Sanak Island: redating the Pacific Coast Migration

In the August 2012 Quaternary Science Reviews the following publication has been made

Early retreat of the Alaska Peninsula Glacier Complex and the implications for coastal migrations of First Americans

Abstract of the paper

The debate over a coastal migration route for the First Americans revolves around two major points: seafaring technology, and a viable landscape and resource base. Three lake cores from Sanak Island in the western Gulf of Alaska yield the first radiocarbon ages from the continental shelf of the Northeast Pacific and record deglaciation nearly 17 ka BP (thousands of calendar years ago), much earlier than previous estimates based on extrapolated data from other sites outside the coastal corridor in the Gulf of Alaska. Pollen data suggest an arid, terrestrial ecosystem by 16.3 ka BP. Therefore glaciers would not have hindered the movement of humans along the southern edge of the Bering Land Bridge for two millennia before the first well-recognized “New World” archaeological sites were inhabited.

Why is this paper and the evidence it has important?

One of enduring mysteries in Archaeology is the following

The earliest archaeological sites in the Americas, such as Monte Verde and Quebrada Jaguay--are located in South America and date to circa 13,000 BC. If the Pacific coast corridor was only truly navigable beginning around 15k years ago, that suggests that a full-out sprint along the Pacific coast of the Americas to have arrived at those sites for them to be occupied so early. But new evidence from the Sanak Island in the Aleutians suggests the sea coast corridor was opened at least 2,000 years longer ago than previously believed.

The article which is presently behind a pay wall but you can look at the tables and charts

In this paper they show evidence in the form of pollen and charcoal from sediment cores from three lakes on Sanak Island in the Aleutians, which suggests that the area was ice free by 17,000 years ago. (15,000 BC)

Summary, the folks from Asia would have had 2,000 years to go from the north east Asian coast to the south west Americas coast, AFAWKN

reply to post by Hanslune


Awsome Hans,
It provides evidenced that the first people down the west coast came by the coast and not the inland route.

OR.... Lloyd Pye and the starchild.


Oh, and what is AFAWKN? Am I now too old to keep up with acronyms? Sadly the answer is most likely yes

No need to respond.

Cheers

Hahah Han you debunked yourself.

I dont understand why you do what you do. You go on others threads when they speculate the evidence you just presented and then in a un-scholarly way you ridicule them. Then you prove their speculations correct. I guess you are one of those guys who cant think for himself but does know how to copy paste and regurgitate.

Great information none the less. Great job for the investigators who didnt listen to old 'scholarly' types and followed their hearts and evidence.

Originally posted by Mrgone
OR.... Lloyd Pye and the starchild.


Oh, and what is AFAWKN? Am I now too old to keep up with acronyms? Sadly the answer is most likely yes

No need to respond.

Cheers

Sorry for the jargon, 'as far as we now know', or more correctly AFAWNK, I spelled it wrong above

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Hahah Han you debunked yourself.

I dont understand why you do what you do. You go on others threads when they speculate the evidence you just presented and then in a un-scholarly way you ridicule them. Then you prove their speculations correct. .

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to link to it? I've notice recently that all you do is follow me around and disagree even when it makes you look like a fool, oh well every king needs a jester.

I guess you are one of those guys who cant think for himself but does know how to copy paste and regurgitate

Your thinking for yourself is to just repeat what fringe websites tell you to believe....you should try learning at least al little about the subject before you deny the real evidence and support fringe made up stuff, which often contradicts itself, which unfortunately, in many cases, you don't even understand. Please try harder in the future.

Great information none the less. Great job for the investigators who didnt listen to old 'scholarly' types and followed their hearts and evidence.

You mean the archaeologists and scientists who did what they needed to? The people who you constantly denigrate and malign despite not having a clue what they do...those people? lol

reply to post by Hanslune


But.......but.........but.......but.......surely the South American sites were populated by the remains of a super advanced civilization of prior humans?

Sorry, couldn't resist! Another great spot, thanks Hanslune. So, in the past year, we have now gained the evidence for which mountain range the first settlers came from (Altai) and now we have evidence that this route was open for a couple of thousand years longer than previously thought.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Hahah Han you debunked yourself.

I dont understand why you do what you do. You go on others threads when they speculate the evidence you just presented and then in a un-scholarly way you ridicule them. Then you prove their speculations correct. I guess you are one of those guys who cant think for himself but does know how to copy paste and regurgitate.

Great information none the less. Great job for the investigators who didnt listen to old 'scholarly' types and followed their hearts and evidence.

Sorry, what are you talking about?

As far as i can tell, this paper is basically confirming what archeologists, etc, have long suspected. It simply pushes the time frame back by 2'000 years. This doesn't affect any of the "fringe theories" in that it doesn't provide them with anymore evidence. However, it does totally back up genetic links to the Altai mountain region of Mongolia.

reply to post by Hanslune


Many thanks for posting this.

reply to post by Hanslune


So, the oldest sites they have found are in South America, not North America?

If so, why would the Bering Land Bridge theory even be considered?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Basically because the the study shows that any early Americans had ample time to wander from the North to the South.

Whilst the oldest inhabitants have been found in South America, they fit within this time range (rather than earlier).

However, i am sure that Hanslune will be able to fill in much more detail here.......

reply to post by Flavian


And, the assumption is that even with a lack of any evidence of settlements showing a progression towards South America, and that South America has the oldest settlements, that people migrated from North to South?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I get your point.......there should be more sites in the North.......

Could be various factors for that not being the case though, for example later Native American civilizations could have looted both goods and building materials to create other settlements. Or perhaps many sites were destroyed by the meteor bombardment that set off the Younger Dryas period? Or various other geological reasons.......

Maybe it was even something as simple as wanderlust? By that i mean that perhaps they just kept on going? (seeing how far they could go).

Or perhaps they just weren't the sort of civilizations / settlements that left much behind in the way of artifacts to be found by later inhabitants?

Possibly Hanslune or someone could help with that.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Hanslune

 

But.......but.........but.......but.......surely the South American sites were populated by the remains of a super advanced civilization of prior humans?

Sorry, couldn't resist! Another great spot, thanks Hanslune. So, in the past year, we have now gained the evidence for which mountain range the first settlers came from (Altai) and now we have evidence that this route was open for a couple of thousand years longer than previously thought.

Yes the evidence is coming in nicely, that makes the picture a lot clearer and takes a bit of puzzlement out of the earlier southern sites

reply to post by Hanslune


That wasn't much help, Hans. Primarily, you are not challenging the whole "meteor impact event in the younger dryas" that I know is a pet peeve of yours.

Regardless, to ignore the logic of the first settlements being in South America and therefore originates in South America seems very illogical. I would like to know why, to the layperson, this seems to illogical and yet is valid within the parameters of the scientific method.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Flavian

 

And, the assumption is that even with a lack of any evidence of settlements showing a progression towards South America, and that South America has the oldest settlements, that people migrated from North to South?

Ah you are hitting on another real archaeological mystery, why are archaeologist finding more sites to the south and not the north?

Some of the theories are:

1. Luck - perhaps influenced by the fact it is far cheaper and easier to dig in SA than the NA

2. People had wandered ( for multiple generations) and that they 'hit the end of the trail' and had to settle

3. Lack of viable routes for those out of North west Asia to get to the Southern Americas other than down the west coast of the Americas or through the land area

4. DNA shows they didn't come from Africa (in the time frame of peopling of the Americas) at this point theory says everyone ultimately came from Africa but it doesn't apply here due to the timing

5. Same for a ocean route, a much earlier, non-Denisovian influenced migration got to Australia, then stopped, or at least no one has found such a movement ... 'with a lack of any evidence of settlements showing a progression towards South America'...from Australia, etc....plus as noted the DNA doesn't match

6. There was a theory about European involvement but that one is bogged down with a number of evidentiary issues

reply to post by Hanslune


Is there evidence that people DID move through North America first?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Is there evidence that people DID move through North America first?

There is evidence there were people there, hard to determine if they were moving south or just stayin' however

Earliest site in North America

reply to post by Hanslune


Those artifacts were, at most, 15.5k years old. The oldest S. American settlements were from that same age, correct?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Those artifacts were, at most, 15.5k years old. The oldest S. American settlements were from that same age, correct?

Some are and some arn't and there are some sites in NA which are older but the dates are contested.