What’s the Straight Dope on who was around and where did they come from?
You know, what kills me is the assumption that there’s gotta be some kind of land bridge (via Siberia) for people to get to the New World. (Not directing this at you trouts1; this is just a general rant.)
New flash, everybody! Even ancient peoples built boats! How did Java Man get to Java? How did the aborigines get to Australia? They didn’t swim, I’m, betting.
Boats just don’t tend to show up in the archeaological/fossil record because: a)they were presumably composed of materials which don’t “preserve” well – reeds or light woods, e.g.; and b)any boats that might be preserved are presumably buried under sea sediment (unless people were hauling their boats inland when the usefulness of the boats ended :rolleyes :).
So if we can assume that ancient peoples were not idiots, and were able to grasp the concept of boat building, there’s no reason ancient Americans couldn’t have come from all over the place. Obviously, the folks who were here when Columbus arrived were Asian in their characteristics, but maybe groups of people with those characteristics had overwhelmed and subsumed other settlements. Who knows for sure, at this point?
I do know that there is some suggestion that Kennewick Man, found in the Pacific Northwest shares some characteristics with the Ainu of Japan. There is also some suggestion that Polynesians found their way over here, and maybe even a few European stragglers here and there. Don’t know if the archaeological record will ever reveal all of the answers. Any geneticists out there who can say whether genetic analysis of modern Native Americans could reveal all the ingredients in the mix?
spoke-
“How did Java Man get to Java? How did the aborigines get to Australia? They didn’t swim, I’m, betting.”
I think they could have walked during a glacial period when the seas were lowered. But I’m 100% with you on the boats, craft, raft possibility. How about Hyderhal and Kontiki?
I’m also not so sure about the ice/claciers being that much of a block. The Esquamo’s get around pretty well up there (pre-Snowmobiles). An extended trip from Alaska into the lower 48 across the glaciers might not have been so bad with plenty of Mammoth and Muskox around say from Alaska into the lower 48.
From: http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story2.html
The above is all a new take for me.
Clovis culture dates to 11,000 from tools with no fossil evidence. I’ve seen estimates going back to 60,000 but unsure on what evidence they get that date.
No one is disputing that Clovis dating is correct. What is being disputed is the idea that Clovis culture is the first in the Americas. Traditionally, it’s been believed that the first Americans crossed the landbridge about 15,000 - 12,000 years ago. Clovis is dated at 11,000 years old, which fits in really nicely. However, there is a lot of evidence of similar artifacts in Alaska and Northern Canada that is significantly younger than Clovis. If they travelled via Alaska, how is that there is older stuff in New Mexico than in AK? Not to mention that the really old (I can’t rememeber any dates off the top of my head, but they’re quite a lot older than 12,000 years) artifacts and human skeletons found in the Americas are in South America (Chile, Brazil, Peru). One theory is that they made boats in AK, and sailed down the coast. Another is that the first crossings from Siberia took place much farther back than previously thought - about 40,000 years ago.
This thread should maybe be in GD, because the question surely will never be answered right now.
~Harborina
“Don’t Do It.”
Right, its even looking like walking down the coast would have been possible. Living permanently on the coast during the glacial period might have been possible.
The South America thing is new to me also. I thought it might be possible but had never heard anyone mention it until I read the article quoted above. It was only a brief mention so did not mention it here. If you know of any web sources please post them.
From the BBC: First Americans were Australian
Some more from http://www.smythnews.com/961218/I-Articles/fp-2.htm
A tidbit from ABC News
Here’s a fiesty little article on Kennewick Man.
And then, to help it all gel, there a sort of Archeological Enquirer called Ancient American Magazine:
Well, I will say that some of beatle’s cited sources seem just a little too eager to find evidence of ancient Caucasians in the New World, so maybe they have something of an axe to grind. (Not aiming that at you, beatle; I know you were just providing us with some links for dicussion.) I do think, though, that we need to keep an open mind about the possibility of arrivals from places other than mainland Asia.
I also agree that Native American activism is a real obstacle to finding answers to some of these questions. Tough to balance the religious beliefs of those folks, now encoded in federal law (requiring re-interment of remains) with the need to satisfy our thirst for knowledge.
The subject is a bit politicized.
spoke-
From the BBC:
I’ll take this on my neverending faith in the BBC. I just went through the links and they are great if for just the eye-opener. One was by an amateur but it will provide some search info. Great work beatle.
That Nova program did look good. Did you see the section about Mt Toba? Cave painting in S.A.? Researchers like Cavalli-Sforza have “always” left the door open for the super early visitors to the American scene.
Regardless of who and what they may have looked like, all the dates given still make those visitors or even settlers – modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
Some Canadian researchers mapped out the apparent coastal plains from the glacial period, then went looking for artifacts in the ocean floor. They have come up with stuff that that tentatively identify as support for the idea of a waterborne migration:
http://www.sciencenews.org/20000205/fob2.asp
(Science News, Feb 5, 2000, Vol 157, no. 6)
Tom~
Just saw the same program tonite, quite interesting…the last half that I saw anyways.
The photos of the Ainu were very caucasian looking to me, but it was never clear how they got to Japan in the first place. That I’d like to hear some speculation on. Were they descended from similar roots as the Europeans? The fact that they settled in the Americas isn’t so peculiar if one could put into perspective how these people got their start in Japan in relation to the similar Europeans.
One political aspect that may be ground shaking is the prospect that the Native Americans may have themselves suplanted a previously settle peoples. That would put their moralistic critisism of European settlers in a fresh perspective.
Omniscient,
100,000 years ago all modern humans began moving out of Africa. They took a right.
Arrived in Southeast Asia and Austrailia 55-60,000 years ago.
Arrived in Asia and Europe 35-40,000 years ago.
Arrived in Northeast Asia and America 15-35,000 years ago.
They didn’t go left out of Africa because the Neanderthals were there and glaciers were there in Europe, too.
When the modern humans did go into Europe it looks like they started up at the top from Asia and then travelled down Europe.
Have to think carefully about European Stragglers in the Japan or China because of the time factor. Those that we think of as European may just be modern humans.
Modern human males were 6’ tall - think Cro Magnon.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using the force? - A. Foley
Omniscient - If you search on Jomon you get a bazillion links about the Aniu.
Jomon defines a period of roughly 9000 to 500 years ago in Japan.
From searching around the net I’m finding evidence of settlement of Japan going back to 700,000 years.
Tomndebb - Very nice link about on the tool find at 150’. Shelf’s probably have quite a bit of info but obviously tough to get to. I would imagine that the shelf edges would have been prime sites where man would have settled for proximity to the rich marine food sources. There may be whole periods when the shelves were the prime locations accounting for the lack of finds inland.
The answer to the the original post is “Who was in Northeast Asia pre 8000 years ago?” The Ainu indicate that there were some Caucasoids. I have a confusing reference that associates some Australoids with late Homo erectus in China approx 100k years ago. Although relict Australoids are now only found in south Asia, it would not be a stretch that they were up north sometime in the last 60K years. I remember a reference that said that some American Indian blood types have more similarities with southern Asian peoples. The Han Chinese seem to be an intrusive people into China proper. Perhaps some of the ancestral Burmese, Thai, Khymer, Hmong, Montgnards etc peoples roamed north Asia in the past and were pushed south by the emergent Han. (Compare the huge migrations and displacements that occured to Indians in North America.)
My point is that there could have been a lot of different people in NE Asia over the last 60K years. The 12,000 year ago time frame for the migration of proto-Indians into North America was based on the required simultaneity of the Beringia land bridge AND the ice free corridor through the Yukon. The idea of the migrants walking along the shelf does open up a much earlier time frame and thus, a much wider range of potential NE Asian inhabitants.
It is apparent that the Mongoloid group, which I am guessing were the proto-Clovis who probably did come through 12000 years ago and who had cultural affinities with contemporary Siberian peoples, were the most successful or else the most numerous. But multiple migations by diverse peoples would solve a number of problems.
Not only would the early C-14 dates be explained, so would some anomalous physiological features such as some long headed South American Indians. One other problem has been the incredibly rapid dispersement of fluted points over N and S America. Those guys would have had to have been running from Alaska to southern Argentina. If there had been an existing, probably very low technology, population in N and S America, the frontier of the adoption of the fluted point could have spread much faster than a migrating people. (A weak analogy would be the spread of European goods (and diseases) far in front of the actual European presence.
I have flown over the Arctic Coast north of the Brooks Range from Canada to Prudhoe Bay, probably a very similar environment to coastal shelf in southern Alaska and BC that these people would have crossed during the glacial periods. If those people did travel that way, I think they ate a lot of fish and got their feet very muddy. It is not a very congenial environment.
Omniscient:
Jois:
I would surely imagine that those scurrying out of Africa after others before them probably took about all the rights (of the latter) they could get away with, considering the developmental status of the United Nations at that point in time. . .before something like intertribal “morality” could really be conceived of. I think it would be a little bit funny to listen to this argument put to “Native” Americans, whose ancestors were displaced in the latter part of the 2nd millenium CE (after and while displacing each other), when a lot of “civilized” nations had a lot of “moral”-based (?) deals going, but halfway valid ones mostly only among their own races.
Ray (Everybody that came to CA.US after I was born here will now please leave; I’m getting pushed out of shape. 
)
Mipsman quotes the op as “Who was in Northeast Asia pre 8000 years ago?” but is really Topic: Who was in the Americas pre 8000 years ago?
Not a big deal and the slip might indicate your take, which is like mine - heavily weighted to Japan/China/Western Russia as the source of a major influx into the Americas but either boat or hoof.
http://abcnews.go.com:80/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal000218.html
This ABC NEWS article suggests some European links:
For the marine culture aspect:
I must have missed that part. I only caught about the last half of the show.
No biggie. They probably came from India. A decent fraction of (asian) Indians are caucasoid in appearance. India is a conglomeration of about a bazillion different peoples, with hundreds of languages and literally thousands of dialects. No wonder english is stll a commonly spoken language there 
Now that I think about it, I remember a history teacher mentioning reports by early English colonists of a group of Native Americans that looked alot more caucasian than most tribes. I think they were designated a “civilized” tribe and were eventually assimilated into Colonial society. Could this have been a relic population of Kennewick Man’s people?
Lastly, I’m ashamed to admit that I never even considered the possability of people sailing here. That would, of course, make the state of the polar icecaps completely irrelevant to the settling of the Americas.
–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
Diceman: Right, from India there is Narmada Man, “the oldest human fossil so far found in the sub- continent (as of 1992).” This page: http://www.cruzio.com/~cscp/econ.htm gives a multi-regional view which is not so much in favor and links Homo erectus to more modern types:
Not arguing against “Out of” but seeing a possibility for Out of’s to be mixing with Asian locals and contributing to the pool.
For an Asian overview: http://www.cruzio.com/~cscp/maps.htm http://archaeology.miningco.com/education/archaeology/library/atlas/bljapan.htm http://www.fcc.sophia.ac.jp/Faculty/Keally/japarch.html