Time to scrap the idea that humans arrived in the Americas by land bridge

[Neo]

Bering Land Bridge fossils show a lifeless area until long after humans hit the Americas.



The standard story of how humans arrived in the Americas is that they marched 1,500km across the Bering Land Bridge, a now-vanished landmass between Siberia and Northern Canada that emerged roughly 15,000 years ago in the wake of the last ice age. But for the past decade, evidence has been piling up that humans arrived in the Americas by traveling in boats along the Pacific coast. Some 14,000-year-old campsites like Oregon's Paisley Caves have been found near rivers that meet the Pacific, suggesting that early humans came inland from the coast along these waterways. Now, a new study published in Nature provides more solid evidence the first humans to reach the Americas could not have come via the Bering Land Bridge.

A group of geoscientists, anthropologists, and biologists led a massive effort to study the environment on the Bering Land Bridge when humans were supposedly crossing it 15,000 years ago. They used a common method for sampling ancient environments called coring. Using hollow tubes, they drilled deep into the sediment at the bottom of two frozen lakes in British Columbia, looking for fossils of plant and animal life from the era when humans could have crossed the Land Bridge. They picked these two specific lakes—Charlie Lake and Spring Lake, to be exact—because they were in a region where the last remaining ice sheets melted. The very first humans to pass into the Americas would have had to cross through this area.

Carefully analyzing the layers of sediment, the researchers were able to determine what kind of life inhabited the region. Radiocarbon dating allowed them to recreate a timeline for the ancient ecosystem there, too. In their paper, the researchers write:

We obtained radiocarbon dates, pollen, macrofossils, and metagenomic DNA from lake sediment cores in a bottleneck portion of the corridor. We find evidence of steppe vegetation, bison, and mammoth by approximately 12.6 cal. kyr BP, followed by open forest, with evidence of moose and elk at about 11.5 cal. kyr BP, and boreal forest approximately 10 cal. kyr BP. Our findings reveal that the first Americans, whether Clovis or earlier groups in unglaciated North America before 12.6 cal. kyr BP, are unlikely to have travelled by this route into the Americas. However, later groups may have used this north–south passageway.

These quiet observations are essentially the death knell for the Bering Land Bridge hypothesis of how humans arrived in the Americas. We already have ample evidence of humans living throughout the Americas by 14,000 years ago. But Beringia, as the landmass is known, could not have supported a 1,500km human migration on foot until at least 12,500 years ago, when the area had enough animals and vegetation for the humans to use as food and shelter. Before 12,500 years ago, Beringia was largely a sterile landmass, still recovering from its millennia beneath the ice sheets.

Humans probably did take the Bering Land Bridge to the Americas after 12,500 years ago, but they would have arrived on a continent that was already populated with people who came along the Pacific coast thousands of years before. While it may sound improbable that humans could take boats along the coast from Asia, consider that humans arrived in Australia by boat, island hopping from Asia about 50,000 years ago. Boat technology is one of our most ancient inventions, and it would have worked admirably for people who were using the vessels to go short distances along the coast, carrying supplies. Considered in this light, humans reached the Americas partly because they had developed fairly sophisticated transportation technology. The first Americans were maritime peoples who came across the ocean rather than plodding across the land.

Nature, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nature19085

This post originated on Ars Technica

[thaimeme]

These associated theories have been alternative fashion for quite a time now, Rob...within these circles of study.

Especially when evidence of life and civilisations have been found in South America, thousands of years before the so-called land bridge hypothesis - turning the very well entrenched historical/archaeological establishment to be frightened of real unorthodoxy...


The more we think we know, the less we understand.

[can123]

The more we think we know, the less we understand.

Totally true. One has only to see the rantings of some muppets on this forum to realise this.

[Maanaam]

evidence of life and civilisations have been found in South America, thousands of years before the so-called land bridge hypothesis

Really? This is the first I've heard of that.
But the coastal theory is one that I have subscribed to for a while, and fits in with what you say.

As for the OP, it's nice to read of strong evidence.

[aging one]

Inuit and Siberian minorities seem to look so very much alike, and seem to practice the same life skills the further north you go.

[ENT]

Abos colonized South America first.

"Researchers found people belonging to the Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante peoples in the Amazon are more closely related to indigenous populations in Australasia than any other modern group."

Read more: Australian Aborigines may have colonised the Amazon | Daily Mail Online

[Cujo]

If the Australian Aboriginals had the maritime skills thousands of years ago to migrate to South America surely they would be world class seafarers by now but I am not aware of any seafaring aboriginals or vessels.
Maybe all the abos with maritime skills took their boats and went to South America and left the dumbasses behind.
It doesn't make sense to suggest Australian aboriginals were a seafaring people.

[Bettyboo]

^ or maybe, a seafaring group went to both South America and Australia then settled down?

The Native American Indians have many many similarities to the Mongols; not sure how the Mongols got there, but I'm pretty sure they did (stopping in places like Finland on the way); they didn't do much by way of sea, so you'd recon it was probably by land.

[Cujo]

If abos were a seafaring people thousands of years ago why aren't they world class seafarers and shipbuilders by now? I call BS on that. Someone's faking their research.

[FlyFree]

If abos were a seafaring people thousands of years ago why aren't they world class seafarers and shipbuilders by now?

Drugs, Sex and Didgeridoo. They lost interest.

[Cujo]

^ or maybe, a seafaring group went to both South America and Australia then settled down?

Which only raises the same question.
Your average abo sure doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to do things like build ships and navigate.
After 40,000 years living on a continent surrounded by sea they never even developed fishing vessels.

[ENT]

They got to the Oz mainland by boat.
They got to Tasmania and Kangaroo Island by boat.
Torres Straits Islanders are the seafaring Abos, Papuans are close cousins.

Cape York Abos disd coastal canoe runs up and down rhe Barrier Reef.

Lapita culture caucasian folk were based at Bismark Archipelago, PNG, from where they then supposedly migrated across the Pacific to Samoa and Tonga, more Abo DNA there.

Oz Aboriginies, Melanesians, Micronesians, Polynesians and S Americans all had a crack at crossing the big ditch.

[Cujo]

Show me a picture of a cape York abo coastal canoe.

[TheDukeofNewcastle]

It doesn't make sense to suggest Australian aboriginals were a seafaring people.

How the fuck do you think they got to Oz in the first place? Quantas?
When you arrive in the land of plenty, the largest continent on the planet, Why leave? They were a long time waiting for London bar jobs to come up.

[Gazza]

Especially when evidence of life and civilisations have been found in South America, thousands of years before the so-called land bridge hypothesis - turning the very well entrenched historical/archaeological establishment to be frightened of real unorthodoxy...

And there's evidence of those South American civilisations having been found in the North American mid-west areas. Mayan I think.

[thaimeme]

Especially when evidence of life and civilisations have been found in South America, thousands of years before the so-called land bridge hypothesis - turning the very well entrenched historical/archaeological establishment to be frightened of real unorthodoxy...

And there's evidence of those South American civilisations having been found in the North American mid-west areas. Mayan I think.

In fact, there are logical theories that suggest that the ancient Proto-Mayan originated from what is now the U.S. mid-west...



The civilisations of prior reference were the pre-Inca and others in the region.

[Cujo]

It doesn't make sense to suggest Australian aboriginals were a seafaring people.

How the fuck do you think they got to Oz in the first place? Quantas?
When you arrive in the land of plenty, the largest continent on the planet, Why leave? They were a long time waiting for London bar jobs to come up.

It's suspected that 40000 years ago that crossed a land bridge from PNG, and I never met an Abo outside Australia.
And what are you talking about 'why leave'? It's been suggested here that they went to South America, but my point is if they had the maritime technology and knowhow to get there why didn't they, considering its an island surrounded by sea, develop fishing vessels? There is no evidence they did.
Oh, and there's only on U in Qantus.

[crackerjack101]

I'm really, really sorry but I don't think I care.

[wasabi]

Once upon a time most continents that we know today where once joined up together .
So when South America embraced Australia , the folks where the same, then the lands floated away, dividing the people's.
Aboriginals didn't need boats, they just stood still in time and nature moved them on.

[Cujo]

Once upon a time most continents that we know today where once joined up together .
So when South America embraced Australia , the folks where the same, then the lands floated away, dividing the people's.
Aboriginals didn't need boats, they just stood still in time and nature moved them on.

And the rest of the peoples went on to develop civilisations, societies, cities and monuments while the Australian Aboriginals remained stood still in time as you say. I mean WTF? 40,000 years and the all they can come up with is the boomerang and the didgeridoo. Though admittedly the boomerang is pretty cool.

[wasabi]

Yes they stood still in time and time provided a new system of welfare and being cared for by the new settlers, they didn't have to invent anything , yet benefit from everybody else's .
It's given on a plate.

[Luigi]

Inuit and Siberian minorities seem to look so very much alike, and seem to practice the same life skills the further north you go.

As you go further North, they wear more clothes and adapt to living in snow and shit. this insight is simply groundbreaking.

My word. The mystery's been solved.

Well done Aging One.

[Luigi]

Once upon a time most continents that we know today where once joined up together .
So when South America embraced Australia , the folks where the same, then the lands floated away, dividing the people's.

Unless they're 175 million years old, which to be fair, some aboriginals appear to be, there's a slight flaw in that theory.

[Maanaam]

Oh, and there's only on U in Qantus.

To be fair, he spelled it with only one "u", but in fact there is no "u" in Qantas.

[Maanaam]

And the rest of the peoples went on to develop civilisations, societies, cities and monuments while the Australian Aboriginals remained stood still in time as you say. I mean WTF? 40,000 years and the all they can come up with is the boomerang and the didgeridoo. Though admittedly the boomerang is pretty cool.

There is a compelling idea that populations that developed technology were the ones that had beasts of burden from an early time. Agriculture, travel and hunting all became easier with domesticated animals, thus there was more wealth and time to spend on thinking and inventing. There were no animals suitable for domestication (in a beast of burden way) in Australia or the Pacific. Nor Africa, to a large extent.