3 ms·

This is pretty cool. I'll admit that, until a few years ago, my knowledge of human migration to the Americas was very poor. Based on my American public school e

by baddox 10y ago

This is pretty cool. I'll admit that, until a few years ago, my knowledge of human migration to the Americas was very poor. Based on my American public school education (and personal naïveté and lack of curiosity), I just thought everyone came over on the Bering land bridge in one go, then gradually split into the various cultures that Europeans eventually encountered. Of course, things are more complicated than that, and there appears to be a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community regarding the precise chronology and source populations of migrations.

cc439 10y ago
The era of humanity's initial diaspora is truly fascinating. I'm particularly awed by just how quickly humans managed to colonize the Americas. By any account, humanity progressed from the just a few thousand people gaining their first footholds in the Americas to conquering the entirety of both continents with an established population numbering in the tens of millions in just ~10,000 or so years. The pace of expansion and growth is truly amazing considering how challenges posed by geography and nature. It's not that it's impossible for humans to branch off and establish new groups in previously unexplored regions, it's that establishing sustainable communities on virgin territory isn't a one-time affair. Think about how many failed attempts were made by the groups who conquered the vast deserts, mountain ranges, and rivers between their place of origin and their new homes. To successfully conquer two continents in such a short span of time is just insane in my mind whenever I stop and think about it. It's also funny to see how confused the efforts of archaeologists can be on this topic. This article cites the previous date of "earliest human presence" in North America as 14,000 BP while there has been well known evidence* available for years that humanity had spread as far south as Chile by that time. Obviously this discovery now makes the Monte Verde evidence far less controversial but the disconnect between the Canadian and Chilean researchers shows just how regional and siloed the study of the early America's can be. *Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
- jcranmer 10y ago
  > It's also funny to see how confused the efforts of archaeologists can be on this topic. This article cites the previous date of "earliest human presence" in North America as 14,000 BP while there has been well known evidence* available for years that humanity had spread as far south as Chile by that time. Obviously this discovery now makes the Monte Verde evidence far less controversial but the disconnect between the Canadian and Chilean researchers shows just how regional and siloed the study of the early America's can be. The date of 14000 BP would assume that the earliest migrations were essentially the Clovis culture, which is a theory that is generally considered thoroughly discredited by the archeological community and has been for several years. However, to the public, the Clovis-First, single-wave migration hypothesis is probably what they learned in school, and so every press release of a scientific find that further discredits this theory gets touted as "Earth-shattering evidence that everything we knew was wrong!"--despite the fact that this is far from the first evidence of the fact and even that the scientific community is largely unsurprised at this point.
jcranmer 10y ago
It's been long known to linguists that the Na-Dené and Eskimo-Aleut language families represent basically distinct migrations from the bulk of Native American languages. While Greenberg's lumping of everyone else into Amerind is very controversial, that there should exist such a clear gulf isn't. It seems pretty clear to most linguists that a three-migration model (perhaps more) is better supported by linguistic evidence than a one-migration model, particularly since the recent linking of Siberian languages to Na-Dené. I recall learning about Beringia "pause" hypotheses in high school, although coastal migration theories were still presented as niche alternative theories back then.
plandis 10y ago
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a decent introduction (at least the arguments were fairly compelling)
- baddox 10y ago
  I read that about five years ago! It's what made me realize how little I knew. Granted, there are apparently some big problems with the book (it's quite popular to hate on the book), which I accept, but I think I can still have enjoyed the heck out of it without treating it as gospel.
  - lambdaphagy 10y ago
    GG&S persuasively argues that human subpopulations spent a lot of time in very different environments. But what tends to happen to populations that spend thousands of generations in very different environments? Diamond is curiously silent on this point.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> there appears to be a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community regarding the precise chronology and source populations of migrations. Studied quite a bit of Antropology/Physical Anthropology in college and nearly every ancient migration is fought with a mix of facts and conjecture, theories and speculation. The most baffling I ran into was that of the South Pacific islands. The archaeological evidence doesn't support a neat and tidy expansion, but quite the opposite. You have evidence that cultures were popping up and then dying out without any distinct patterns to them at all. When you consider the distances between the islands and the isolation of the various archipelagos, it really makes your brain bend. My professor Jeffery Clark has done some fascinating work in the field: Archaeology in Oceania - http://www.academia.edu/1548763/Archaeology_in_Oceania http://www.academia.edu/1548763/Archaeology_in_Oceania

by baddox 10y ago

cc439 10y ago

The era of humanity's initial diaspora is truly fascinating. I'm particularly awed by just how quickly humans managed to colonize the Americas. By any account, humanity progressed from the just a few thousand people gaining their first footholds in the Americas to conquering the entirety of both continents with an established population numbering in the tens of millions in just ~10,000 or so years. The pace of expansion and growth is truly amazing considering how challenges posed by geography and nature. It's not that it's impossible for humans to branch off and establish new groups in previously unexplored regions, it's that establishing sustainable communities on virgin territory isn't a one-time affair. Think about how many failed attempts were made by the groups who conquered the vast deserts, mountain ranges, and rivers between their place of origin and their new homes. To successfully conquer two continents in such a short span of time is just insane in my mind whenever I stop and think about it. It's also funny to see how confused the efforts of archaeologists can be on this topic. This article cites the previous date of "earliest human presence" in North America as 14,000 BP while there has been well known evidence* available for years that humanity had spread as far south as Chile by that time. Obviously this discovery now makes the Monte Verde evidence far less controversial but the disconnect between the Canadian and Chilean researchers shows just how regional and siloed the study of the early America's can be. *Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde

jcranmer 10y ago
> It's also funny to see how confused the efforts of archaeologists can be on this topic. This article cites the previous date of "earliest human presence" in North America as 14,000 BP while there has been well known evidence* available for years that humanity had spread as far south as Chile by that time. Obviously this discovery now makes the Monte Verde evidence far less controversial but the disconnect between the Canadian and Chilean researchers shows just how regional and siloed the study of the early America's can be. The date of 14000 BP would assume that the earliest migrations were essentially the Clovis culture, which is a theory that is generally considered thoroughly discredited by the archeological community and has been for several years. However, to the public, the Clovis-First, single-wave migration hypothesis is probably what they learned in school, and so every press release of a scientific find that further discredits this theory gets touted as "Earth-shattering evidence that everything we knew was wrong!"--despite the fact that this is far from the first evidence of the fact and even that the scientific community is largely unsurprised at this point.

jcranmer 10y ago

It's been long known to linguists that the Na-Dené and Eskimo-Aleut language families represent basically distinct migrations from the bulk of Native American languages. While Greenberg's lumping of everyone else into Amerind is very controversial, that there should exist such a clear gulf isn't. It seems pretty clear to most linguists that a three-migration model (perhaps more) is better supported by linguistic evidence than a one-migration model, particularly since the recent linking of Siberian languages to Na-Dené. I recall learning about Beringia "pause" hypotheses in high school, although coastal migration theories were still presented as niche alternative theories back then.

plandis 10y ago

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a decent introduction (at least the arguments were fairly compelling)

baddox 10y ago
I read that about five years ago! It's what made me realize how little I knew. Granted, there are apparently some big problems with the book (it's quite popular to hate on the book), which I accept, but I think I can still have enjoyed the heck out of it without treating it as gospel.
- lambdaphagy 10y ago
  GG&S persuasively argues that human subpopulations spent a lot of time in very different environments. But what tends to happen to populations that spend thousands of generations in very different environments? Diamond is curiously silent on this point.

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> there appears to be a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community regarding the precise chronology and source populations of migrations. Studied quite a bit of Antropology/Physical Anthropology in college and nearly every ancient migration is fought with a mix of facts and conjecture, theories and speculation. The most baffling I ran into was that of the South Pacific islands. The archaeological evidence doesn't support a neat and tidy expansion, but quite the opposite. You have evidence that cultures were popping up and then dying out without any distinct patterns to them at all. When you consider the distances between the islands and the isolation of the various archipelagos, it really makes your brain bend. My professor Jeffery Clark has done some fascinating work in the field: Archaeology in Oceania - http://www.academia.edu/1548763/Archaeology_in_Oceania http://www.academia.edu/1548763/Archaeology_in_Oceania