Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Discovery casts doubt on Bering land bridge theory
Contra Costa Times ^ | July 30, 2003 | Allison Heinrichs

Posted on 08/04/2003 12:50:12 PM PDT by NukeMan

Edited on 04/13/2004 3:31:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2003 12:50:14 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NukeMan; blam; vannrox
Looks like something you'd like to read....
2 posted on 08/04/2003 12:53:29 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Using radiocarbon dating, scientists found that the Ushki site, the remains of a community of hunters clustered around Ushki Lake in northeastern Russia, appears to be only about 13,000 years old, 4,000 years younger than originally thought.

OK so THIS site isn't old enough. Nothing in this discovery says they DIDN'T cross there 4,000 years earlier. All it shows is that this site is irrelevant to the debate.

3 posted on 08/04/2003 12:58:30 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
I don't get it. Just because the Siberian settlement wasn't the direct source of the human migration during the land bridge doesn't prove that the land bridge wasn't used by someone else.
4 posted on 08/04/2003 1:00:39 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Thanks. You are right. This is a very interesting and good read.
5 posted on 08/04/2003 1:03:47 PM PDT by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Thanks

The Diring Site in Siberia at 250,000 years old.

6 posted on 08/04/2003 1:06:00 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Calico: A 200,000 year old site in the Americas?
7 posted on 08/04/2003 1:09:02 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
"We have to think bigger now and start thinking outside the box."

Maybe they could paddle out of that box...


8 posted on 08/04/2003 1:09:12 PM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Given the fact the land bridge is mostly underwater, finding out one site is younger than believed doesn't rule out its existence or use... the "land bridge" was huge... not saying they didn't come in boats... but this hardly discredits the land bridge theory in and of itself.
9 posted on 08/04/2003 1:11:07 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
'Arlington Springs Woman', 13,000 Years Old Human Skeleton, California Island
10 posted on 08/04/2003 1:19:46 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; js1138
Ping!!
11 posted on 08/04/2003 1:23:43 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
I haven't read it yet, but Red Earth, White Lies is supposed to have a good refutation of the Bering Land Bridge theory.

ML/NJ

12 posted on 08/04/2003 1:34:09 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Exactly what are they carbon dating? Pieces of wood?
13 posted on 08/04/2003 1:38:32 PM PDT by skeeter (Fac ut vivas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan; Dog Gone; HamiltonJay
Yes, the newspaper title is a bit hyperbolic; I guess it's only natural to want to pump up the importance of the find. Presumably there may exist other undiscovered jumping-off points further away. I don't know how large the Ushki Lake site is - what is the boundary of land considered 'only' 13k years old and thus too young to support migration from that area?.
14 posted on 08/04/2003 1:39:05 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I just finished reading it. Well worth the effort. DeLoria's main criticism is the theory of Pleistocene megafauna extinction via native overhunting. He ripped that one up nicely. In the process, he outlined many of the problems concerning the Bering Strait Land Bridge theory of native origins. Highly recommended.
15 posted on 08/04/2003 1:44:03 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan; blam
blam has read more about this whole issue than I certainly have, and he's posted several articles about it in the past.

I really don't know. I think it's pretty clear that humans were relatively late arrivals to the Americas. Whether that was 13,000 years ago or 40,000 years ago is an interesting question. But it's more a matter of historical curiousity than determinitive of anything else.

16 posted on 08/04/2003 1:48:21 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
...said Michael Waters, co-author of the research that appeared last week in the journal Science. "We have to think bigger now and start thinking outside the box."

Start with different cliches.

17 posted on 08/04/2003 1:50:12 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
bump
18 posted on 08/04/2003 1:53:57 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
University of Kansas anthropological geneticist Michael Crawford said early humans probably could not have crossed the land bridge and traveled to New Mexico in 400 years. Reaching South America by foot within 1,000 years was even less likely.

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.

19 posted on 08/04/2003 1:58:45 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
But some archaeologists argue that due to the nomadic characteristics of America's first settlers, the seemingly difficult feat of traversing both North and South America in 1,000 years is not

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.

20 posted on 08/04/2003 1:59:32 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
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?
21 posted on 08/04/2003 2:18:59 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Yeah, but how did they cross the Panama Canal?
22 posted on 08/04/2003 2:19:28 PM PDT by Dog Gone (it was a joke, dammit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"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.
23 posted on 08/04/2003 2:22:52 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
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

24 posted on 08/04/2003 2:26:59 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
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?).
25 posted on 08/04/2003 2:33:06 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
And why was the migration primarily South vice Easterly expansion?

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

26 posted on 08/04/2003 2:34:18 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
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.

27 posted on 08/04/2003 2:34:22 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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?"

'First Americans Were Australian'

28 posted on 08/04/2003 3:32:21 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
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...
29 posted on 08/04/2003 4:06:53 PM PDT by genefromjersey (So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
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.

30 posted on 08/04/2003 4:15:13 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 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...

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.

31 posted on 08/04/2003 4:24:19 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Based on what evidence ?
32 posted on 08/04/2003 4:26:29 PM PDT by genefromjersey (So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
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.

33 posted on 08/04/2003 4:36:50 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Would Pennsylvania be close enough ?
34 posted on 08/04/2003 5:04:32 PM PDT by genefromjersey (So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
Sure. Tell me where in Pennsylvania those fossils have been located. I'm open to new ideas.
35 posted on 08/04/2003 5:28:36 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Nothing big deal about it all, just think article overstates the evidence.
36 posted on 08/04/2003 8:45:48 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
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.
37 posted on 08/04/2003 8:48:57 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
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?

38 posted on 08/05/2003 8:53:12 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
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".
39 posted on 08/05/2003 9:01:41 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
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?
40 posted on 08/05/2003 9:17:34 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
New evidence can always change what we know, however we do know this, tribes tend to grow to about 30 members, when they get above this size, new tribes branch off and form, and move away to set up new encampments not very far from the original territory in agregarian societies.

Nomads follow food, not exploration, moving with the animals they hunt migrating over distances through the seasons.

At this point there is no evidence that humans conquered the americas in weeks or decads. Could it have happened that way? Sure, but right now there isn't.

I think you may have misread something, the land bridge was believe crossed during last ice age about 10-15k years ago, if I am not mistaken, and once in the americas took about another 1000 years to spread throughout the land, that would mean that people were in the amazon 9000-14000 years ago... which is more than enough time to have millions of inhabitants in a tropical rain forest basin where food is plentiful and temperature is moderate.

41 posted on 08/05/2003 9:23:50 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
I think you may have misread something

Always. However, I do not believe the Bering land bridge was the primary means of access to America. Why trudge through endless miles of muskeg when you can paddle along at a much faster pace with a lot more provisions in a boat. If the aborigines, relatives of those in Australia, arrived 50,000 years ago, they would leave little sign of an archaeological nature. There is not enough data for more than a tentative timeline, although we are finally starting to dig in America and letting somebody else dig in Egypt, Babylon, and elsewhere, and should be ready for some assumption-exploding discoveries.

42 posted on 08/05/2003 9:39:49 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Yeah, but how did they cross the Panama Canal?

Simple, they just paid the toll at the Chinese owned bridge.

43 posted on 08/05/2003 9:47:52 AM PDT by ASA Vet ("Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know." (I'm in the Sgt Schultz group))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Have you ever seen what the land bridge was? It wasn't some thin strip ot muck. It was planes and massive, and allowed a coastal migration across to north america that we know was typical expansion used throughout the asian expansion.

It wasn't a one day, hey there is this little thin chunk of land spaning 50 miles, lets walk across. It was a very large piece of land that connected the continents and could have been slowly expanded over over thousands of years.... there was no route to paddle that was shorter than walking.... it extended half way across canadas northern border and from siberia all the way to china on the asian side.... the idea it was this little sliver and only 50 miles wide is not a correct assumption.

There was no, hey I stand on this shore I see the other shore, it was one large piece of land.. in fact if one was to sail from asia to the americas the trip would have been largely the same as it is today once you were far enough south to have ocean. Take a look at some photos here

44 posted on 08/05/2003 10:27:40 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Whoops, try this one...
45 posted on 08/05/2003 10:28:51 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
I don't know a lot about the Bering land bridge, except that I live on the Alaskan side of that structure. If conditions are the same now as they were then, no one but a few hunters and berry-pickers would venture much farther than this on land. By sea, they would go to all coastal areas all up and down North and South America and spread inland from there. But going on foot in interior Alaska and presumably on the Bering land bridge would be very tedious and slow in summer, and few would go anywhere at all in winter. Population would not spread outward from Alaska at all by land routes, not in 10,000 years.
46 posted on 08/05/2003 10:42:01 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
I guess I don't understand why everyone seems so partial to the land bridge theories. If the article is correct, there is no evidence to support the idea that the folks who settled Clovis came from Asia on land. While there may be other undiscovered sites on the Asian side, who cares? The land bridge theory has been cracking and flaking for awhile. Let it go.
47 posted on 08/05/2003 10:50:26 AM PDT by aBootes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The land was VASTLY different now than it was then.... take a look at the size of the bridge via the drawings, it wasn't some small pidly thin piece of land, it had plains and coastline and was a very large area.. sea levels were something like 400 feet lower then, which opened a LOT of land
48 posted on 08/05/2003 11:05:56 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
The land was VASTLY different now than it was then....

Not here. During the Ice Age, this land was ice-free just as now. Permafrost, muskeg, sabertooth, mammoth, muskox all still here, although the sabretooth and mammoth are subsurface now. It's the same, and you don't go far on foot in the summer. In the winter the Yukon River is a 12-lane superhighway. 12 thousand years ago the land route south was blocked. Still is, except for that gov't road.

49 posted on 08/05/2003 11:14:28 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
DNA testing of native Americans should offer clues to their ancestory ... isn't this avenue being explored?
50 posted on 08/05/2003 11:15:13 AM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson