Lost World
I finally finished that book, Lost World, the other day.
It was an interesting enough book, I really enjoyed it, except for the end where the author took five pages to try to envision how maritime adapted life may have been 12,000+ years ago along the coast of British Columbia.
But either way, I was excited to see that actual underwater archaeology on paleoindian sites had been attempted (although maybe not thoroughly successfully. I mean they figured out a way to do it, but their finds weren't all that great.)
Everytime I finish a book, i feel a little saddened that i've expunged all knowledge that the book was able to give me. that, and it takes me so damn long to get through any of these books, that i lug it around like its a part of me.
This time, however, i was left with a question that i know the book shouldn't have covered, but my mind tangented in that direction anyway.
ok. so once again, the major theory about the peopling of the Americas (shown by the answer you'd get from asking an random person) is that people walked across the Bering Land Bridge following the herds of grazing animals into the New World.
Fine. Plausible.
But the up-and-coming theory is for a coastal migration.
Many people scoff at this questioning the integrity of humans that long ago in their maritime adaptations.
Can i just say that people made it to Australia conservatively 40 kya (thousand years ago) and possibly even 60 kya over a 62 mile gap.
You can't just accidentally float your ass to aussieland like that. especially with enough people (at the very least 10 - 15) to populate the continent.
then by 17 kya, the Jomon culture was in Japan doing japanese things: fishing.
So why couldn't these Jomon, or other similarly adapted cultures around 15 kya make their way around the southern fringe of the Bering Land Bridge, traveling from refuge to refuge that science has shown to exist on down the Alaskan and B.C. coastlines?
but that's not really my question.
my question is:
What did the settlement patterns look like when the Europeans of the 15th to 17th century started to divide and conquer the New World? And how would this compare to possible settlement patterns of the First Americans?
Granted there are many variables that would differ when comparing these patterns to possible ones from the original settlers of America. influences like agriculture and land that was already inhabited (variables that weren't present 15 kya) could change settlement strategies.
the other problem with this is that i'm assuming that people did come by sea, rather than the supposed big-game hunting strategies where mobility over land was the only option.
nevertheless, even though i always really hated US history, anyone can really see the settlement strategy. Even without much knowledge of what really happened on down to the fine details, if you look at the original thriteen colonies, you will see that their extent doesn't go much further than a couple hundred miles from the shore.
ok. again, possible things such as warfare and attachment to homebases across the sea may have inhibited an inland growth, but wouldn't it be a somewhat similar situation for the First Americans?
If they were maritime adapted (another damned supposition) then why would they want to change their lifestyle if they were perfectly capable of subsisting on their current way of living?
Also, back then, wildlife was EXTREMELY larger than it is today. Open areas around the beach and the buffer to the thick forests must have been the preferred place to hang out.
Who wants to live in a dangerous, dark forest when collecting mussles at low tide is an easier solution to finding a food source?
I don't know. But what I do know, is that there are way too many archaeologists out there that may have not even thought about this, or haven't wanted to think about this.
So many of them stake their work and reputation on one theory and in doing so thrive by debunking all other theories. I guess the best way to do that is to totally detach yourself from other possiblities and only look into (and after) your own.
be open-minded, bitches!
It was an interesting enough book, I really enjoyed it, except for the end where the author took five pages to try to envision how maritime adapted life may have been 12,000+ years ago along the coast of British Columbia.
But either way, I was excited to see that actual underwater archaeology on paleoindian sites had been attempted (although maybe not thoroughly successfully. I mean they figured out a way to do it, but their finds weren't all that great.)
Everytime I finish a book, i feel a little saddened that i've expunged all knowledge that the book was able to give me. that, and it takes me so damn long to get through any of these books, that i lug it around like its a part of me.
This time, however, i was left with a question that i know the book shouldn't have covered, but my mind tangented in that direction anyway.
ok. so once again, the major theory about the peopling of the Americas (shown by the answer you'd get from asking an random person) is that people walked across the Bering Land Bridge following the herds of grazing animals into the New World.
Fine. Plausible.
But the up-and-coming theory is for a coastal migration.
Many people scoff at this questioning the integrity of humans that long ago in their maritime adaptations.
Can i just say that people made it to Australia conservatively 40 kya (thousand years ago) and possibly even 60 kya over a 62 mile gap.
You can't just accidentally float your ass to aussieland like that. especially with enough people (at the very least 10 - 15) to populate the continent.
then by 17 kya, the Jomon culture was in Japan doing japanese things: fishing.
So why couldn't these Jomon, or other similarly adapted cultures around 15 kya make their way around the southern fringe of the Bering Land Bridge, traveling from refuge to refuge that science has shown to exist on down the Alaskan and B.C. coastlines?
but that's not really my question.
my question is:
What did the settlement patterns look like when the Europeans of the 15th to 17th century started to divide and conquer the New World? And how would this compare to possible settlement patterns of the First Americans?
Granted there are many variables that would differ when comparing these patterns to possible ones from the original settlers of America. influences like agriculture and land that was already inhabited (variables that weren't present 15 kya) could change settlement strategies.
the other problem with this is that i'm assuming that people did come by sea, rather than the supposed big-game hunting strategies where mobility over land was the only option.
nevertheless, even though i always really hated US history, anyone can really see the settlement strategy. Even without much knowledge of what really happened on down to the fine details, if you look at the original thriteen colonies, you will see that their extent doesn't go much further than a couple hundred miles from the shore.
ok. again, possible things such as warfare and attachment to homebases across the sea may have inhibited an inland growth, but wouldn't it be a somewhat similar situation for the First Americans?
If they were maritime adapted (another damned supposition) then why would they want to change their lifestyle if they were perfectly capable of subsisting on their current way of living?
Also, back then, wildlife was EXTREMELY larger than it is today. Open areas around the beach and the buffer to the thick forests must have been the preferred place to hang out.
Who wants to live in a dangerous, dark forest when collecting mussles at low tide is an easier solution to finding a food source?
I don't know. But what I do know, is that there are way too many archaeologists out there that may have not even thought about this, or haven't wanted to think about this.
So many of them stake their work and reputation on one theory and in doing so thrive by debunking all other theories. I guess the best way to do that is to totally detach yourself from other possiblities and only look into (and after) your own.
be open-minded, bitches!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home