5 ms·

I've always felt like if there were other earlier migrations, since they necessarily would need to be coast and seafaring migrations (potentially no bridge or p

I've always felt like if there were other earlier migrations, since they necessarily would need to be coast and seafaring migrations (potentially no bridge or path through the glaciers to southern North America), then by definition all trace of those migrations and settlements would be almost entirely be lost because they are coastal cultures, at least initially. 400 feet is a lot of lost coastal area. So I've always felt very skeptical that the absence of earlier archeological sites proved anything.

curtis 10y ago
You're not alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_migration#Sea_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_migration#Sea_levels
acjohnson55 10y ago
I think most informed people share that skepticism. The entirety of the human story is probably many times more interesting than we know. But it's only scientifically responsible to include the well-attested facts in basic education. That said, I do think a permissive imagination can be key to being receptive to new facts that support surprising outcomes. The impact of speculation and philosophy on science is underrated, in my opinion.
hinkley 10y ago
Something just seems wrong about the timeline. Not the NA timeline, I mean the European timeline. We have seafarers reaching Australia 40,000 years ago. I don't think it should come as a shock that seafarers reach North America 24,000 years ago. Except that maybe we should keep digging because why did it take 16,000 more years? I think we may be labeling the Dawn of Civilization pretty badly when we have agriculture and intercontinental tribes debuting thousands or tens of thousands of years prior. Maybe the first inland civilization, sure.
- Arnt 10y ago
  The something you're looking for may be the ice age. Personally I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that humans reached Alaska either before or after the last ice age. But right in the middle? Strange timing.
  - patall 10y ago
    I heard the story [1] that when people where able to cross the bering street due to the lower sea level, they could not proceed from Alaska due to the massive ice shield and when the shield was gone, the bering street was closed again, a mechanism described to be similar to a revolving door. [1] Tim Flannery (2001), The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and its Peoples
    - Arnt 10y ago
      Yeah, I've read it too, but it's odd. It's more difficult to move on ice or water than on grass. Moving on grass is convenient. But ice and water aren't impossible, we know that people reached Greenland from the northwest and stayed there, and we know that people reached Australia and even Easter Island. Well-regarded books say strange things sometimes. Have you read Jared Diamond's Catastrophe? Its argument about why the Norwegians who moved to Greenland died presupposes that the technology that led to viking ships had nothing to do with fishing and, and states that Norwegians would rather hunger to death than eat fish.
      - InitialLastName 10y ago
        I think you mean Collapse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose...)? Do you have more rebuttal to that? I'm reading it at the moment, and I'm always looking for issues with JD's usually compelling arguments.
        Arnt 10y ago
        Yes, Collapse, sorry. No, I don't, really. Except that dried cod was a well-known foodstuff in Norway at the time, that's a recorded fact. Any argument that rests on Norwegians not eating cod is a poorly founded argument, no matter how well phrased. (http://nrksuper.no/super/files/2013/10/t%C3%B8rrfisk2-e1382344196288.jpg http://nrksuper.no/super/files/2013/10/t%C3%B8rrfisk2-e13823... is it. Tastes good, is light and doesn't require refrigeration. Smells though.)
- patall 10y ago
  Well, the seafarers reching Australia/Neuginea 40,000 years ago certainly had a much short distance to travel on the open sea. I can't find any good visualizations now but the difference between about 100 kilometers of open sea and multiple thousand is enormous. And going over the bering street wasn't that easy either like through the much harsher climate back then.
SiVal 10y ago
People can usually walk away faster than sea level can rise, so even if many of the piles of bones and pottery are now under water, the DNA of the inhabitants might not be. I'm hoping we'll soon be able to recover more of the early history of human migrations via DNA in living descendants. We're apparently getting closer to being able to do an entire human gene sequencing for about $100. A $100 million project over the next generation or so could get us the complete genomes of a million people. Donated genomes could increase that number significantly. With enough data and improvements in algorithms, ever more subtle "shadows" of ancient people will emerge. In addition, the ability to recover/reconstruct DNA from known archaeological sites will grow rapidly. The degradation of old DNA can be compensated for statistically, to some extent, by having many more samples. The number of samples will grow as the cost per sample falls, and the cost is plummeting. In other words, we may not have to find a lot of new sites to experience a rush of new discoveries in the very near future. I'm looking forward to it.
- vkou 10y ago
  Those people didn't die in a flood - instead, over thousands of years, they relocated their communities further inland. Unfortunately, this means that when we dig at a settlement, all we can hope to find is fairly recent artifacts. (As the old settlement is now underwater.)
  - SiVal 10y ago
    Those people didn't die in a flood - instead, over thousands of years, they relocated Yes, that's exactly what I said. They walked away from the coast as sea levels rose, taking their DNA with them.

curtis 10y ago

You're not alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_migration#Sea_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_migration#Sea_levels

acjohnson55 10y ago

I think most informed people share that skepticism. The entirety of the human story is probably many times more interesting than we know. But it's only scientifically responsible to include the well-attested facts in basic education. That said, I do think a permissive imagination can be key to being receptive to new facts that support surprising outcomes. The impact of speculation and philosophy on science is underrated, in my opinion.

hinkley 10y ago

Something just seems wrong about the timeline. Not the NA timeline, I mean the European timeline. We have seafarers reaching Australia 40,000 years ago. I don't think it should come as a shock that seafarers reach North America 24,000 years ago. Except that maybe we should keep digging because why did it take 16,000 more years? I think we may be labeling the Dawn of Civilization pretty badly when we have agriculture and intercontinental tribes debuting thousands or tens of thousands of years prior. Maybe the first inland civilization, sure.

Arnt 10y ago
The something you're looking for may be the ice age. Personally I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that humans reached Alaska either before or after the last ice age. But right in the middle? Strange timing.
- patall 10y ago
  I heard the story [1] that when people where able to cross the bering street due to the lower sea level, they could not proceed from Alaska due to the massive ice shield and when the shield was gone, the bering street was closed again, a mechanism described to be similar to a revolving door. [1] Tim Flannery (2001), The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and its Peoples
  - Arnt 10y ago
    Yeah, I've read it too, but it's odd. It's more difficult to move on ice or water than on grass. Moving on grass is convenient. But ice and water aren't impossible, we know that people reached Greenland from the northwest and stayed there, and we know that people reached Australia and even Easter Island. Well-regarded books say strange things sometimes. Have you read Jared Diamond's Catastrophe? Its argument about why the Norwegians who moved to Greenland died presupposes that the technology that led to viking ships had nothing to do with fishing and, and states that Norwegians would rather hunger to death than eat fish.
    - InitialLastName 10y ago
      I think you mean Collapse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose...)? Do you have more rebuttal to that? I'm reading it at the moment, and I'm always looking for issues with JD's usually compelling arguments.
      - Arnt 10y ago
        Yes, Collapse, sorry. No, I don't, really. Except that dried cod was a well-known foodstuff in Norway at the time, that's a recorded fact. Any argument that rests on Norwegians not eating cod is a poorly founded argument, no matter how well phrased. (http://nrksuper.no/super/files/2013/10/t%C3%B8rrfisk2-e1382344196288.jpg http://nrksuper.no/super/files/2013/10/t%C3%B8rrfisk2-e13823... is it. Tastes good, is light and doesn't require refrigeration. Smells though.)
patall 10y ago
Well, the seafarers reching Australia/Neuginea 40,000 years ago certainly had a much short distance to travel on the open sea. I can't find any good visualizations now but the difference between about 100 kilometers of open sea and multiple thousand is enormous. And going over the bering street wasn't that easy either like through the much harsher climate back then.

SiVal 10y ago

People can usually walk away faster than sea level can rise, so even if many of the piles of bones and pottery are now under water, the DNA of the inhabitants might not be. I'm hoping we'll soon be able to recover more of the early history of human migrations via DNA in living descendants. We're apparently getting closer to being able to do an entire human gene sequencing for about $100. A $100 million project over the next generation or so could get us the complete genomes of a million people. Donated genomes could increase that number significantly. With enough data and improvements in algorithms, ever more subtle "shadows" of ancient people will emerge. In addition, the ability to recover/reconstruct DNA from known archaeological sites will grow rapidly. The degradation of old DNA can be compensated for statistically, to some extent, by having many more samples. The number of samples will grow as the cost per sample falls, and the cost is plummeting. In other words, we may not have to find a lot of new sites to experience a rush of new discoveries in the very near future. I'm looking forward to it.

vkou 10y ago
Those people didn't die in a flood - instead, over thousands of years, they relocated their communities further inland. Unfortunately, this means that when we dig at a settlement, all we can hope to find is fairly recent artifacts. (As the old settlement is now underwater.)
- SiVal 10y ago
  Those people didn't die in a flood - instead, over thousands of years, they relocated Yes, that's exactly what I said. They walked away from the coast as sea levels rose, taking their DNA with them.