COLONIZATION OF AMERICAS: ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA
Colonization of Americas: By Land, By Sea
Topic Summary
Various disciplines and studies try to develop a framework on the knowledge on the first settlement of human in Americas. The lead authority in this topic is archeology that makes use of scientific knowledge to prove the first settlement of the first Americans and Californians. A review of literature indicates that the most likely first colonization of Americas by modern man was by land bridge during the glacial period, which links the north East Asia and Alaska [Feinman & Douglas 2007: 125]. The archaeological evidence shows that modern man colonized the Northeastern Asia 35,000 years ago, after developing clothing, housing, and culture. This is an important dynamic in this study since extensive analysis by archeologists and scientists indicate that the human skeletons from Americas are all fully modern man [Dixon 1999: 1]. This is because early remains of archaic man, that is the Neanderthals are only found in Europe and nowhere in the Americas. Therefore, this throws out the theory that the first human settlement occurred possibly tens, hundreds thousands years ago. Moreover, if colonization followed the land route, then the first settlers came from Northeastern Asia approximately 13,000 years ago through Beringia and down the ice corridor [Erlandson et al: 53]. This theory is supported by archaeologists like Haynes (1992), Hoffercker et al., (1993), and Meltzer (1995) [Feinman and Douglas 2007:125]. It is believed that,
“The colonization of the Americas by fully modern humans is fully putably occupied before the closing phases of the last glaciations, after 14,000 years ago” (Feinman and Douglas 2007:125).
In the beginning, the difficulty in determining the colonization of Americas is the proving of the claims of the ice age, antiquities based on American artifacts. This early attempts were based on poorly excavated, documented, and analyzed discoveries in the U.S. [Dixon 1999: 3]. The challenge of this land model is that there is evidence that modern human settled along the African coastlines 125,000 years ago, and later settled in Australia by boat 50,000 years ago, colonizing several islands in the pacific between 15,000 and 40,000 years ago [Erlandson et al: 53]. Other studies also support this as the best evidence of the advance of modern man in gathering and hunting was between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago from bone, airborne bird bones, and fish bones at later stone age sites found in southern Africa [Feinman and Douglas 2007:126]. This along with the doubt of the existence of the ice corridor at important times in history is the force behind the coastal or by sea theory of colonization. The coastal migration theory is supported by evidence from later digs at Baja California and Alta, at contemporary Folsom and Clovis sites [Erlandson et al: 53]. The Folsom evidence consists of the discovery of an extinct bison bone by an African American cowboy at Wild Horse Arroyo in Mexico. An excavation of the site produced Folsom artifacts that are believed to have been used to kill the bison [Dixon 1999:5]. The studies show that such artifacts are found along the coastal line of California and mostly entailing Paleo-Indian points. However, despite these discoveries the vast majority of scientists believe that the colonization of the Americas was from northeast Asia through the Bering Strait. It is believed that most of the Americas were isolated by the pacific and Atlantic oceans, making huge barriers to human crossing. Meanwhile, the sea levels during the glacial period reduced leading to Alaska and Siberia to be joined by Beringia. Therefore, modern man may have crossed either by land or by sea in winter using boats around 50,000 years ago.
The sea migration theory challenges this with evidence of a lack of pre-Clovis sites along the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice corridors, and the assumption that high glacial walls extending to the continental shelf blocked the northwestern coast. The sea migration theorists use recent data of the blocking of ice corridor between 21,000 and 11,000 B.C. [Erlandson et al: 54]. On the other hand, the evidence also shows that the coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest were deglaciated by 14,000 cal B.C. as supported by a wide range of terrestrial and marine resources. Moreover, evidence of the existence of modern man along the Chilean coast 14,500 years ago disapprove the theory that his counterpart travelled across the ice corridor, which had not yet opened until 1,500 years later [Erlandson et al: 55]. The coastal migration is further supported by evidence from the a Terminal Pleistocene site from the Channel Islands in California and the coast of Peru [Erlandson et al: 55]. Therefore, indicating a need to investigate the evidence of both theories to determine the true evidence that supports a by land or by sea migration.
Research Questions
- What are the onshore and offshore archaeological sites along the coastal of the Americas that provide evidence of preserved artifacts of the first settlement?
- To what extent do these artifacts support a by sea migration, using evidence of multiple human activity that is visible?
- If the migration was both by sea, what are the phases of the Pleistocene northeast Eurasia?
- What genetic and artifact radiocarbon data exists to support that the colonization of Americas was both by sea?
The review of literature indicates that the colonization of the Americas can be determined using the human range expansion across the Northeast Asia region into North and South American in the late Pleistocene era. The research questions strive to make use of evidence from literature along with experimental designs to provide data on the time and place of the colonization of Americas. The first question is designed to assist the research identify the research site. This is because the literature shows that there are different opinions concerning the colonization of Americas [Erlandson et al: 53; Dixon 1999:1; Feinman & Douglas 2007: 125]. The literature indicates a post- or pre-glacial colonization by either the Beringia land bridge, the Pacific Rim route, trans-arctic route, or the trans-Atlantic route [Buchanan and Hamilton 2010:1247]. The last three questions seeks to draw the research to identify actual genetic or artifact evidence to support the by sea migration.
Research Methods
To test the research hypothesis that the colonization of the Americas was by sea, this research will make use of a combination of methods. The first method is the experimental archaeology, which will attempt to replicate the research processes and investigate earlier techniques and artifacts collected from the Northeast Eurasian site, the Beringia, Siberia, and Alaska sites to test the sea migration theory [Buchanan and Hamilton 2010:1247]. The data is from the multiple sources sampling 516 individual radiocarbon dates of the sites ranging from ~46.6kBP to ~12 kBP [Buchanan and Hamilton 2010:1247], including all published radiocarbon dates from (Erlandson et al: 53). The experiment will omit any data that was from the surface digs or sites. The experiment will also try to proof the evidence of archaeological and molecular genetic material of the sea migration in the Pleistocene era, 15,000 years ago. This entails the rock, bone, and settlement artifacts collected from early coastal settlements like the Channel Islands in California. It also entails the Paleo-Indian settlement in Northern Channel Islands from the evidence of the Daisy cave, along the coast of San Miguel Island. The artifacts collected by previous archaeological finds of these areas are tested to prove that there were multiple occupations of people along the Americas coast that originated from the Northeast Eurasia sea routes.
The experiments will make use of residual analysis of a wider range of artifacts from the sites identified. The aim of this approach is to gain a more comprehensive perspective of the credibility and viability of the by sea migration via the three phases of the Northeast Eurasia route. Since no single form of analysis gives a complete picture of the variability and context of this site, the experiment will make use of microscopic use-wear analysis of the residue and artifacts. Residual analysis helps test the micro-morphology of the soil samples along with a comparative analysis of control samples from the same site. The goal of this analysis is to tell the depositional pathway of any plant remains in the samples in order to decipher the settlement pattern of the colonizers. This is more so necessary in linking the artifacts from the Northeast Eurasia sea route with the artifacts from Daisy Cave, Channel Islands to map out the migratory pattern. The residual analysis of the soil samples is necessary given that plant remains exist from falling migratory activities and household goods. Residual analysis can also offer the level of pollen in the artifacts, to show the activities taking place at the settlement sites. Pollen can also assist in understanding the migratory pattern of the settlers at the Channel Islands archaeological site.
To link the DNA samples from the Northeast Eurasia sites with the human settlement artifacts at Daisy cave Channel Islands, this analysis will make use of DNA mapping. The experiment opts to make use of Mitochondrial DNA technique since any sample collected from an archaeological dig does not have nuclear DNA in the cells, hence nuclear DNA analysis cannot apply. The mitochondrial DNA can survive, consequently, DNA of genetic material collected from the Daisy Cave site and the Northeast Eurasia routes will be compared. The goal is to map out the settlement route of colonizers by analyzing fish, bison, or hunting remains at the multiple sites. This is necessary given that the migrants had an animal for transport or food, with them as they travelled, hence parental DNA of animals passed down can assist in proving the sea migration route.
Since the experimental archaeological method selected may have limitations due to spatial mapping of the sites, the macroscopic analysis is used to delimit these limitations. Moreover, the literature review attempt of identifying sources of variability in the site sourcing is included to eliminate limitations. Therefore, in the end, the research will require to find a wide body of knowledge to determine the influence of the artifact materials, tools, and techniques.
References Cited
Dixon James E. 1999 Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University of N
