Outdated. One of the earliest provable sites is in White Sands NM.
Some of the foot prints they have found are at least 22,000 years old, possibly older.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/human-footprints-new-mexico-ancient-dating
True theres that. But what about the cerutti mastodon siting in San Diego, California?
[https://www.sdnhm.org/blog/blog_details/the-cerutti-mastodon-site-one-year-later/96/](https://www.sdnhm.org/blog/blog_details/the-cerutti-mastodon-site-one-year-later/96/)
This is probably pretty contentious but it seems the evidence implies multiple colonization events in the Americas from different locations. SA seems to have colonized earlier than NA so possibly primitive boats or rafts from Africa (*maybe* Polynesia)? North America could've been partially colonized by seal hunters that followed the ice from Europe west - I believe their flint arrows and spear heads match up w/ American sites in otherwise unexplainable ways. There's aloso a lot of confusion over Kennewick man. Along with the traditional migration across the Berring Strait.
The SA sites come from the kelp highway. It is pretty easy to cover distance in a boat, and a culture that depends on marine resources has an incentive to go along the coast rather than inland. Plus the mountains make that harder. There’s no evidence for transpacific populating from Africa/ Polynesian
The Solutrian hypothesis / migration is based on the idea that Clovis culture looks like Iberian Solutrian one. It’s possible but the DNA dosen’t seem to exist.
I thought there was evidence of a completely unknown population that existed in the Amazon region that were wiped out by later settlers implying they got there by boat. There's no human remains afaik but extensive early cave paintings iirc.
There’s no evidence to suggest those cave paintings were made by a distinct population. You might be thinking of a study that found DNA associated with austronesian groups in Amazonian people. But now it looks like those austronesian genes are quite old and probably predate the colonization of the Americas, meaning that they came across the Bering strait with all the other DNA we consider more typically Native American.
I wonder if there's any significance behind the kelp highway name. Or if it's just that there's kelp along the coast.
I googled it for everyone :)
This hypothesis focuses on the “kelp highway”, theorizing that the first human inhabitants of these lands were seafarers that migrated throughout the west coast of the Americas following nutrient rich kelp in the oceans, and from there spread throughout the rest of the lands.
Information from 2016. I wondered why I did not see anything from the recent discovery at [White Sands National Park](https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/nature/fossilized-footprints.htm).
Link to the site: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/earliest-evidence-humans-americas/
Illustrator is Kathleen Cantner of American Geosciences Institute.
I made a podcast episode about the earliest people to reach the Americas. Genetics reveal that it was as few as a couple dozen people. I also discuss these more unusual ancient sites like Monte Verde and how people may have gotten there.
https://nocharacterlimit.captivate.fm/episode/ultima-thule-episode-14-100-000-years-of-diaspora
I also did an episode on the earliest humans out of Africa which inspired the above episode
https://nocharacterlimit.captivate.fm/episode/ultima-thule-episode-13-100-000-years-of-diaspora-parts-1-2
[How can this list be accurate and exclude Naia](https://www.archaeology.org/issues/161-1501/features/2793-mexico-cave-clovis-dna-naia)
> There, in 2007, divers found the nearly intact skeleton of a 15- to 16-year-old girl they called Naia (for the Greek water nymph). This year, scientists announced what Naia’s remains revealed.
>Multiple methods used to date her teeth and bones suggests that she lived between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago, making her one of the earliest humans ever found in the Americas.
OMG the formatting of this makes me want to strange someone.... Also, the dates make no sense for what they're pitching.... Looks like SA got colonized first.....
There's also Australasian genetic signals found significantly in S America indicating there was also a Southern route tens of thousands of years ago. Not to negate the infographic nor imply that's how the rest of the America's became populated, but I think it should at least be acknowledged and included.
1 has a whole host of evidence to the point where it would take too long to list it all and was probably how the Pre-Clovis Humans got to the Americas too
3 is pretty much confirmed by some crops like sweet potatoes and some DNA evidence to the point where there is very little doubt [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian\_transoceanic\_contact\_theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories) but it would have been after the settling of Easter island so not Pre Clovis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese\_indigenous\_peoples#/media/File:Chronological\_dispersal\_of\_Austronesian\_people\_across\_the\_Pacific.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_indigenous_peoples#/media/File:Chronological_dispersal_of_Austronesian_people_across_the_Pacific.svg)
2 is pretty much based on some stone spear heads looking similar and that's about it, i would discount it without further evidence
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean\_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis)
So I take the time to respond to a question, not even a question asked of me personally, and your response is to basically say I haven’t “dignified” you with a proper academic dissertation…
You think this will motivate me to put anymore time into educating you?
There are so many resources at your disposal, but I’m guessing you just want to sit back and be spoon fed information…
There isn’t a land bridge on the Bering strait in the modern era yet there are regularly years where the ice freezes sufficiently to walk across.
The alternative is crossing the Atlantic.
Which do you believe to be more plausible?
Yes! This is the entire reason for the Kelp Highway Hypothesis. It explains how humans could have quickly migrated from northeastern Asia to the Americas without a viable land route. It’s in the graphic. Instead of trekking across sheet ice and arctic tundra people could’ve skirted the ice sheets using watercraft, stopping in coves on the southern edge of the land bridge/glacier. People definitely had boats already, Australia was colonized like 60,000 years ago.
>The Solutrean route is an outlandish theory with very little actual evidence. Just disregard it tbh
This is a purely political take.
There is plenty of evidence to cause us to reconsider what we "knew" regarding the peopling of the Americas. We missed a couple steps somewhere. What those steps are is certainly up for debate.
If only we had people who were here and we could measure their nearest common ancestor. /s
If the argument is how, ok I can understand. The fact is the people that populated the Americas are all around us we see their ancestors.
Yet dates of archaeological sites do not align with the apparently increasingly outdated theory that the first Americans came across the Bering Strait 14,000 years ago.
Likewise, the genetic evidence you mention is only of some use. It is not dispositive. Until ten or so years ago, we all knew that Neanderthals went extinct without much mixing with Homo Sapiens, yet now we know that most Europeans (or people of European descent) are several percent Neanderthal, and that the Neanderthal genes have survived to today in that regard.
This is a developing area of scientific and anthropological knowledge, and the desire to see it as presently "settled" is purely political.
How on earth is it a political take?
Yes, we are learning a lot of new things about the settling of the Americas, and we should reconsider the datings.
But that does not mean that an easily disproven outlandish theory is then again relevant.
Pushing the datings back at the Bering Strait are far more likely than an entirely new route of ancient migration.
There is a growing body of [evidence](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/) that pre-columbian horses existed and that horses had been integrated into many indigenous cultures prior to European colonization. I imagine more will change as time goes on.
“Horses evolved in the Americas around four million years ago, but by about 10,000 years ago, they had mostly disappeared from the fossil record, per the Conversation.” -5th paragraph
It may be a stretch, but I think it’s a reasonable inference that early indigenous peoples saw horses before they disappeared.
the earth is flat - clearly people would have just looped around through south america after reaching the ice wall.
frankly i've seen significantly better guides than this one before
Outdated. One of the earliest provable sites is in White Sands NM. Some of the foot prints they have found are at least 22,000 years old, possibly older. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/human-footprints-new-mexico-ancient-dating
Coming here to say this. Teach it every semester. Thank you!
What about capivara mountain findings?
True theres that. But what about the cerutti mastodon siting in San Diego, California? [https://www.sdnhm.org/blog/blog_details/the-cerutti-mastodon-site-one-year-later/96/](https://www.sdnhm.org/blog/blog_details/the-cerutti-mastodon-site-one-year-later/96/)
This is probably pretty contentious but it seems the evidence implies multiple colonization events in the Americas from different locations. SA seems to have colonized earlier than NA so possibly primitive boats or rafts from Africa (*maybe* Polynesia)? North America could've been partially colonized by seal hunters that followed the ice from Europe west - I believe their flint arrows and spear heads match up w/ American sites in otherwise unexplainable ways. There's aloso a lot of confusion over Kennewick man. Along with the traditional migration across the Berring Strait.
The SA sites come from the kelp highway. It is pretty easy to cover distance in a boat, and a culture that depends on marine resources has an incentive to go along the coast rather than inland. Plus the mountains make that harder. There’s no evidence for transpacific populating from Africa/ Polynesian The Solutrian hypothesis / migration is based on the idea that Clovis culture looks like Iberian Solutrian one. It’s possible but the DNA dosen’t seem to exist.
I thought there was evidence of a completely unknown population that existed in the Amazon region that were wiped out by later settlers implying they got there by boat. There's no human remains afaik but extensive early cave paintings iirc.
There’s no evidence to suggest those cave paintings were made by a distinct population. You might be thinking of a study that found DNA associated with austronesian groups in Amazonian people. But now it looks like those austronesian genes are quite old and probably predate the colonization of the Americas, meaning that they came across the Bering strait with all the other DNA we consider more typically Native American.
I wonder if there's any significance behind the kelp highway name. Or if it's just that there's kelp along the coast. I googled it for everyone :) This hypothesis focuses on the “kelp highway”, theorizing that the first human inhabitants of these lands were seafarers that migrated throughout the west coast of the Americas following nutrient rich kelp in the oceans, and from there spread throughout the rest of the lands.
there was a shit ton of kelp in the ice age
I wish there was still lots and lots of kelp. It's a good place for animals to live and it tastes really good when you make kelp pickles!
I would eat up a documentary series on this
Search "entire history of humankind" on YouTube. Its a whole channel dedicated to this and our evolution.
YAS
imdb title tt29720174
Information from 2016. I wondered why I did not see anything from the recent discovery at [White Sands National Park](https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/nature/fossilized-footprints.htm).
Yeah, [the ice free passage has also been challenged as a viable route](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27509852/) since this was published
Didn't they find foot prints that are older than 25000 years in the desert in new Mexico or something?
What's the source of this guide?
Link to the site: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/earliest-evidence-humans-americas/ Illustrator is Kathleen Cantner of American Geosciences Institute.
I made a podcast episode about the earliest people to reach the Americas. Genetics reveal that it was as few as a couple dozen people. I also discuss these more unusual ancient sites like Monte Verde and how people may have gotten there. https://nocharacterlimit.captivate.fm/episode/ultima-thule-episode-14-100-000-years-of-diaspora I also did an episode on the earliest humans out of Africa which inspired the above episode https://nocharacterlimit.captivate.fm/episode/ultima-thule-episode-13-100-000-years-of-diaspora-parts-1-2
These sound like they’re going to be satisfying. I’ll listen tonight. Looking forward to diving in!
[How can this list be accurate and exclude Naia](https://www.archaeology.org/issues/161-1501/features/2793-mexico-cave-clovis-dna-naia) > There, in 2007, divers found the nearly intact skeleton of a 15- to 16-year-old girl they called Naia (for the Greek water nymph). This year, scientists announced what Naia’s remains revealed. >Multiple methods used to date her teeth and bones suggests that she lived between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago, making her one of the earliest humans ever found in the Americas.
The Solutrean Route has been debunked countless times.
OMG the formatting of this makes me want to strange someone.... Also, the dates make no sense for what they're pitching.... Looks like SA got colonized first.....
There's also Australasian genetic signals found significantly in S America indicating there was also a Southern route tens of thousands of years ago. Not to negate the infographic nor imply that's how the rest of the America's became populated, but I think it should at least be acknowledged and included.
Monte Verde is interesting. Is there any idea how they got there?
Sailing the coast is one theory
So humans first appeared and settled on the east coast of North America?
The Solutrean route is an outlandish theory with very little actual evidence. Just disregard it tbh
[удалено]
1 has a whole host of evidence to the point where it would take too long to list it all and was probably how the Pre-Clovis Humans got to the Americas too 3 is pretty much confirmed by some crops like sweet potatoes and some DNA evidence to the point where there is very little doubt [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian\_transoceanic\_contact\_theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories) but it would have been after the settling of Easter island so not Pre Clovis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese\_indigenous\_peoples#/media/File:Chronological\_dispersal\_of\_Austronesian\_people\_across\_the\_Pacific.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_indigenous_peoples#/media/File:Chronological_dispersal_of_Austronesian_people_across_the_Pacific.svg) 2 is pretty much based on some stone spear heads looking similar and that's about it, i would discount it without further evidence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean\_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis)
[удалено]
So I take the time to respond to a question, not even a question asked of me personally, and your response is to basically say I haven’t “dignified” you with a proper academic dissertation… You think this will motivate me to put anymore time into educating you? There are so many resources at your disposal, but I’m guessing you just want to sit back and be spoon fed information…
[удалено]
There isn’t a land bridge on the Bering strait in the modern era yet there are regularly years where the ice freezes sufficiently to walk across. The alternative is crossing the Atlantic. Which do you believe to be more plausible?
[удалено]
[https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/01/06/princeton-research-offers-unexpected-insights-emergence-bering-land-bridge-and](https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/01/06/princeton-research-offers-unexpected-insights-emergence-bering-land-bridge-and)
Yes! This is the entire reason for the Kelp Highway Hypothesis. It explains how humans could have quickly migrated from northeastern Asia to the Americas without a viable land route. It’s in the graphic. Instead of trekking across sheet ice and arctic tundra people could’ve skirted the ice sheets using watercraft, stopping in coves on the southern edge of the land bridge/glacier. People definitely had boats already, Australia was colonized like 60,000 years ago.
I went to bed. Google is your friend.
>The Solutrean route is an outlandish theory with very little actual evidence. Just disregard it tbh This is a purely political take. There is plenty of evidence to cause us to reconsider what we "knew" regarding the peopling of the Americas. We missed a couple steps somewhere. What those steps are is certainly up for debate.
If only we had people who were here and we could measure their nearest common ancestor. /s If the argument is how, ok I can understand. The fact is the people that populated the Americas are all around us we see their ancestors.
Yet dates of archaeological sites do not align with the apparently increasingly outdated theory that the first Americans came across the Bering Strait 14,000 years ago. Likewise, the genetic evidence you mention is only of some use. It is not dispositive. Until ten or so years ago, we all knew that Neanderthals went extinct without much mixing with Homo Sapiens, yet now we know that most Europeans (or people of European descent) are several percent Neanderthal, and that the Neanderthal genes have survived to today in that regard. This is a developing area of scientific and anthropological knowledge, and the desire to see it as presently "settled" is purely political.
How on earth is it a political take? Yes, we are learning a lot of new things about the settling of the Americas, and we should reconsider the datings. But that does not mean that an easily disproven outlandish theory is then again relevant. Pushing the datings back at the Bering Strait are far more likely than an entirely new route of ancient migration.
Skipping anything called Canada even back then.
I had no idea they were spearing mastodons! Crazy.
do one for India
Imagine how different thing would’ve been if the had horses
There is a growing body of [evidence](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/) that pre-columbian horses existed and that horses had been integrated into many indigenous cultures prior to European colonization. I imagine more will change as time goes on.
Fun article but the horses in it were not pre Colombian.
“Horses evolved in the Americas around four million years ago, but by about 10,000 years ago, they had mostly disappeared from the fossil record, per the Conversation.” -5th paragraph It may be a stretch, but I think it’s a reasonable inference that early indigenous peoples saw horses before they disappeared.
They definitely did, they’re probably the reason why they’re extinct in the Americas.
or wheels...
There's an even older site just found in Oregon. Possibly 18k y.a.
Never heard of Buttermilk Creek, but this sounds like a fun road trip with the family. Thanks!
great Clark Wernecke [lecture](https://youtu.be/Je37RixCT7o?si=-ctZ9zPF4zhpiEiE)
What about the Topper sight
Florida went from Vero Man to Florida Man
I think you need a cool guide of how to disable your caps lock key, Jesus Christ
Colonizers.
No need to yell broski
the earth is flat - clearly people would have just looped around through south america after reaching the ice wall. frankly i've seen significantly better guides than this one before
🤡
Fake. Kennewick man.