Paleoindian seafaring in America

[SteveF]

this is pretty awesome:

Evidence for a diversified sea-based economy among North American inhabitants dating from 12,200 to 11,400 years ago is emerging from three sites on California's Channel Islands.

Reporting in the March 4 issue of Science, a 15-member team led by University of Oregon and Smithsonian Institution scholars describes the discovery of scores of stemmed projectile points and crescents dating to that time period. The artifacts are associated with the remains of shellfish, seals, geese, cormorants and fish.

Funded primarily by grants from the National Science Foundation, the team also found thousands of artifacts made from chert, a flint-like rock used to make projectile points and other stone tools.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303141540.htm

decent short accompanying piece by michael balter in science. well worth a read. a focus on the coastal hypothesis for the peopling of the americas. this is a bit your to resolve it but i think ultimately strong support will mount for it, or some variant of it

About 12,000 years ago, on beautiful Santa Rosa Island off the coast of California, a group of prehistoric hunters bagged geese, cormorants, and albatross, perhaps using crescent-shaped stone points to stun the birds. They also caught a rainbow array of fish, including surfperch and rockfish, probably spearing them with barbed stone points also used to hunt seals. These sea goers must have crossed 10 kilometers of open water from the coast near what is now Santa Barbara to reach the island, and they also visited nearby San Miguel Island, where they raked in bountiful amounts of red abalone, mussels, snails, and crabs.

On page 1181 of this issue, archaeologist Jon Erlandson of the University of Oregon, Eugene, and his colleagues detail the remains of these ancient hunts: thousands of bird, fish, and sea-mammal bones, as well as shells and the characteristic stone points.

Some say that this evidence of early American coastal life offers clues to a central riddle in archaeology: How did prehistoric peoples, once they arrived in Alaska via a land bridge from Asia, journey south to the Americas? In recent years, some researchers have suggested that they came by boat down the coast of North America rather than through the continent's interior. But evidence for this hypothesis has been thin.

“The new finds are remarkable,” says archaeologist Charlotte Beck of Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. “They add important support to the coastal route argument.” But other researchers argue that the new sites are too young to tell us much about the routes that the first Americans took more than 14,000 years ago. It's possible that the Channel Islands people originally stemmed from inland populations that later moved to the coast, these researchers say. “The most parsimonious interpretation is that these were seasonal forays by mobile Paleoindian groups” living on the mainland, says archaeologist David Yesner of the University of Alaska, Anchorage. “It is difficult to link them to a coastal migration.”

On most of the North American mainland, the earliest signs of Paleoindians are so-called Clovis points, elegant fluted arrow or spear points dated no earlier than 13,000 years ago. Researchers once assumed that Clovis hunters came south via an ice-free corridor, through the glaciers that covered most of Canada until about 14,000 years ago. But researchers now realize that a number of sites in North and South America predate 14,000 years, suggesting that the first Americans arrived before the Clovis people and before the ice-free land corridor opened up. Hence the renewed interest in the coastal hypothesis.

The paper itself sticks to the facts of the finds, with little speculation about their bearing on the coastal hypothesis. But Erlandson and others think that the sites are clearly relevant. For example, although the new sites are radiocarbon-dated to no earlier than 12,000 years ago, back in 1959, 13,000-year-old human bones were uncovered on Santa Rosa Island at Arlington Springs. Thus the islands may have been occupied at least as early as the inland Clovis sites. Erlandson notes that the projectile points found on the Channel Islands look nothing like Clovis points, which were probably used to hunt large mammals. But they do resemble points found at pre-Clovis sites in the Pacific Northwest, South America, and even Japan, where similar artifacts dated to 15,000 years ago have been found.

Moreover, the team argues, the earlier finding of the Arlington Springs remains indicates that Paleoindians must have used boats by at least 13,000 years ago, suggesting that they had the seafaring skills needed for early coastal migrations. “The presence of people on the islands by that … date in itself suggests they had the maritime capabilities to get there,” says anthropologist Quentin Mackie of the University of Victoria in Canada.

But is the new evidence really proof of specialized coastal adaptations? “These appear to be strictly seasonal settlements of highly mobile hunter-gatherers, focused on shellfish and bird harvesting,” says Yesner, who adds that such forays could have been carried out with “relatively primitive” boats. And David Meltzer of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, wonders whether “this represent[s] a full-blown marine adaptation of a bunch of seafaring people cruising down the coast, or did they wander in” from inland areas, bringing the stemmed points and crescents with them.

So what would it take to prove the coastal hypothesis? “Unequivocal evidence would be a pre-Clovis site located on the coast,” says Beck. Meltzer agrees: “Give me a site” on the coast that is at least 15,000 years old, “and I will be a happy guy.”

Finding such a site is a tall order, however, because sea levels have risen nearly 100 meters over the past 15,000 years and most coastal sites are now submerged. Some archaeologists have begun searching for them using underwater techniques. Archaeologist Daniel Sandweiss of the University of Maine, Orono, says ancient DNA analyses of Paleoindian bones might also help (http://scim.ag/childburial). To settle the debate, “we need to find where the bodies are,” he says.

paper

Erlandson, J.M. et al. (2011) Paleoindian Seafaring, Maritime Technologies, and Coastal Foraging on California’s Channel Islands. Science, 331, 1181-1185.

Three archaeological sites on California’s Channel Islands show that Paleoindians relied heavily on marine resources. The Paleocoastal sites, dated between ~12,200 and 11,200 years ago, contain numerous stemmed projectile points and crescents associated with a variety of marine and aquatic faunal remains. At site CA-SRI-512 on Santa Rosa Island, Paleocoastal peoples used such tools to capture geese, cormorants, and other birds, along with marine mammals and finfish. At Cardwell Bluffs on San Miguel Island, Paleocoastal peoples collected local chert cobbles, worked them into bifaces and projectile points, and discarded thousands of marine shells. With bifacial technologies similar to those seen in Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition assemblages of western North America, the sites provide evidence for seafaring and island colonization by Paleoindians with a diversified maritime economy.

the artefacts are pretty cool:

Fig 2

Paleocoastal artifacts from CA-SRI-512W. Channel Island Barbed (CIB) points at left and three crescents in center column are from slope below eroding A6 paleosol; sawn red ochre (lower center), abraded bone tool fragments (upper right), projectile points, and crescents at right were found in situ in test units. Scale bar, 1 cm per square. [Photo by J. Erlandson]



Fig. 3

Chert projectile points from CA-SMI-678 and CA-SMI-679. Center column, five eccentric crescents (top to bottom: SMI-679-39, -214, -67, -5, and -341). Left columns, Amol points (top to bottom, column 1: 678-58, 679-24, 679-256; column 2: 678-722, 679-28, 678-38). Right columns, CIB points (column 4, top to bottom: 679-255, 679-216, 679-300; column 5: 679-215, 678-101, 678-86). SMI-678-722 was found in situ within shell midden stratum dated to ~12,240 to 11,750 cal BP. Scale bar, 1 cm per square. [Photo by J. Erlandson]

[ravenok]

wow.

[Sugriva]

Erlandson has published several cool papers on the subject of Paleoindians and coastal living, particularly the whole "kelp highway" hypothesis.

[SteveF]

Yes, he's done some interesting work though he's recently been associated with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis which isn't looking too great at the moment. Still can't get everything right.

I first got interested in coastal stuff when James Dixon gave a talk and discussion in a grad seminar I was in. He wrote this excellent paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b&searchtype=a

[teeth!]

Pretty cool. How does this affect our current understanding of the peopling of the Americas?

[el jefe]

Pretty cool. How does this affect our current understanding of the peopling of the Americas?

idk, but i'm guessing it's huge, b/c according to wiki, the channel island settlements have the earliest known paleontological evidence for humans in all of north america (13kya), and the fact that humans settled them at all is the earliest evidence for human seafaring in all of the americas.

[el jefe]

i was just reading about this the other day

[teeth!]

idk, but i'm guessing it's huge, b/c according to wiki, the channel island settlements have the earliest known paleontological evidence for humans in all of north america (13kya), and the fact that humans settled them at all is the earliest evidence for human seafaring in all of the americas.

I mean in terms of routes and technologies used to get here from Asia.

[el jefe]

i'm sorry but i'm not at liberty to discuss that

[teeth!]

We have ways of making you talk.

[SteveF]

Well it shows that they had the skills to exploit the resources that would have been necessary to make the coastal route. But they can't strictly speaking directly inform the debate IMO because, as noted in the Balter essay, they are a bit too young. However, Erlandson does make some useful points in this regard in the Balter essay.

[Marduk]

Last time I checked pretty much every native legend about travelling to the Americas claimed it was by canoe.

[Rathpig]

The "walking the whole way" hypothesis doesn't really make sense as a singular explanation anyway. Given the access the water, humans will build boats, and the "kelp highway" as a easy food source makes hunting North American large game animals, as would be required by inland migration, a questionable primary means of sustenance.

Interesting thread.

[el jefe]

Last time I checked pretty much every native legend about travelling to the Americas claimed it was by canoe.

last time i checked native legend was useless as a source of information, especially > 13,000 years after the fact.

to use evolution of language as a rough proxy for the fidelity of folklore, a language develops to the point of losing mutual intelligibility with its mother tongue or related dialects after something on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand years. and after about 10,000, dialects diverge so much that there is no longer any discernible trace of their relationship.

and that's language we're talking about, something for which accuracy of transmission from parent to child is important for a lot of practical purposes. folklore, otoh could be butchered left and right, and it wouldn't affect anything.

[teeth!]

The question then is how a seafaring people would have imported Clovis technology to the Americas for the purpose of hunting megafauna in the interior.

[el jefe]

i'm reading wiki on this now. sounds like an interesting puzzle. ot1h, travelling on foot sounds like the most likely or obvious mode of migration. otoh, the bering strait reflooded about 15.5 kya, and there is no hard evidence of human presence anywhere in the americas before about 13 kya.

[Rathpig]

The question then is how a seafaring people would have imported Clovis technology to the Americas for the purpose of hunting megafauna in the interior.

The possible sea route isn't mutually exclusive to a land route. In fact both routes over an extensive period would better explain the likely 10-50 million widespread pre-Columbian population.

[el jefe]

yeah but wiki says according to genetic research all aboriginal americans descend from a small founding population of about 70 individuals. not that only 70 people came across, but there were only 70 whose descendants survive today.

so you're still stuck with having to explain a large population boom, no matter how you say they got here. in fact, it might even be fair to say this eliminates the population as a source of information about land vs. sea migration.

[Rathpig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...f_the_Americas

Not being a geneticist, and not wishing to delve to deeply into the source material, this seems to open more questions than it answers. Especially since the Wiki article in many places uses secondary sourcing and not primary research.

This is especially interesting:

The over-all pattern that is emerging suggests that the Americas were recently colonized by a small number of individuals (effective size of about 70), and then they grew by a factor of 10 over 800 – 1000 years.[5][59] The data also shows that there have been genetic exchanges between Asia, the Arctic and Greenland since the initial peopling of the Americas.[59][60]

Given the huge geological diversity and isolation of some groups, this seems to point to a later out-migration from a concentrated population center since the survival of such a small initial sample can't be explained geographically by later group interaction. The numerous recurring cultural themes might be better explained by a population boom and out-migration in a more recent and concentrated period of time than it would by later cultural exchange between established and distinct groups.

[teeth!]

Effective population size is a measure of unique genetic diversity, not actual population size.

[Figuer]

yeah but wiki says according to genetic research all aboriginal americans descend from a small founding population of about 70 individuals. not that only 70 people came across, but there were only 70 whose descendants survive today.

Doubtful that would be the appropriate interpretation

[Rathpig]

Effective population size is a measure of unique genetic diversity, not actual population size.

Obviously, but it would appear to discount frequent small migrations from Asia over an extensive period of time and point to a set period of migration prior to population growth in North America. Would it not?

It would also seem to point to population concentration prior to extensive migration into remote locations since it appears there is a distinction between the indigenous Alaskan population and the rest of North America pointing to a later migration event from Asia into Alaska.

(By population concentration I don't mean a single village, but out-migration into extremely remote areas, such as the Amazon, seems unlikely without displaying some diversity as seen in the Alaskan population. This would point to the migration into remote areas being a much later event since population exchange would have been impossible.)

[Sugriva]

Anyway, John Hawks has finally added his views on the matter:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...ands-2011.html

[SteveF]

[mod]a frankly astoundingly wide ranging derail moved here[/mod]

[Berthold]

Pretty cool. How does this affect our current understanding of the peopling of the Americas?

Research has been going on for some time on this topic. I greatly enjoyed this book.