|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Apr 21, 2024 15:40:58 GMT -8
Tool kits are a long held comfort zone and then there’s dna sequencing is rather recent and modeling off the data can be very very speculative versus isotopic dating of a tool site. Layered assumptions on site mutation drift rates versus stably conserved regions etc…
on the general issue my own take is with the prevailing pacific circulation patterns multiple explorations into North America from the west are simply logical. In past years any stroll along a PNW beach seeing the glass fish net floats carried from Asia would make that sort of obvious imho. Far easier than any land travel. And similar travel along the North Atlantic is almost as easy, hopping from landfall to landfall in a northerly arc. Though that has to be done more deliberately than the drift around the North Pacific.
|
|
ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 10,410
|
Post by ErnieW on Apr 22, 2024 7:08:06 GMT -8
A good raft, a rain catch system and fishing lines could get you across the Pacific. And a lot of luck.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Apr 22, 2024 13:26:31 GMT -8
A good raft, a rain catch system and fishing lines could get you across the Pacific. And a lot of luck. Totally. Japanese coastal fishing boats that have suffered power failures have routinely wound up in North America. Academics might traditionally frightened of the ocean, the people that live there notsomuch.
|
|
balzaccom
Trail Wise!
Waiting for spring...
Posts: 4,646
|
Post by balzaccom on Apr 22, 2024 20:16:05 GMT -8
Totally. Japanese coastal fishing boats that have suffered power failures have routinely wound up in North America. Academics might traditionally frightened of the ocean, the people that live there notsomuch. Guys--they wouldn't have to cross the entire ocean, just cruise around the edges. The Romans calculated that a ship could cover in one day what a man on foot could cover in 23 days. And they had roads.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Apr 23, 2024 5:38:47 GMT -8
Similar to the North Atlantic. The Brendan Voyage also highlighted that. Their historical reenactment of the Irish saints voyage as told in the tales pointed out that very little of the route from Ireland to North America was even out of sight of land. Of necessity completely avoiding the eastward moving Guif Stream which many offer as an objection to early European travel to North America by choosing a much more northern track. Which, iirc, takes advantage of a counter current alongside the coastal refuge. Although proximity to land is a double edged sword, ease of navigation, possible food, fresh water etc. but otoh? That’s where you get run aground and pounded into flotsam and mush by a storm.
|
|
ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 10,410
|
Post by ErnieW on Apr 23, 2024 9:24:57 GMT -8
Guys--they wouldn't have to cross the entire ocean, just cruise around the edges. The Romans calculated that a ship could cover in one day what a man on foot could cover in 23 days. And they had roads. The period I was looking at was 50,000 to 30,000 years ago. I found some references of rafts but boats that could "cruise" may not have been developed then.
|
|
ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 10,410
|
Post by ErnieW on May 8, 2024 4:23:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ecocentric on May 8, 2024 13:15:40 GMT -8
I think that people were a lot better at using boats, a lot earlier than we give them credit for. Look how early people reached Australia or the island of Crete, long before any remnants of boats or boat building that have been found so far. The evidence for those early coastal migrations are underwater now.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 19, 2024 9:18:02 GMT -8
|
|
Travis
Trail Wise!
WYOMING NATIVE
Posts: 2,695
|
Post by Travis on May 19, 2024 13:26:29 GMT -8
Ancient Chesapeake site challenges timeline of humans in the Americas This article can also be read — without the paywall — at MSN.com. It's a decent review of the controversies around the Clovis-First Theory and why some of us may find the history of "established archeology's" errors to be too significant to simply disregard articles published outside the peer-review "gauntlet." In the words quoted in the article, “Sometimes you have to wait for people to die off.” The Clovis-First Theory has gathered too much baggage for some of us, even scientists, to be willing to wait for a preponderance of Clovis-First subscribers to simply "die off." Archeology has not proven itself to be that much of an exact science.
|
|
|
Post by atvtuner on May 21, 2024 6:51:52 GMT -8
Another link: www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/did-north-america-s-first-humans-cross-the-chesapeake-to-get-here/article_6c3b7540-3f51-11e8-b0b9-f7f08a10e811.htmlThe only archeologist I know is now retired. He did his masters thesis work at a rock shelter site about 5 miles from our old place in Kentucky. Back then (1981) one simply did not challenge the accepted notion that the Early Archaic period began 9000 year ago. When he did a sink hole dig on our place in the 90s he told me the rock shelter site likely dated to 23000 years ago. It could not be accurately carbon dated due to a heavy metal (iridium) layer in nearby shale strata. His idea of the very early date was derived from the depth of the dig, the diet of the inhabitants, the method of burial (fire pit) and the length of the ice age. Another thing he was discouraged from actually putting into the journals was his theory that group warfare was common among the early people. This was based on a dart point found in the spine of one of the skeletons.
|
|