[HamiltonJay]

Nothing big deal about it all, just think article overstates the evidence.

[HamiltonJay]

Sure someone today could walk the americas, they know where they are going and what to expect.... however would a largely nomadic society just decide, hey, lets head south non stop? Not likely. The would expand as population and food and water demanded than simply head south young man...

I think 1000 years to spread out completely across americas is pretty darn fast given this sort of expansion and exploration pattern.

[RightWhale]

however would a largely nomadic society just decide, hey, lets head south non stop?

Of course. No question. Not the whole society. There are individual explorers in society. Even the animals have such. One lone person or polar bear takes off cross-country just to see what there is too see. Or maybe a single family unit.

Dad - We're going to the Amazon.

One day passes . . .

Kids - Are we there yet?

[HamiltonJay]

One person may have, but that one person would not have left much of an archialogical trail.. remember we're talking archeology here... when they say spread to the 4 corners it means society and civilization spread to the 4 corners, not just a "lone gunman".

[RightWhale]

We might also assume some societal organization. The explorers would report back with fantastic tales of great spots they had found and individual clans would indeed pick up and migrate. To end up with 50 million in the Amazon basin just 1000 to 500 years ago would indicate a fairly large movement of population. I would imagine that once they reached America, they would explore the whole place immediately. Should we accept that the few archaeological sites we know would give a true picture of the nature of the populating of America?