Researchers posit new ideas about human migration from Asia to Americas

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ^ | October 25, 2007 | Andrea Lynn, Humanities Editor

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks decimon and indcons. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[Grimmy]

I heard a theory, long ago, probably on TV, so probably garbage, but it did seem to make sense to my uneducated self.

It went something like...

Boats. The earliest migrants to the Americas came across the water in the same kind of boats that are still made in the arctic cultures.

These were migratory peoples by custom. They originally settled along the coast all the way down the line. They were kept close to the coasts by both habit and by the megafauna. I believe one of the principle critters held responsible was the “God Bear”. A big huge monster of a bear that skeletal remains indicate could move very quickly and might have even been an endurance runner type.

It was only after something crunched the mega fauna that humans began to move away from the coasts.

I do wonder what would snuff the mega monsters but not the humans.

[colorado tanker]

It strikes me as curious that people would “pause” so far north during a glacial max and not move south toward warmer climes. Maybe it was the food. The Alaskan fisheries are among the most productive in the world. The megafauna was probably good too.

[norton]

You got all the way through “Guns, Germs, and Steel”?

I gagged on the guy's naivete before a third of the book.

[Fraxinus]

THe figures I have seen quoted were more on the order of 300-500ft, but if you look at blam's map you will see that while several of the island groups in the atlantic were once much more extensive, it was not the mid-Atlantic ridge.

It is also a minor peeve of mine that Archeologists have traditionally greatly discounted the possibility that humans could have followed the coast (not the interrior) around the Pacific. This area would likey have been very cold and very dry, thus not supporting much in they way of life (unless you ascribe to the theory of polar shift).

[SatinDoll]

“...several of the island groups in the atlantic were once much more extensive, (but) it was not the mid-Atlantic ridge.”

After posting the above, I thought you might find the following of interest:

“Proposing what is essentially...the ‘forebulge effect’ ...downward pressure on the continental landmasses of Northern Europe and North America during the Ice Age could, through isostatic compensation, have forced the mid-Atlantic Ridge upwards, perhaps far enough upwards to have elevated its highest peaks and plateaux above water for as long as 40,000 years before the ice-sheets went into meltdown.” (Underworld, by Graham Hancock, p.513)

The Azores Island group is part of a submerged plateau associated with the mid-Atlantic Ridge, and that plateau would most certainly have been above see level 15,000 years ago, and could even have still been above sea level as recently as 9,600 years ago.

Mind you, I’m not a cheerleader of either Graham Hancock or Jared Diamond, but both men are relentless researchers and have provided interesting facts for me to ponder.