If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   It's looking more and more like the first humans to the Americas came by boat so they could kelp themselves to its resources   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2450 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2017 at 9:17 PM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-11-05 07:18:16 PM  
Is it too late to ban them?
 
2017-11-05 07:56:30 PM  
FTA: For decades, students were taught that the first people in the Americas were a group called the Clovis who walked over the Bering land bridge about 13,500 years ago.

Yeah, he'd clearly get winded walking to the kitchen, much less across the Aleutians.
cdn.cnn.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 08:10:47 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 09:19:15 PM  
Ahhhhh Ahhhhh ah ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
 
2017-11-05 09:25:06 PM  
Thanksgiving is back on, motherbiatches!
 
2017-11-05 09:26:00 PM  
I did nori that right. Thought it said help on the first go round.
 
2017-11-05 10:02:33 PM  
They couldn't keep their Bering Straight
 
2017-11-05 10:08:45 PM  
I spent a week on Santa Cruz in the Channel Islands working for the US Park Service. They told us there was some archeological work going on, but I had no idea it was among the oldest inhabited sites ever found in North American.

Nifty.

It will be super interesting if they find more submerged sites along the coast using ROVs and divers.
 
2017-11-05 11:03:44 PM  
they were just sending their senior citizens to retirement homes
 
2017-11-05 11:26:50 PM  
   Sid Meier was right all along.
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 12:10:34 AM  
"No one disputes that the Clovis peoples came through Beringia and the ice free corridor."

This is false. Many archaeologists now think the Clovis phenomenon was indigenous to North America. There are no Clovis tools in Alaska, and the tools that have been found there from about the right time period are totally different. If they weren't the first settlers of North America, there's really nothing to suggest that the Clovis people represent a separate migration from Siberia. They could just as easily be descendants of the original coastal settlers who adopted a very different subsistence strategy, based on intensive hunting of large game, in order to colonize the previously largely empty interior of the continent.
 
2017-11-06 12:13:27 AM  
jaytkay:
It will be super interesting if they find more submerged sites along the coast using ROVs and divers.

There was more coast, but some was ice. Difficulty: More Floriduh man or not?

nps.govView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 01:06:04 AM  

malaktaus: "No one disputes that the Clovis peoples came through Beringia and the ice free corridor."

This is false. Many archaeologists now think the Clovis phenomenon was indigenous to North America. There are no Clovis tools in Alaska, and the tools that have been found there from about the right time period are totally different. If they weren't the first settlers of North America, there's really nothing to suggest that the Clovis people represent a separate migration from Siberia. They could just as easily be descendants of the original coastal settlers who adopted a very different subsistence strategy, based on intensive hunting of large game, in order to colonize the previously largely empty interior of the continent.


I had thought the Clovis came by boat along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet and stayed in the southeast before being practically wiped out during the Younger Dryas. Or am I misinformed?
 
2017-11-06 01:35:51 AM  

LouisZepher: malaktaus: "No one disputes that the Clovis peoples came through Beringia and the ice free corridor."

This is false. Many archaeologists now think the Clovis phenomenon was indigenous to North America. There are no Clovis tools in Alaska, and the tools that have been found there from about the right time period are totally different. If they weren't the first settlers of North America, there's really nothing to suggest that the Clovis people represent a separate migration from Siberia. They could just as easily be descendants of the original coastal settlers who adopted a very different subsistence strategy, based on intensive hunting of large game, in order to colonize the previously largely empty interior of the continent.

I had thought the Clovis came by boat along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet and stayed in the southeast before being practically wiped out during the Younger Dryas. Or am I misinformed?


You're probably referring to the Solutrean hypothesis. In short, yes, you're misinformed. It generally isn't taken seriously, for a few reasons. For one thing, the Solutrean toolset hadn't been seen in about 5000 years when Clovis tools appeared, so where did the Solutreans go in the meantime? Then there's the question of whether a voyage along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet was at all possible, since it was certainly much harsher and more resource-poor than the Beringian and North American coasts. Furthermore, big game hunting in Europe and North America and life almost totally confined to a boat in Arctic waters are completely different lifestyles, so even if the same people did all three at different times, is there any likelihood that the tools they used for hunting would remain largely unchanged in the meantime, over the course of, probably, centuries? Isn't it more likely that they would use very different tools during their marine phase, and by the time they got to North America Solutrean tools would be completely forgotten, and they'd make something totally different?

They weren't necessarily practically wiped out by the Younger Dryas, either. It was presumably a difficult period for them, but mostly they just stopped making Clovis points. Partly that may have been because of the extinction of a lot of the largest animals- Folsom and other point types that developed after Clovis were generally smaller- but a lot of it was just probably natural fragmentation. Clovis points have been found in all the lower 48 states, and people weren't going to remain a single monolithic culture with virtually identical styles over such a broad area, at least not for long. Current dating suggests that Clovis tools were made for about 700 years, and even that may have been pushing it.
 
2017-11-06 03:26:44 AM  

malaktaus: LouisZepher: malaktaus: "No one disputes that the Clovis peoples came through Beringia and the ice free corridor."

This is false. Many archaeologists now think the Clovis phenomenon was indigenous to North America. There are no Clovis tools in Alaska, and the tools that have been found there from about the right time period are totally different. If they weren't the first settlers of North America, there's really nothing to suggest that the Clovis people represent a separate migration from Siberia. They could just as easily be descendants of the original coastal settlers who adopted a very different subsistence strategy, based on intensive hunting of large game, in order to colonize the previously largely empty interior of the continent.

I had thought the Clovis came by boat along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet and stayed in the southeast before being practically wiped out during the Younger Dryas. Or am I misinformed?

You're probably referring to the Solutrean hypothesis. In short, yes, you're misinformed. It generally isn't taken seriously, for a few reasons. For one thing, the Solutrean toolset hadn't been seen in about 5000 years when Clovis tools appeared, so where did the Solutreans go in the meantime? Then there's the question of whether a voyage along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet was at all possible, since it was certainly much harsher and more resource-poor than the Beringian and North American coasts. Furthermore, big game hunting in Europe and North America and life almost totally confined to a boat in Arctic waters are completely different lifestyles, so even if the same people did all three at different times, is there any likelihood that the tools they used for hunting would remain largely unchanged in the meantime, over the course of, probably, centuries? Isn't it more likely that they would use very different tools during their marine phase, and by the time they got to North America Solutrean tools would be completely forgotten, and they'd make something totally different?

They weren't necessarily practically wiped out by the Younger Dryas, either. It was presumably a difficult period for them, but mostly they just stopped making Clovis points. Partly that may have been because of the extinction of a lot of the largest animals- Folsom and other point types that developed after Clovis were generally smaller- but a lot of it was just probably natural fragmentation. Clovis points have been found in all the lower 48 states, and people weren't going to remain a single monolithic culture with virtually identical styles over such a broad area, at least not for long. Current dating suggests that Clovis tools were made for about 700 years, and even that may have been pushing it.


That was very informative, thank you for taking the time to be so concise.

As for your last paragraph, despite my misconception as to how they got here, I always wondered if they had changed the points because those that knew how to make that style died out and the survivors developed a new style. It's nice to know that, even if flawed, I had something along the right track.

Thanks again.
 
2017-11-06 04:43:58 AM  
Subby couldn't kelp his self.
 
2017-11-06 07:33:52 AM  
so if Im reading this all properly

north american indians have no claim to the land because we are all cousins
 
2017-11-06 08:09:58 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


He's right you know.
 
2017-11-06 09:31:23 AM  
Said this before and I'll say it again -- South America was colonized from the southern tip up.  The people down there even have genetic links and the same features as the Aboriginal in Australia.  That combined with landmasses below the Pacific ocean that are barely within the ability to be island chains during the ice age between Australia and South America that also go with the natural ocean currents makes my idea not that far fetched.  Plus one of the three oldest sites in all of the Americas is on its most southern tip.


img.fark.netView Full Size

Look up modern depth maps of that circled area and you'll find underwater mountain ranges that are barely within the range to be islands for one or two thousand years that coincidentally would have been exposed in the same timeframe the oldest sites are dated to as well as those being directly in the path of the Pacific current.  Circumstantial evidence, yep, but it makes sense and is extremely plausible (especially if one accounts for an ocean current going over the underwater mountains for 20,000ish years and the erosion that can cause).
 
2017-11-06 10:33:32 AM  
I just need to know the specific year we're using to set in stone all of the owners of various pieces of land around the world so I can adjust my moral outrage.
 
2017-11-06 12:28:19 PM  

MugzyBrown: I just need to know the specific year we're using to set in stone all of the owners of various pieces of land around the world so I can adjust my moral outrage.


Why? You were doing just fine without dates
 
2017-11-06 12:31:41 PM  
It sounds like even if they made use of boats, they still followed coastlines and did not embark on long voyages over open ocean, so the fact that Beringia was above water at the time still played an important role.

The oldest boat remains date back to around 8000 BCE, but the oldest known oceangoing boat is from 1500 BCE.
 
2017-11-06 12:50:42 PM  

flondrix: It sounds like even if they made use of boats, they still followed coastlines and did not embark on long voyages over open ocean, so the fact that Beringia was above water at the time still played an important role.

The oldest boat remains date back to around 8000 BCE, but the oldest known oceangoing boat is from 1500 BCE.


no duh, galleys can't enter ocean tiles
 
2017-11-06 01:47:52 PM  

malaktaus: "No one disputes that the Clovis peoples came through Beringia and the ice free corridor."

This is false. Many archaeologists now think the Clovis phenomenon was indigenous to North America. There are no Clovis tools in Alaska, and the tools that have been found there from about the right time period are totally different. If they weren't the first settlers of North America, there's really nothing to suggest that the Clovis people represent a separate migration from Siberia. They could just as easily be descendants of the original coastal settlers who adopted a very different subsistence strategy, based on intensive hunting of large game, in order to colonize the previously largely empty interior of the continent.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 02:05:02 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: flondrix: It sounds like even if they made use of boats, they still followed coastlines and did not embark on long voyages over open ocean, so the fact that Beringia was above water at the time still played an important role.

The oldest boat remains date back to around 8000 BCE, but the oldest known oceangoing boat is from 1500 BCE.

no duh, galleys can't enter ocean tiles


Unless you start as Polynesia. Hell, they don't need to research Embark, either.
 
2017-11-06 02:05:12 PM  
The Beringian theory was once clever because of the timing involved, based on what was the best available information back in the day, but it was never too plausible. At almost any point in human history since the invention of boats (probably 40-50 thousand years ago), if people could travel by water as well as by land . . . they went further, faster, sooner by water.

It's not a lock, but it's close enough that it takes overwhelming evidence to make land travel more likely. And while there was suggestive evidence for the Beringia theory, there was never overwhelming evidence for it.

I'm not saying there isn't disagreement about this, out there, but I am saying I think less of experts who are still clinging to Land Bridge First rhetoric.
 
2017-11-06 03:17:30 PM  

flondrix: It sounds like even if they made use of boats, they still followed coastlines and did not embark on long voyages over open ocean, so the fact that Beringia was above water at the time still played an important role.

The oldest boat remains date back to around 8000 BCE, but the oldest known oceangoing boat is from 1500 BCE.


But aboriginals arrived in Papua New Guinea/Australia 60,000 years ago and they didn't walk there. So boats existed quite a bit earlier we just haven't found any remains of them yet.
 
2017-11-06 03:24:46 PM  

RandomAxe: The Beringian theory was once clever because of the timing involved, based on what was the best available information back in the day, but it was never too plausible. At almost any point in human history since the invention of boats (probably 40-50 thousand years ago), if people could travel by water as well as by land . . . they went further, faster, sooner by water.

It's not a lock, but it's close enough that it takes overwhelming evidence to make land travel more likely. And while there was suggestive evidence for the Beringia theory, there was never overwhelming evidence for it.

I'm not saying there isn't disagreement about this, out there, but I am saying I think less of experts who are still clinging to Land Bridge First rhetoric.


I don't see how the coastal route theory--with or without canoes--really conflicts with the Beringian theory.  People followed the coastline, and since Asia and North America shared a single Pacific coast during the time Beringia was above sea level, that brought them from Asian to North America.
 
2017-11-06 03:33:56 PM  

flondrix: I don't see how the coastal route theory--with or without canoes--really conflicts with the Beringian theory.


It doesn't.
Previous theory was everybody came over through ice-free land corridor. Now we know about habitation all over the continents before the existence of the ice-free land corridor.

New theory is they came over in boats, along the edge of the Bering land & ice.
 
2017-11-06 03:43:14 PM  

steve_wmn: flondrix: It sounds like even if they made use of boats, they still followed coastlines and did not embark on long voyages over open ocean, so the fact that Beringia was above water at the time still played an important role.

The oldest boat remains date back to around 8000 BCE, but the oldest known oceangoing boat is from 1500 BCE.

But aboriginals arrived in Papua New Guinea/Australia 60,000 years ago and they didn't walk there. So boats existed quite a bit earlier we just haven't found any remains of them yet.


Remember that the world was different back then:
img.fark.netView Full Size
Without a scale, I don't know how wide the widest stretch of open ocean involved would be, but it was a lot less than it is now.

Pre-humans managed to get to Crete somehow.  Given a choice between pre-humans making boats without proper tools, or hominids somehow managing to "island hop" without boats...I'll let the anthropologists decide which is least unlikely.
 
2017-11-06 05:10:27 PM  
Given that artificial lakes can cause earthquakes, I wonder if same happened in areas flooded by melting water and distances between islands were smaller than depicted in maps above
 
2017-11-06 07:35:18 PM  

flondrix: Pre-humans managed to get to Crete somehow.  Given a choice between pre-humans making boats without proper tools, or hominids somehow managing to "island hop" without boats...I'll let the anthropologists decide which is least unlikely.


The more likely scenario is boats are a 100,000+ year-old technology that have been used by multiple hominids throughout the ages.  Supporting that line of thought is the oldest boat found is 8000-10000 years old while drawings of boats predate that by 2000 more years.

What a lot of people fail to account for are early boats were made out of 100% biodegradable materials and when they broke they became firewood or some other tool.  It wasn't like how in that past 100 years when you broke something you tossed it aside and went to the store to buy a new one...back then you used something until it didn't exist anymore (became too broke to repurpose so it became firewood).

The few boats that broke\sunk and are still intact are likely hundreds of feet off the coastline.  We'd have to figure out where the ancient coastlines are and then dive farther beyond that to find them.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report