Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

>This new picture raises a key question: did the first migrants to the Americas really race over Beringia just as the great ice sheets were melting?

I'm not sure that I subscribe to land bridges as gateways for early humans to move between continents, especially in the north. The Inuit/Eskimo peoples are and were perfectly capable of moving and living on water, frozen water but water nevertheless. Humans need not have waited to walk across dry land bridges. They were perfectly capable of migrating along ice sheets, or even setting out into open oceans. It would not have been much fun, but the journey would have been made either deliberately or by accident.

View on HN

> The Inuit/Eskimo peoples are and were perfectly capable of moving and living on water

Suprisingly the Inuit are a very young culture! They started around 1000 AD in Alaska and had settled northern Canada and Greenland only when Europe discovered America.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Arctic_c...

The Paleo-Eskimos (genetic studies show no connection to the Inuits, so no intermarriage) developed 2500 BC (and ended 1500 AD), so only 4000 years ago, this is way after the migration of Paleo-Indians into the American continent (40,000–16,500 years ago).

Yes, the Dorset culture was basically genocided by the Inuit. The Inuit actually still have stories about it.

Apparently someone doesn't like the word "genocide" here.

The Dorset were wiped out so thoroughly by the encroaching proto-Inuit that they didn't even leave any genes behind. What would you call it?

I didn't mean to say that they were the culture that made the crossing. They are proof that the move was possible using only the resources available at the time.

They did set out into open oceans, it was the only way to get to Australia and that was populated long before the Americas.

Australia was also settled during a glacial maximum so the coastline extended out much further than now.

The distance the first migrants to Australia might have needed to travel across open water might have been as low as 90km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia#Arriva...

A few things to keep in mind:

1. Australia was probably settled well before the Glacial maximum.

2. We don't know much about the coastline, a rocky, volcanic island wouldn't have been a great help to the migrators.

3. They islands they had to go through is a geographically active region (it's possible some people in the migration witnessed the Toba eruption), so knowing where the coastlines were is difficult.

4. Is there a standard for what's considered open ocean? I would consider 45Km to be included, but then again, I would consider grater than 0.1Km to be open ocean.

4. Yes, but it varies by domain. I think the military definition is the more useful one here: https://definedterm.com/open_ocean There are rivers over 100m wide so I don't think that would fit most people's definition.

The definition of "open ocean" in my area is that part of the sea unconstrained by the effects of land masses, ie open. It's where waves are defined by wind alone, without any obvious influence of land or shallow.

Another version would be those areas where ships may navigate freely without worry of obstructions. That would mean, for sail, that some areas are open or not based on the direction of the wind.

The constraint being assumed here, I think, is that it would take a very long time for regular people travelling at a regular pace, and not really knowing where they're going (rather than, say, soldiers on a forced march to a known destination) to cross the Bering strait. It would be longer than preserves would last; it would be longer than bodily essential-nutrient stores would last.

Humans need to eat plants. Even the sub-arctic tundra supplies plants to eat, in the summer. But arctic tundra doesn't, and ice sheets certainly don't. Migrating from the arctic tundra in Sibera, across an ice sheet, and then back across the arctic tundra of the Yukon, before finally reaching sub-arctic tundra, would likely take years. It would destroy a person.

The advantage of a land bridge isn't that it's not water; it's that it's not ice. It is—for at least some part of the year—arable.

Believe it or not, Eskimos on the ice eat seals.

The Bering Strait is only 53 miles/85 km wide, and the native peoples of Alaska and Siberia routinely crossed it in their indigenous boats (and over the ice, in winter).

Also, there are plenty of plant foods available at the latitude of the Bering Strait.

That doesn't really say anything one way or another about the premise of this article, but it's simply not true that a land bridge was required.

I don;t think we need plants. If you east whole animals, livers and all, then I believe it possible to survive for an extended period. You won't be happy, but alive.

A water route for the early migrants makes a lot of sense. There was a study published in "Nature" a couple months ago that looked at samples from sediments at choke points on the land routes, and determined that it took several hundred years after the routes opened for vegetation and then animals to appear [1]. During that several hundred years, migrating humans passing through would not be able to live off the land. They'd have to have brought their food with them.

Note that this was before the invention of the wheel, so there would be no pulling your supplies with you on a cart. It was also before domestication of any animals other than dogs, so no pilling your supplies on a horse, or having a horse drag a sled.

They also would not know how far they would have to go to get to some place that could support them, so would have no idea how much food to take. With the limitation of only being able to take what they could carry, or get dogs to carry, or get dogs to pull on sleds, I doubt that they would have enough to make it through.

It's only after the plants and animals get well established, so that you can live off the land, that it becomes reasonably feasible to migrate that way.

The Clovis culture was well established long before that, so they had to come some other way,

A water route avoids these problems. First, you can carry a lot more with you when you go by boat. You can either make your boat bigger to have room for your supplies, or you can tow a supply boat or raft. (Ropes had been invented by then).

Second, you can fish. I don't think the technology of the time would have caught much in the open ocean [2], but if they stayed reasonably close to coastlines they should have been able to catch plenty of fish. (Following coastlines might also be a good idea so they could go ashore now and then to try to find fresh water).

What I don't think I've ever seen discussed is when did anyone go the other way? Presumably at some point someone came back and so people in Asia became aware that those who headed east and were never heard from again weren't all starving to death or sailing [3] off the edge of the world or whatever.

[1] Here's an article about the study: http://www.history.com/news/new-study-refutes-theory-of-how-...

[2] the open ocean is sometimes described as a "biological desert" because of the sparseness of life there, especially life reasonably near the surface (and so where ancient fisherman could reasonably have a shot at catching it). The overwhelming majority of ocean life is in the shallow seas above the continental shelfs.

[3] well...rowing. This was before sails were invented.

> I don't think the technology of the time would have caught much in the open ocean [2]

> [2] the open ocean is sometimes described as a "biological desert" because of the sparseness of life there, especially life reasonably near the surface (and so where ancient fisherman could reasonably have a shot at catching it). The overwhelming majority of ocean life is in the shallow seas above the continental shelfs.

There's more than enough to feed you as you voyage through the open ocean. For unknown reasons, fish are attracted to anything that floats on the surface, so they'll come to you. This is, in fact, our current technology for catching dolphin-safe tuna -- release a bunch of "floating objects" into the sea, let them accumulate all manner of sea life, and sweep it all up.

People lost at sea on rafts don't starve. Exposure is a major issue; food isn't.

I agree, but think we are falling into the trap of assuming that the migration was in some way planned. I'm picturing more a band of people pushed to sea by an unusual storm, or traveling along the ice sheet to escape from some other people. They don't have to live or east well, just survive the journey. If following currents/winds that journey may have only been a couple weeks. Think of all the terrestrial species that have crossed oceans on driftwood.

(Boats 'sail' without sails. Wind pushes everything. It's not fast or efficient, but even a dugout can make plenty of progress on wind and current alone.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com