It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Very First American Settlers Arrived Much Earlier Than We Thought

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Very interesting article here suggesting that the Clovis people being the first settlers of the Americas may not be true.

www.sciencealert.com...


The first American settlers may have arrived across a coastal "kelp highway" from northeast Asia, and arrived well before another culture that was previously thought to be first.

The Clovis culture that appeared in the Americas some 13,500 years ago is widely accepted to be the ancestor of most of the continents' indigenous cultures. However, with a growing body of evidence to back them up, anthropologists have declared the idea that the Clovis people were here first is now... dead.


It seems the Siberian Land Bridge theory may be in dispute.


Now, according to a team of anthropologists from the US, more and more evidence points to earlier settlement - at a time when passage through the Bering Land Bridge would have been blocked by glaciers. Such arrivals would have had to travel a different route.

"In a dramatic intellectual turnabout, most archaeologists and other scholars now believe that the earliest Americans followed Pacific Rim shorelines from northeast Asia to Beringia and the Americas," the team writes in the latest study.

"According to the kelp highway hypothesis, deglaciation of the outer coast of North America's Pacific Northwest ~17,000 years ago created a possible dispersal corridor rich in aquatic and terrestrial resources along the Pacific Coast, with productive kelp forest and estuarine ecosystems at sea level and no major geographic barriers."


Very interesting stuff suggesting a much earlier colonisation of what we know as the Americas.


"There is a coalescence of data - genetic, archaeological, and geologic - that support a colonisation around 20,000–15,000 years ago," senior researcher Torben Rick from the US National Museum of Natural History told Seeker.

"This doesn't preclude earlier migrations, or suggest that we should not investigate earlier migrations, but a growing body of evidence is building on intensive research that supports the 20,000–15,000 years ago timeframe, and evidence for earlier migrations is problematic and speculative."

edit on 6-11-2017 by bgerbger because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger
Clovis First has been outdated for a while now. Nice to see the dates wheeled back...but even 20 years ago they were muttering 40kya for Monte Verde, in Chile.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
As far as traveling by Kelp, Kelp forests hug shorelines, not deep, open ocean.

Why is the narrative directed only at peoples so primitive, unless they walk somewhere they don't get around? Just Maybe, 'earlier' explorers got here by ship?
edit on 6-11-2017 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas

www.tandfonline.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger


the Coastal Migration Theory,

I agree wth that. Many (peoples) lived their entire lives migrating up and down pacific coast by canoe.


edit on 6-11-2017 by intrptr because: (peoples)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: bgerbger

I heard the last speculation was actually 130,000 years ago...

source



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Around that time frame.

Wouldn't the oceans have been 100 feet less deep?

Maybe it was easier for sea going people to island hop?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: intrptr

Around that time frame.

Wouldn't the oceans have been 100 feet less deep?

Maybe it was easier for sea going people to island hop?


Thats what the Polyinesians did, so they say. Same with The Chinese, Egyptians and oh, sadly... Vikings and Spaniards.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Finally they are accepting the kelp highway theory. It is about time. The ancient people knew about those ocean currents a long time ago, ancient maritime maps had the currents listed. They even had some maps of the American shores on them, but they had to put the maps together from many countries to get a whole map of our East and West coasts of America after Columbus said he discovered America. He gets credit for saying he discovered something that many sea people already knew of. Norwegians had been on the upper US and Canadian east coasts long before, the currents they knew about limited their area they discovered. Much of this is in the English history. I have found no translated information of the Norwegian archives from Norway itself in my searches..
edit on 6-11-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


As far as traveling by Kelp, Kelp forests hug shorelines, not deep, open ocean.

Why is the narrative directed only at peoples so primitive, unless they walk somewhere they don't get around? Just Maybe, 'earlier' explorers got here by ship?


The Kelp highway refers to Ocean currents, not really kelp. They have been used for millennia by Europeans, some come right by the coasts of America. They were a little different a few thousand years ago but were basically the same.
edit on 6-11-2017 by rickymouse because: spelling



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I would disagree, the kelp highway is a narrow but broadly distributed ecosystem based in the kelp belt that follows the coast of nearly the whole pacific basin.
The highway is nourished by currents, but its real importance in this discussion is that it provides a very consistent life way for people moving along the coast. From the southern tip of SA all the to alaska and back around down past japan, you can fish hunt and collect shellfish, using common strategies. The belt is close to shore, usually within 1 mile.
I am not sure why this is news again, nothing new has been added to the idea in 20 years and it is not contested that people were moving up and down both sides of the pacific basin. Its been on my FB feed from a few sources.
The incesant need by some anthropologists to cram all native american origins into one tidy package is almost comical at this point.
Some ancestors came by water, multiple times. Some came overland, at various times.
Some were very, very, very early and likely didnt last or were in such small numbers, their genetics have been washed out.
Stratigraphic, Sedimentological and Faunal Evidence for the Occurrence of Pre-Sangamonian Artefacts in Northern Yukon " A. V. JOPLING,' W. N. IRVING2 and B. F. BEEBE2



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: rickymouse

I would disagree, the kelp highway is a narrow but broadly distributed ecosystem based in the kelp belt that follows the coast of nearly the whole pacific basin.
The highway is nourished by currents, but its real importance in this discussion is that it provides a very consistent life way for people moving along the coast. From the southern tip of SA all the to alaska and back around down past japan, you can fish hunt and collect shellfish, using common strategies. The belt is close to shore, usually within 1 mile.
I am not sure why this is news again, nothing new has been added to the idea in 20 years and it is not contested that people were moving up and down both sides of the pacific basin. Its been on my FB feed from a few sources.
The incesant need by some anthropologists to cram all native american origins into one tidy package is almost comical at this point.
Some ancestors came by water, multiple times. Some came overland, at various times.
Some were very, very, very early and likely didnt last or were in such small numbers, their genetics have been washed out.
Stratigraphic, Sedimentological and Faunal Evidence for the Occurrence of Pre-Sangamonian Artefacts in Northern Yukon " A. V. JOPLING,' W. N. IRVING2 and B. F. BEEBE2



The fishing routes and currents that bring ships to and from the Americas from Europe were for fishing and trade. A ship can travel these currents in one direction only. These currents brought the ships next to the areas where there was kelp. There does not only have to be one reason, there are reasons that are tied together that form why people were in the Americas. It appears there were big India ships at least six thousand years ago and they did trading. Our history from Europe only shows big ships going back two thousand three hundred years ago with the original Odin family king. That does not mean they were not doing it before that though.

There presently is no good evidence of ships capable of crossing the oceans longer than three thousand years ago other than India, but that does not mean there wasn't. Evidently Noahs ark, supposedly around six thousand BC would have been capable of crossing the Ocean if it had some sails or oars. It does not sound like Noahs ark was overly big for the time either, remember, they moved lots of wood from foreign lands to places in the early bible writings, which would need to have been done by ship. Our farthest written evidence shows ships, that doesn't mean it ends there though. Man was intelligent back then, they could have invented big ships many millennia ago. I understand there is no evidence, the reason being they were made of wood and wood does decay.

So I say there is no right or wrong between us, the Ocean currents brought the people to America, the ecosystem gave these people a habitable place to live and increase in numbers. It was not just a few people in a canoe that came to this country, it was multiple waves of small groups from what I have read. A lot of them have come in the last three to four thousand years also. They could get back along the lower American ocean currents to Europe too, that was well known, that is why the northern people stayed up to the North here when they came. Going way down to Florida would have meant no easy way back home.

What you are explaining is only a part of how and why they were here. There are very few old settlements that show travel along the shores where the currents would take them here, most seemed to sail to where the currents came closest to shore from the European currents, meaning they went in where they saw land. The south loops wind up in south America and up to the area of Mexico and Florida.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Mainstream archeology has moved beyond Clovis-only theories a long time ago, "kelp highway" papers are a decade old. Ancient humans followed shorelines and they followed protein sources. I think the only people still pushing the notion "mainstream archeology" advocates a single crossing of peoples 13.5kya are the fringe sites that need to appear contrarian. Not that people didn't also cross Beringa and even remain there for eons on the grasslands during periods of glacial minimums.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


As far as traveling by Kelp, Kelp forests hug shorelines, not deep, open ocean.

Why is the narrative directed only at peoples so primitive, unless they walk somewhere they don't get around? Just Maybe, 'earlier' explorers got here by ship?

User Marduk would point out to you that the "kelp highway" is also the "whale highway."

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: intrptr


As far as traveling by Kelp, Kelp forests hug shorelines, not deep, open ocean.

Why is the narrative directed only at peoples so primitive, unless they walk somewhere they don't get around? Just Maybe, 'earlier' explorers got here by ship?

User Marduk would point out to you that the "kelp highway" is also the "whale highway."

Harte

As in they rode here on the backs of whales?? if so, too funny.

If not please clarify, I value your opinion here.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: intrptr


As far as traveling by Kelp, Kelp forests hug shorelines, not deep, open ocean.

Why is the narrative directed only at peoples so primitive, unless they walk somewhere they don't get around? Just Maybe, 'earlier' explorers got here by ship?

User Marduk would point out to you that the "kelp highway" is also the "whale highway."

Harte

As in they rode here on the backs of whales?? if so, too funny.

If not please clarify, I value your opinion here.

Only that it is my friend's opinion that some early cultures in Asia hunted whales, and whale migration routes are near-coincidental with the "kelp highway."
Marduk has proven that he knows his stuff, so I take his word for it. Sounds reasonable enough to me. How about you?

Harte



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Now I get the reference, thanks.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Harte

Now I get the reference, thanks.


Do you know Marduk? He's been around here a long time, on and off (mostly was banned when he was off.)

What do you think about this whaling thing?
I mean, whales would be a more valuable thing to follow than kelp.

Harte



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Harte

Now I get the reference, thanks.


Do you know Marduk? He's been around here a long time, on and off (mostly was banned when he was off.)

What do you think about this whaling thing?
I mean, whales would be a more valuable thing to follow than kelp.

Harte


I remember you more than Marduk. To me the Kelp hi way refers to following or migrating along coast lines where kelp forests grow, same with whales like the humpback, they migrate along the pacific coast form Baja to Alaska.

If thats whats meant by those 'hiways' it makes perfect sense to me.

Long ago seafarers diid the same thing when exploring, keeping land in sight along a coast is a safer way to travel.

Whaling villages along the coast wait for the migrations in some places round the world.

Not all whales migrate that way though. Some like the Blue Whale cross large oceans. some like the sperm Whale can hunt squid at depth just about anywhere.

Here on the west coast whale watching is possible from some cliffs overlooking the ocean, during migration periods. Boats charter out to off shore whale watching.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Harte

Now I get the reference, thanks.


Do you know Marduk? He's been around here a long time, on and off (mostly was banned when he was off.)

What do you think about this whaling thing?
I mean, whales would be a more valuable thing to follow than kelp.

Harte


I remember you more than Marduk. To me the Kelp hi way refers to following or migrating along coast lines where kelp forests grow, same with whales like the humpback, they migrate along the pacific coast form Baja to Alaska.

If thats whats meant by those 'hiways' it makes perfect sense to me.

Long ago seafarers diid the same thing when exploring, keeping land in sight along a coast is a safer way to travel.

Whaling villages along the coast wait for the migrations in some places round the world.

Not all whales migrate that way though. Some like the Blue Whale cross large oceans. some like the sperm Whale can hunt squid at depth just about anywhere.

Here on the west coast whale watching is possible from some cliffs overlooking the ocean, during migration periods. Boats charter out to off shore whale watching.


The kelp provides cover for things like fish and seals. But it seems to me that whalers are more likely to travel a long way in one trip than fishermen or seal hunters.

Harte




top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join