What is the new widely accepted theory for how humans first arrived in the Americas, if not for the traditional Bering Land Bridge hypothesis?
ianburrell · 2h ago
The new theory is that they came along the coast. Clovis culture arrived 13-16,000 years ago through corridor in ice sheets. But earlier sites, including these footprints, suggest that people arrived another way. These footprints are 21-23,000 years ago. I don't think there is any evidence how they got there, but the coast is plausible explanation.
tempestn · 2h ago
When you say "the coast", do you mean travelling south down the Pacific coast after crossing the Bering land bridge?
There is also evidence that pacific Islanders made at least two trips to the Americas using rafts.
I believe generic testing shows pacific Islander and early Asian DNA mixing.
Stefan Milo on YouTube has a few videos looking into different theories.
m0llusk · 2h ago
There is genetic evidence linking these very old inhabitants to Pacific Islanders of that time and there were more islands at that time because of lower sea levels.
AlotOfReading · 34m ago
It's really confusing to use the term pacific islanders here. The farthest humans had reached was the Solomon Islands, what we call "near Oceania". The places people think of when they say "Pacific Islands", namely Remote Oceania (Melanesia), Micronesia, and Polynesia were all uninhabited. Those early Papuans weren't especially closely related to the founding populations of the Americas, though they're closer than you might expect from the geographic distance because of the serial founder effect.
advisedwang · 2h ago
My lay understanding is that the theory is that these earlier humans crossed the Bering land bridge but that they didn't proceed through a inland ice-free corridor (as there was none then). They likely traversed the pacific coast, which was not at the same position it is today and so would leave no evidence.
I have also seen discussion of sea arrivals, but they are much more hypothetical.
Also worth noting as the earlier arrival doesn't rule out the later ice-free corridor traversal as having also happens - it just means it wasn't the first people to arrive in the Americas.
o11c · 2h ago
It's not that different. There's just dispute over when exactly between 30kya and 11kya people first crossed.
You can tell those feet had toes that were much longer and stronger than modern toes are. Makes sense since these creatures were closer back to when we were like monkeys climbing thru trees.
speakspokespok · 4m ago
Probably not. :)
However, I do notice the pronounced gaps between the toes. My parents generation grew up in Melanesia starting around the 1950’s and many of them have commented on the distinctly different footprint profiles of the local people who never had worn shoes and the western newcomers. If you’ve never worn shoes your toes are far more splayed. I don’t know about lenght of toe.
So really I don’t think your observation is related to their genetic proximity and more to do with bodily adaptation. Perhaps an anthropological podiatrist can comment.
AlotOfReading · 17m ago
These were anatomically modern humans, essentially identical to you or I.
IncreasePosts · 13m ago
Maybe ultra modern humans have toes stunted from non-stop shoe wearing. You definitely splay your toes more if you're accustomed to walking bare foot than you do if you're accustomed to walking in shoes.
Edit: ah, the earlier discussion covers this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44319585
I believe generic testing shows pacific Islander and early Asian DNA mixing.
Stefan Milo on YouTube has a few videos looking into different theories.
I have also seen discussion of sea arrivals, but they are much more hypothetical.
Also worth noting as the earlier arrival doesn't rule out the later ice-free corridor traversal as having also happens - it just means it wasn't the first people to arrive in the Americas.
However, I do notice the pronounced gaps between the toes. My parents generation grew up in Melanesia starting around the 1950’s and many of them have commented on the distinctly different footprint profiles of the local people who never had worn shoes and the western newcomers. If you’ve never worn shoes your toes are far more splayed. I don’t know about lenght of toe.
So really I don’t think your observation is related to their genetic proximity and more to do with bodily adaptation. Perhaps an anthropological podiatrist can comment.