New twist on peopling the Americas

[Harte]

Actually, Australia may have been inhabited as early as 70,000 years ago.

Harte

[Hanslune]

That would depend on currents and prevailing winds at the time. I have not seen maps modeling it even though the do exist somewhere.

It would also depend from where in Asia they launched. If they island hopped the way colonial era explorers did their footprint would be hard to discern. Maybe I'll try to find a map of ocean current models from around the earliest known times for habitation.

Terry Hunt of University of Hawaii has worked on this, his latest paper on it was:

"High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia" (J. Wilmshurst, T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108:1815-1820.

http://www.pnas.org/...108/5/1815.full

Edited July 24, 2015 by Hanslune

[Leonardo]

That would depend on currents and prevailing winds at the time. I have not seen maps modeling it even though the do exist somewhere.

It would also depend from where in Asia they launched. If they island hopped the way colonial era explorers did their footprint would be hard to discern. Maybe I'll try to find a map of ocean current models from around the earliest known times for habitation.

From the genetic similarities we know from where they would have had to have migrated from, and roughly when that migration would have had to have occurred. There is no evidence for a Polynesian-Pacific migration so early as would have to be the case for the samples in South America to show genetic similarities to samples in the Andamans and Australasia, so any hypothesis suggesting a migration from that direction would have to figure it occurred directly from Australia (or perhaps PNG/Indonesia) leaving no sign of 'island-hopping'. I find this to be stretching credulity a little.

We know there are ocean currents and winds which could facilitate a migration from the west coast of Africa to the eastern/south-eastern seaboard of South America. It could even happen "serendipitously" without a conscious intent to navigate the Atlantic. It's still unlikely, but less unlikely imo than a migration across the Pacific leaving no sign of any island-hopping or any sites comparable in age in the west of the South American continent.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Leonardo

[Hanslune]

If the Polynesians did make it to SA (and I think they did but that is speculation and would have been fairly recently) but were overwhelmed by the size and military power of the cultures already there. If there is any hope of finding them it might lie in the island of the west coast of Chile. I believe they would have pushed on from EI at some point before they had chopped down all the trees that they knew about the local islands leads on to believe they kept paddling.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Hanslune

[Leonardo]

If the Polynesians did make it to SA (and I think they did but that is speculation) but were overwhelmed by the size and military power of the cultures already there. If there is any hope of finding them it might lie in the island of the west coast of Chile. I believe they would have pushed on from EI at some point before they had chopped down all the trees that they knew about the local islands leads on to believe they kept paddling.

It's quite possible that Polynesians did migrate to South America across the Pacific, Hans - just not in the timeframe being discussed which is, I believe, >20kybp.

[Hanslune]

It's quite possible that Polynesians did migrate to South America across the Pacific, Hans - just not in the timeframe being discussed which is, I believe, >20kybp.

Yes I meant to note that was a later possibility - I'll amend that

[Jarocal]

From the genetic similarities we know from where they would have had to have migrated from, and roughly when that migration would have had to have occurred. There is no evidence for a Polynesian-Pacific migration so early as would have to be the case for the samples in South America to show genetic similarities to samples in the Andamans and Australasia, so any hypothesis suggesting a migration from that direction would have to figure it occurred directly from Australia (or perhaps PNG/Indonesia) leaving no sign of 'island-hopping'. I find this to be stretching credulity a little.

Why would stop offs for fresh water maybe a few birds but not colonization stretch credulity?

We know there are ocean currents and winds which could facilitate a migration from the west coast of Africa to the eastern/south-eastern seaboard of South America. It could even happen "serendipitously" without a conscious intent to navigate the Atlantic. It's still unlikely, but less unlikely imo than a migration across the Pacific leaving no sign of any island-hopping or any sites comparable in age in the west of the South American continent.

I find light foot print island hopping more plausible than the closer genetic links to asia/Australia but the migration happened from Africa across the Atlantic even though we lack evidence of the same commonalities in west Africa. You would be talking about less than week long camps on shorelines now submerged. I do not discount transatlantic as possible I just see more likelihood on the Pacific side.

Unless you think they started in southern Asia and hugged the coastline along India and around the horn of Africa before getting into the current to pull them to S.A.

That would leave the same lack of evidence as a Pacific crossing.

[cormac mac airt]

Oh really? http://www.scienceda...41118104010.htm

Yes Hammerclaw, really.

And concerning Goodyear's claim in regards to plant remains and their usage in a hearth-like feature:

Source: Geoarchaeological investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Tree sites, Allendale County, South Carolina (2009)

cormac

[Hanslune]

Why would stop offs for fresh water maybe a few birds but not colonization stretch credulity?

I find light foot print island hopping more plausible than the closer genetic links to asia/Australia but the migration happened from Africa across the Atlantic even though we lack evidence of the same commonalities in west Africa. You would be talking about less than week long camps on shorelines now submerged. I do not discount transatlantic as possible I just see more likelihood on the Pacific side.

Unless you think they started in southern Asia and hugged the coastline along India and around the horn of Africa before getting into the current to pull them to S.A.

That would leave the same lack of evidence as a Pacific crossing.

Madagascar was first settled directly by people from SE Asia who left no intermediate colonies (that we know of)

[Jarocal]

Madagascar was first settled directly by people from SE Asia who left no intermediate colonies (that we know of)

Wonder how the genetic similarities match up between them and S.A.?

[PersonFromPorlock]

We know that the Africa - South America passage was possible because our primate cousins made it. Accidentally, of course, but it did happen. Humans would have been able to make it, too.

There are several Pacific Islands that are no farther from South America than Africa is, so that jump looks possible, too. If we date the (presumably raft-borne) Australians at 40KYA and the (presumably raft-borne) 'Asian' South Americans at 25KYA, that's 15,000 years of rafting and getting lost, which ought to be time enough to bump into a continent. A hundred raft loads of people perishing doesn't mean the hundred-and-first didn't make it.

All up in the air, but Beringia isn't the only possible route.

Edited July 24, 2015 by PersonFromPorlock

[Hanslune]

We know that the Africa - South America passage was possible because our primate cousins made it. Accidentally, of course, but it did happen. Humans would have been able to make it, too.

There are several Pacific Islands that are no farther from South America than Africa is, so that jump looks possible, too. If we date the (presumably raft-borne) Australians at 40KYA and the (presumably raft-borne) 'Asian' South Americans at 25KYA, that's 15,000 years of rafting and getting lost, which ought to be time enough to bump into a continent. A hundred raft loads of people perishing doesn't mean the hundred-and-first didn't make it.

All up in the air, but Beringia isn't the only possible route.

http://www.academia....o_the_New_World

The Monkeys made the 'trip' millions of years before man evolved, 20-30 million years ago. AFAIK

Paleogeography of the South Atlantic

The well-established phylogenetic relationships between these groups and African forms force acceptance of some kind of migration across the Atlantic Ocean. Many hypotheses have been put forward to account for this crossing, including floating island rafting, volcanic stepping-stone islands, and land bridges. Here we present paleogeographic reconstructions of the South Atlantic in order to re-evaluate the scenario in which such migration took place, modeling both continental drift and sea-floor thermal subsidence movements, while accounting for sea level changes. We analyse these data by bringing together evidence from the fossil record, estimated dates of phylogenetic divergence based on molecular data, geophysical modeling and paleocurrent estimates. Our reconstructions confirmed previous findings that reject complete land bridges between Africa and South America during the Cenozoic, but suggested the presence of islands of considerable size (>200km in length) in the South Atlantic. Other paleogeographic features that could eventually reduce migration distance are discussed. Our data indicated that the most favorable period for a possible migration was between 40 and 50 million years ago. This evidence, coupled with favorable westward paleo currents and paleo winds from Africa could have facilitated a transatlantic crossing via floating islands. Other organisms that seem to share the distributional patterns of platyrrhines and caviomorphs could also have dispersed between Africa and South America in this scenario.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Hanslune

[Leonardo]

Why would stop offs for fresh water maybe a few birds but not colonization stretch credulity?

Because why would ancient navigators, without any knowledge of a destination beyond the land they encounter, do such a thing?

I find light foot print island hopping more plausible than the closer genetic links to asia/Australia but the migration happened from Africa across the Atlantic even though we lack evidence of the same commonalities in west Africa. You would be talking about less than week long camps on shorelines now submerged. I do not discount transatlantic as possible I just see more likelihood on the Pacific side.

Unless you think they started in southern Asia and hugged the coastline along India and around the horn of Africa before getting into the current to pull them to S.A.

That would leave the same lack of evidence as a Pacific crossing.

The "island-hopping-with-no-footprint" hypothesis basically presumes those ancient navigators knew there was some "better land" just over the horizon, and only stopped to 'resupply'. This is making the mistake of importing modern knowledge into ancient behaviours.

As for the actual path of migration (as I said, perhaps unintentional), I propose it was almost directly across the Atlantic from the west coast of Africa using both the South Equatorial Current and the trade winds to land on what is now the coast of Brazil. As for why the current population of West (or south-west) Africa do not share the same genetic markers as 'Population Y', this can be explained in several scenarios, most possibly either by the complete displacement/eradication of a population by a new influx of migrants, or the natural extinction of the older population before the later migration by the ancestors of the current population. Indeed, it would seem this possibly happened in South America itself as the current population there does not carry any of the markers making 'Population Y' distinctive.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Leonardo

[kane9]

Shouldn't you fuse this thread with the Humans were in Eastern U.S. 18,000+ years ago?

Anyway, these conclusions are intriguing. Let me retype the interesting bits:

So, the timeline, according to them would be

1) population Y

2) Clovis

3) Na-Dene

4) Saqqaq/Dorset

5) Thule/Inuit

I agree with you. Mods this thread should be merged with people being in in the "New World" over 18,000 years ago. The particulars are yet to be worked yet but if the clock was to be wound back, I would think that SA was populated by a truly ancient population perhaps a remnant group 35,000 or older and related to Australin Aboringes. Later, what we would we call call modern Asians and West Europeans came to the Americas sometime around 25000 years ago.. An extinction event occurred, the same as happened as happened with the megafauna and that event has confused our understanding of history.

[toyomotor]

The only serious barrier preventing man's presence in New World being contemporaneous with his presence in Australia are the Clovis First die hards. The Pacific Rim was no doubt explored and colonized at roughly the same time but the evidence, for the most part, is long since submerged.

Not quite!

The first Australians were among the first to leave Africa and join the "Coastal Migration".

From the evidence available to date, the first Americans, who had further to travel and lingered for a few thousand years or more on Beringia, before turning south arrived "in country" much later.

Of course, more research and advances in technology are changing history every day, so it would not surprise me if the "Americans" were found to have arrived earlier than currently believed.

[toyomotor]

We know that the Africa - South America passage was possible because our primate cousins made it. Accidentally, of course, but it did happen. Humans would have been able to make it, too.

There are several Pacific Islands that are no farther from South America than Africa is, so that jump looks possible, too. If we date the (presumably raft-borne) Australians at 40KYA and the (presumably raft-borne) 'Asian' South Americans at 25KYA, that's 15,000 years of rafting and getting lost, which ought to be time enough to bump into a continent. A hundred raft loads of people perishing doesn't mean the hundred-and-first didn't make it.

All up in the air, but Beringia isn't the only possible route.

There is NO suggestion that the first Australians arrived by raft.

Science tells us that the seas were much lower during the period in question and that humans could have walked most of the way with very small water crossing involved.

[Hanslune]

There are several Pacific Islands that are no farther from South America than Africa is, so that jump looks possible, too. If we date the (presumably raft-borne) Australians at 40KYA and the (presumably raft-borne) 'Asian' South Americans at 25KYA, that's 15,000 years of rafting and getting lost, which ought to be time enough to bump into a continent. A hundred raft loads of people perishing doesn't mean the hundred-and-first didn't make it.

Missed this the first time

Africa at its closest point is 1,770 miles to SA, not counting some island in between. From Easter Island to to SA is 2,340 miles. Unfortunately the West coast African and mid Atlantic islands show no signs of colonization or visitation.

[+Hammerclaw]

It's quite possible that Polynesians did migrate to South America across the Pacific, Hans - just not in the timeframe being discussed which is, I believe, >20kybp.

In the Northern Hemisphere they would have had a solid coastline to follow by sea all the way to the Americas, never having to be out of sight of land.

[toyomotor]

In the Northern Hemisphere they would have had a solid coastline to follow by sea all the way to the Americas, never having to be out of sight of land.

As yet there is no indication that the first Americans arrived by sea.

[+Hammerclaw]

As yet there is no indication that the first Americans arrived by sea.

No, but it is inferred by the earlier dates that have been coming up. An ice-free land route was not available into the interior of North America at those times.

[Leonardo]

In the Northern Hemisphere they would have had a solid coastline to follow by sea all the way to the Americas, never having to be out of sight of land.

No, but it is inferred by the earlier dates that have been coming up. An ice-free land route was not available into the interior of North America at those times.

If such an early migration from the north-west was to be the case, then where are the sites in North America that are older than these proposed sites in the east of South America?

The "they were all coastal sites, so are now underwater" excuse won't cut it - else we would discover nothing in South America either (sites there would also all be submerged.)

Given the location and date-range of the alleged discoveries in South America, a migration from west-to-east or north-to-south can be discounted - unless new evidence is uncovered.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Leonardo

[Harte]

If such an early migration from the north-west was to be the case, then where are the sites in North America that are older than these proposed sites in the east of South America?

The "they were all coastal sites, so are now underwater" excuse won't cut it - else we would discover nothing in South America either (sites there would also all be submerged.)

I'm hypothesizing a series of fishing expeditions out of Beringia south along the coast. As they fished farther and farther, eventually they reached land not iced over.

Subsistence living along the coast would have left little evidence, though there are Pre-Clovis sites in the area (Oregon.)

I don't see why you say the sites being underwater today "won't cut it." If they were dependent on fishing, sites would be on the coast of the time. Any surviving evidence remains to be found.

After all, we can't pretend to have found much of anything as of yet, in either of the Americas.

The same question could be posed regarding the trans-Pacific migration hypothesis, where is the evidence on islands in the Pacific? Where is the evidence of the people on the west coast of South America? Do you think they sailed straight across the ocean, then decided to cross the Andes, leaving no trace on the coast?

Settling in South America could simply indicate that the fishing was particularly good there and eventually some people moved inland.

It's a much more logical hypothesis than a band of people striking out to cross an entire ocean without stopping along the way when they had no way of knowing whether or not that last land they passed would be the last land they ever see.

Harte

[Leonardo]

I'm hypothesizing a series of fishing expeditions out of Beringia south along the coast. As they fished farther and farther, eventually they reached land not iced over.

Subsistence living along the coast would have left little evidence, though there are Pre-Clovis sites in the area (Oregon.)

I don't see why you say the sites being underwater today "won't cut it."

Because the sites in South America exist, Harte.

If we are to postulate a people who had the time to settle inland, as the South American sites suggest, then we should expect to find sites in North America older than those in South America. If they were only shore-inhabiting people, then why wait until arriving in South America (presumably some centuries, if not a millenia or more, after arriving in the North) to move inland, and why do the older sites only appear in the east, not in the west?

We should expect to find inland sites in the south of North America, and possibly also Central America, that are as old as, if not older, than the alleged sites in eastern South America.

We do not, so I dismiss the hypothesis. Unless you can suggest some reasonable scenario where the migrants would wait until arriving in eastern South America before settling inland?

Afaik, the oldest sites in North America are tentatively dated between 16-18kybp, but [some of] the alleged South American discoveries exceed 20k years in age. This does not suggest a north-to-south migration.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Leonardo

[Jarocal]

Because the sites in South America exist, Harte.

If we are to postulate a people who had the time to settle inland, as the South American sites suggest, then we should expect to find sites in North America older than those in South America. If they were only shore-inhabiting people, then why wait until arriving in South America (presumably some centuries, if not a millenia or more, after arriving in the North) to move inland, and why do the older sites only appear in the east, not in the west?

We should expect to find inland sites in the south of North America, and possibly also Central America, that are as old as, if not older, than the alleged sites in eastern South America.

We do not, so I dismiss the hypothesis. Unless you can suggest some reasonable scenario where the migrants would wait until arriving in eastern South America before settling inland?

Afaik, the oldest sites in North America are tentatively dated between 16-18kybp, but [some of] the alleged South American discoveries exceed 20k years in age. This does not suggest a north-to-south migration.

So you accept a common genetic population Y from Africa that died out and left no traces but mobile bands of immigrants are expected to have shown evidence of settlements further inland than what was then the coast?

[Harte]

Because the sites in South America exist, Harte.

If we are to postulate a people who had the time to settle inland, as the South American sites suggest, then we should expect to find sites in North America older than those in South America. If they were only shore-inhabiting people, then why wait until arriving in South America (presumably some centuries, if not a millenia or more, after arriving in the North) to move inland, and why do the older sites only appear in the east, not in the west?

We should expect to find inland sites in the south of North America, and possibly also Central America, that are as old as, if not older, than the alleged sites in eastern South America.

We do not, so I dismiss the hypothesis. Unless you can suggest some reasonable scenario where the migrants would wait until arriving in eastern South America before settling inland?

Afaik, the oldest sites in North America are tentatively dated between 16-18kybp, but [some of] the alleged South American discoveries exceed 20k years in age. This does not suggest a north-to-south migration.

It makes more sense to me.

There is no evidence for either hypothesis, I'd point out.

And it should be easier to find evidence for the trans-Pacific hypothesis than the migration along the coast hypothesis.

With the absence of evidence for both, I pick the hypothesis that makes the most sense.

Harte