This isn't the first time that's shown up in the data. It's more likely than you might imagine. There's a hell of a lot we still don't know about from where and how the Americas were populated, but the one certainty is it was not remotely simple.
Hoomins be smart motherfuckers. what's a little ocean for the smartest monkey in existence? It's not like paleolithic folks were dumb, and we probably have a very bad idea of the level of tech paleolithic and neolithic peoples had on account of, well, we think of them as "stone age" when stone was probably a marginal material for them: most of their stuff would have more likely than not be made of rope, wood and leather, which are more workable and plentiful materials: it's just they rot, so we don't see them.
the Rapa Nui people had these highly complicated seafaring vessels made of straw and wood and i don't know what else, and it's been established that those things could travel long long distances... and i mean, the proof is that easter island is populated since a long time ago: no reason to think neolithics were any worse at seafaring or any less into fishing or oceanic adventures.
the Rapa Nui people had these highly complicated seafaring vessels made of straw and wood and i don't know what else, and it's been established that those things could travel long long distances... and i mean, the proof is that easter island is populated since a long time ago: no reason to think neolithics were any worse at seafaring or any less into fishing or oceanic adventures.
In an Anthropology course I took earlier this year called "Prehistory of the Americas", we actually briefly discussed the Solutrian hypothesis. That's the cross-atlantic thing as an origin for that otherwise European haplogroup in North America, along with claims that Clovis points were based on Solutrian points. But my professor presented it as pretty far-fetched. She said that more likely, that haplogroup was once more widespread throughout Eurasia, and some of its bearers went to North America via the more plausible ice corridor and pacific coast routes, while others settled in Europe, and the rest in between disappeared.
quoting Matrix, Conversational Speaker:In an Anthropology course I took earlier this year called "Prehistory of the Americas", we actually briefly discussed the Solutrian hypothesis. That's the cross-atlantic thing as an origin for that otherwise European haplogroup in North America, along with claims that Clovis points were based on Solutrian points. But my professor presented it as pretty far-fetched. She said that more likely, that haplogroup was once more widespread throughout Eurasia, and some of its bearers went to North America via the more plausible ice corridor and pacific coast routes, while others settled in Europe, and the rest in between disappeared.
What was her opinion of pre-Clovis things? Because if she was disdainful she's either full of shit or being willfully blind.
I find it a little interesting that I've seen the Solutrian hypothesis criticized as racist and colonialist. Mostly because the migrants would have been Old Europeans. I mean, maybe there are racist subtext to the way it's discussed, but I've never seen something like "primitive Siberians never could have made the trip, it must have been enterprising White Europeans" or anything that smelled of such a sentiment.
No doubt racism in history (and historiography) is a big deal, but in the pre-bronze-age world, the only racist, imperialistic thing I think we can do is pretend that "Europeans" of that time were somehow anything like today's White People. What am I even saying this is so weird.
Post-colonial deconstruction in social sciences is mad important, in any case.
No doubt racism in history (and historiography) is a big deal, but in the pre-bronze-age world, the only racist, imperialistic thing I think we can do is pretend that "Europeans" of that time were somehow anything like today's White People. What am I even saying this is so weird.
Post-colonial deconstruction in social sciences is mad important, in any case.
quoting Nessari, Illúbequía, Seattle, Cascadia:quoting Matrix, Conversational Speaker:In an Anthropology course I took earlier this year called "Prehistory of the Americas", we actually briefly discussed the Solutrian hypothesis. That's the cross-atlantic thing as an origin for that otherwise European haplogroup in North America, along with claims that Clovis points were based on Solutrian points. But my professor presented it as pretty far-fetched. She said that more likely, that haplogroup was once more widespread throughout Eurasia, and some of its bearers went to North America via the more plausible ice corridor and pacific coast routes, while others settled in Europe, and the rest in between disappeared.
What was her opinion of pre-Clovis things? Because if she was disdainful she's either full of shit or being willfully blind.
I recall her being pretty alright with pre-Clovis stuff.
Oh hey, so, I was reading the Wikipedia page on haplogroups, and realized that the video we watched in that class that discussed the Solutrian hypothesis was actually talking about mtDNA haplogroups,+in this case, X not Y-chromosomal haplogroups.
Would white skin even've been widespread in Europe at that time? Or present at all?
Almost certainly not. The main reason to doubt the Solutrian hypothesis at this point is that the DNA of the Clovis child that was found shows strong affinities to Siberian and other American populations and none at all to populations of Old Europe.
quoting dhok, Deacon, Norman, United States:Does this imply that the Eastern US may have been settled...across the Atlantic? That seems unlikely.
Indeed, after 1500 CE, they have surely been.
(Ha, ha.)
quoting Nessari, Illúbequía, Seattle, Cascadia:There's also a few dollops of evidence that trans-pacific contacts not routed via the Bering Straits happened.
such as? the Austronesians probably made it to South America, but they outviked the Vikings, so...
