As a social studies student I was taught the Bering Strait theory of migration as the origins of America's first settlers. As a college student I couldn't care less about pre-history due to my obsession with XX century history. As a regular history and geography teacher, I tried to simplify the theory for easy digestion. As your APWH teacher (and learner), I have read and reflect upon evidence (like Monte Verde, although not universally accepted by all historians), that pushes back the dating of the migration from Asia to the Americas, or what is called "Pre-Clovis sites." Remember that Clovis is the "accepted" archaeological site accepted by most historians that shows evidence of the first migratory waves to the Americas. However, in the article by Eliza Barclay for Nat Geo News (September 3, 2008), Oldest Skeleton in Americas Found in Underwater Cave?, the date of the first migrations is pushed back further. Another revolutionary detail is that the physiology of this “Eve of Naharon” resembles that of the inhabitants of the South Asia (see map in posting). Thus, if the dating holds true, inhabitants of North Asia weren’t the first to inhabit the Americas.
What’s my point? Well, I want you to REACT to the possibility that the first inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere may have not been the classic stepped or mountainous hunter-gatherer party that we imagine hunting through Alaska, but instead they were from a whole different region with its own geography, which implies an issue of migratory routes or movement. How did these people reach the Americas? Which of theories of migration patterns to the America’s is best supported by this finding?
Also, remember that Spodek says “In many respects, the cities of the western hemisphere still had one foot in the Stone Age. Urban societies evolved much later in the Americas. […] These processes were much slower than in the river-valley civilizations of Eurasia perhaps because humans arrived in the New World relatively recently.” If the “Eve of Naharon” finding establishes a new paradigm, will his assumption yet be substantiated or not?
23 comments:
After reading the article, this time before commenting without knowing, I had a mental breakthrough. The first time I learned about the theories of how humans got to the Americas, I was taught that the accepted and most reasonable way was that North Asian people crossed by land through a connecting piece from the Asian Continent to the North American one. This article pushes that date far more back than prevoiusly thought. Even more is the fact that at the time of the skeletons there was no link between the two continents. This means that there has to be another way for the humans to get to the continent of the Americas.
I believe that the migratory pattern that most fits this new finding is that humans might have arrived on boats, passing through all the islands until they got to the coast of present-day Mexico or present-day United States of America. If this paradigm is then accepted, with more inforamtion to back it up, then Spodek's statement can no longer be substatiated and will become part of history's changes, instead of history's continuities.
P.S. I really didn't want to do homework so I said to myself that this was homework and I wrote a lot to make the time pass.
The most logical theory in my scope has been the one about the Bering Strait. It falls logically to believe that settlement arrived in the Americas later when we see the dates in which civilization emerged in this region in relation to the Western Cultures.
I also find it a bit improbable that they crossed from South Asia to Mexico all through the Pacific ocean because this would have been to grand of a voyage. If the area of the Philippines and the other islands were the of the last to be populated imagine the thought of reaching a body of land that is much farther at this time in history.
post #2
hello fellow friends. Well, i had heard of something similar before (Prof. Katie i believe). It is known that the Chinese had already built huge vessels which where capable of crossing the pacific ocean long before the first people crossed the "connecting piece" as andy calls it but better known as the "Bering land bridge". This was before China closed its borders with he outside world. What I want to say with this, is that it is very possible that people could have crossed the pacific ocean doing island hopping (maybe looking for a new route around the world, as Columbus did many years later) and ended up in Mexico.
is what i wrote enough? or do i have to write as much as andy did? and will you take points off for irrelevant posts?
Very interesting reactions! The one fact that we have to consider (mentioned by Ceci here and explained by Spodek) is that the islands in Polynesia were the last places of the world to be populated by humans. In fact, we are talking about the last centuries BCE (I'm just ball-parking it).Thus, historians are timid about accepting alternative explanations to the population of the Americas. Yet the facts are there- Monte Verde, Chile, and now this site which requires a new explanation. Let's also consider the possibility of people like the Jomon (who fished in the treacherous Sea of Japan), navigating through the Pacific Ocean and possibly reaching America.
What do you think? Also, would this discovery really undermine Spodek's assumption about the cause for the late development of American civilizations?
Miguel, I believe you are scrambling prior knowledge unconsciously. Zheng He, the famous Muslim Chinese navigator that reached Africa and probably the Americas ( 1420's, shipwrecked Chinese Junkets have been found in South AMerica and California), indeed was first than Columbus but way later than the period in question which is the dawn of the last Ice Age, approximately 15,000 years ago. Be careful with those scrambles- I have suffered from them on the past :)
Wow, if these findings are accepted a lot of history books will have to be changed! This would mean that there were probably many hunter-gathering groups around the mexican and central american region, and it is (most likely) that from these groups, civilizations such as the mysterious Olmec and Zapotec emerged from.
Maybe gathering more information from these secent findings can give us more information on the Olmec and Zapotec, considering that relativly few is known about them. In addition, there are probably more uninvestigated cave sites around mexico that will continue to contradict the Beringia theory.
is what i wrote enough? and will you take points off for irrelevant posts?
P.S
VERY IMPORTANT: :p
Will you give us the ten percent of the blog grade based on what we wrote or if we wrote on each blog?
I believe the 10% is based on the fact that you wrote on the post or not. Of course, if it's totally irrelevant then you dont get any credit for your contribution to the post
Blog participation is based on a 10 pts. scale- first to post and most to participate gets 10/10. Those who post later get from 9-7, depending on the promptness and depth of argument. Those who don't participate will suffer!
As we all know North America and Asia were connected by a land bridge called Beringia caused by our most recent ice age. Historians have said that the first Americans arrived in 10,000 BCE from Asia when the ice age ended through the land bridge connecting Asia and North America. Since it is said that the first people in America came through Beringia when the ice age was ending (10,000 BCE) then to get walking all the way to Mexico should have taken them a pretty long time since from Alaska to Mexico is approximately 5,000 miles away. This history fact is already “smashed” because the finding of the oldest skeleton in the Americas, which is found in Mexico and is 13,600 years old, contradicts this fact. So the first people that arrived to the Americas were not from 10,000 BCE and didn’t came through Beringia. The most logical the first Americans arrived was by boats that came from Asia most likely doing island hoping they encountered the whole Pacific Ocean until getting to Mexico accidentally.
I think that these people HAVE to reached the America's by boat, but not necessarily through the Bering Strait. It is only logical seeing that 4 human skulls were found underwater in the Caribbean coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. They may have come from the west coast of Africa or from Asia. One thing that does cross my mind is that why did it take so long for Australia and its neighboring countries to be inhabited/developed? It seems completely illogical being that they are the closest to Asia and the America's...
This discovery will definitely change history if it is proved accurate because there may be a possibility that some of their culture is reflected amongst later American civilizations. This finding could be the key to unlocking the mysteries behind some civilizations of the America's that we know little about...
Sophie, it took so long because they possibly did not know that these lands even existed. And they also needed to have the necessary equipment to travel by sea which I am pretty sure was not something that you would just think of building in a day.
That's why it's difficult for me to picture that a group of people would wander around in the unknown and reach all the way from Asia to Central America. However, if the evidence presented is solid and it survives scientific scrutiny I moea than welcome this illuminating discovery.
sorry i can't write any comment for now but i have to study for ch4 test. I will later in the weekend but for now i'm just going to copy paste a peom i wrote, a while back because I think that it is some what connected to what we're talking about in class.
Hope you enjoy. (and comment on)
Will You be my Messenger?
Many full moons come and go, and I continue to live long.
My leaves, my branches fall, yet I live on.
Decades pass and I’m still at my spring youth.
But you my friend, your winter night is all to well in sight.
Your wrinkles bare all truth.
As a young one you came to me alone and emaciated,
Seeking comfort and to be educated.
So, I let you sleep in my branches to get rejuvenated,
I show you a stream from my highest leaves,
And teach you the wisdom that I have retrieved.
From my highest branch I witness cities rise and fall.
For most of your years I told you all that I saw.
Yet, all that wisdom is all for not,
If you crossover and our wisdom is forgot.
So before your sundown I ask you, will you be my messenger?
Cut me down with all your will.
Then carve the history that has occurred.
Carve about the Sun and even the small krill.
Carve the beginning of time,
Carve the end of most tribes.
Show the creatures of the land the faithful path,
Through the undeniable, truthful past.
Cut me down, shed no tears,
For my fall is for my creatures in future years.
Carve my wisdom, and let all creatures alike
Gather round to learn customs, and wisdom clear in light.
You have been a most glorious messenger in which,
If my wisdom lives long,
I can be axed and all my branches can fall, yet I live on.
Now rest, you must be tired,
As your last winter night is now acquired.
{the end}
(sorry for being off topic)
mr.bravo you said that i can post poems to so this acceptable, right?
BEFORE I LEAVE MY MAIN COMENT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY:
#1- ANDY: YOURE LIKE AN ULTRA NERD PERO THATS HOW I LOVE YOU ! JEJEJE
#2- CHACHI: WHY DID YOU PUT A POEM ??? WTF
LOS AMO A LOS DOS MUCHISIMO!
OKEI AORA PARA LO IMPORTANTE :)
I THINK THAT THE FINDING OF THE EVE OF NAHARON CANNOT BE ACCURATE ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE DATE BACK BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND UNDERWATER AND THUS LIKE IT SAYS IN THE PASSAGE "According to archaeologist David Anderson of the University of Tennessee, however, minerals in seawater can sometimes alter the carbon 14 content of bones, resulting in inaccurate radiocarbon dating results."
-SO, I THINK THAT WE CANNOT BE LEAD COMPLETELY ON JUST THE SKULL.
WE ARE INFERRING TOOOOOOOO MUCH AND WE NEED TO FIND MORE INFORMATION.
- NEVERTHELESS I UNDERSTAND THE SKULL WAS FOUND UNDER THE WATER BECAUSE OF THE MELTING WHICH CAUSED THE WATER TO RISE, SINCE IT WAS ONCE A PRAIRIE. BUT STILL AFTER BEING SUCH A LONG TIME UNDER THE WATER( FROM ABOUT 9,000 YEARS AGO!) HOW CAN SOMETHING BE CONSIDERED SUPER EVIDENCIAL, AS TO CHANGE THE DATE!?!?!?!?!?
WHAT I DO AGREE THOUGH IS THE IDEA OF THE DIFFERENT AREA OF IMMIGRATION ----> THEORY STATING THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE SKULL RESEMBLES A MORE SOUTHERN LOOK (PARAPHRASING ARTURO GONZALEZ)
THE END !
PEACE AND LOVE
FROM LA FAFIII TAFFYYY
CHACHI : UR POEM ROCKS ! ITS REALLY GOOD. DID YOU ACTUALLY WRITE IT ???
I LIKE THE WHOLE TREE CONCEPT. IT IS ULTRA KANGRI!
JAJAJ IT IS STILL WTF THOUGH ! TE AMOOO !
FROM LA FAFFY TAFFY
This evidence is new and fresh and people are still doing research on this site so it might not be the best source for evidence to prove the old understanding of migration wrong, but this site is still just another cool piece of the puzzle,and might just further proves the fact that people gat to America in other means other than Bergia.(Which is already proven by other sites (fafi). Yet it's very interesting and it feels different to hear extremely recent contemporary history(that's an oxymoron). oh ya i can't believe no one hasn't mention the other theory, that states that maybe people migrated from Europe to America during the ice age on foot through the Atlantic ocean because at that time (in those temperatures) the Atlantic ocean was frozen creating an ice bridge.(if someone did not mention it my bad, i skipped one or two comments)
Yet if this discovery pushes the date back enough then the reason spodek gave might be considered a little invalid, and to tell you the truth, if that were the case then i guess it's just that early river vallies had more appropriate environmental conditions to start a civilization, yet other than that i really am not sure why people of the Eastern hemisphere developed faster than people of the western side of the world.
It's a very interesting topic, and i hope there is a sight that pushes the date even further so an answer could conjerd up, to explain (in a hypothetical sense)why the American vallies were slower than the early river vallies.
i Also agree with fafi more a lot. There's to many circumstances.
Thanks Fafi, for the comment of me being an Ultra nerd. I like how everybody is getting into the idea that it is a posibility that the people could have come to the Americas by boat. For me it's the best theory that incoporates the new information found and the prevoius discoveries that dictate otherwise.
i totally agree with the reaching by boat theory. in my opinion it's the most beleiveable. although fafi's comment on the skull and the salt affecting carbon dating might contradict the boat thing. also, i do belive cuz as ceci, i think, had said about not finding australia b4 america, australia is a continent but its sorta like an island completely surrounded by water. sailors might have passed around it and may have missed it by a few miles. now, when it comes to america, u cant miss THAT. it stretches from almost the whole world from 1 pole to the other. also, island hopping is beleiveable. tey might have settled in each island and every now and then they'd just hop from 1 island 2 the other. not necessarily, a guy hops all the islands at once.
what is the boat theory ?
oh never mind i got it ! jejeje
and yes it also makes sense, but what makes me a bit hesistant to be completely forward it is the lack of evidence such as writing etc.
random thinking -- >There must of been myths and stories about those first boats to have crossed and the experiences that they faced if they actually did settle in the land, thus it is hard to believe that there is no writing about the boats.
btw. mr Emanuel bravisss
i am confused on how this thing is graded ...
i am doing good or do i need to write more ?
jejejej i made my one blog/post thingy
ohh and also mr bravisss you havent been commenting yourself. you have been pitchating the discussions ! jejejejeje
peace and loveee faferrr ! *
yes i wrote it
Post a Comment