Getting the poop on a scientific controversy

[Fisherking]

The fact that it is scientific and not just historical along with the medium of discovery brings me to the back room.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/04/03/the-poop-on-the-first-americans.aspx


To me it seems like we either take the existence of a preclovis culture or we start looking at how Clovis people got here from Spain and France.

If the first Americans walked over from Siberia then why don't we find Clovis Points there?

And how would you like a scientific specialty studying petrified pooh?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm not sure that Spain or France come into it, but it is generally the case that we underestimate ancient peoples and their capabilities. Given the Melanesian expansions, I could be convinced that pre-Clovis people sailed over successfully.

As for coprolites, the interesting science is always in the midden. :2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

There is this theory about a transparant stone that was used for navigation, how exactly isn't clear. Vikings probably used it as well.

[Geoffrey S]

How they got there? I'm no expert, but there is plenty of evidence of many other cases where supposedly primitive populations managed extraordinary travels. Polynesia is a clear example of how highly developed such maritime traditions can be.

[Adrian II]

How they got there? I'm no expert, but there is plenty of evidence of many other cases where supposedly primitive populations managed extraordinary travels. Polynesia is a clear example of how highly developed such maritime traditions can be.Heck, even insects and other species managed to cover tremendous distances. I wouldn't necessarily put down all human migrations to maritime tradition. Chances are that in some, if not most, cases prehistoric migration was the result of fishermen, traders or travellers losing their bearings or being forced off course by harsh weather or unexpected currents.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Heck, even insects and other species managed to cover tremendous distances. I wouldn't necessarily put down all human migrations to maritime tradition. Chances are that in some, if not most, cases prehistoric migration was the result of fishermen, traders or travellers losing their bearings or being forced off course by harsh weather or unexpected currents.

I'm not so sure.

To set up a viable colony on virgin territory, one would expect a fair degree of organisation and planning. For one, hunting/fishing was invariably a male activity (as much as we can assume from evidence) and therefore lost fishers would tend not to have much opportunity to reproduce - unless humans were already present or they had watched Oprah - which is not what we are discussing.

Fishermen that returned from getting lost may well have brought back information, but I think the community would have had to plan to transport women and technology as a logistical exercise, not as an accident.

[Geoffrey S]

Heck, even insects and other species managed to cover tremendous distances. I wouldn't necessarily put down all human migrations to maritime tradition. Chances are that in some, if not most, cases prehistoric migration was the result of fishermen, traders or travellers losing their bearings or being forced off course by harsh weather or unexpected currents.
I agree with BG here in that migration and settlement, if that is the correct word for what were generally nomadic populations, implies a step beyond the chance landing by isolated fishermen. Personally I do have my doubts about such logistical capabilities and believe such maritime migration in that period is wishful thinking based on misinterpretation. But as the Clovis/pre-Clovis debate shows its certainly a field in which a different interpretations based on minimal evidence can shift developments over thousands of years.

I do wonder what the chances are of such an individual's remains being found and messing up the chronological estimates of scientists, though.

[Adrian II]

To set up a viable colony on virgin territory, one would expect a fair degree of organisation and planning. For one, hunting/fishing was invariably a male activity (as much as we can assume from evidence) and therefore lost fishers would tend not to have much opportunity to reproduce - unless humans were already present or they had watched Oprah - which is not what we are discussing.Prior to the indomitable rise of the Oprahs -- to be precise: from the Bronze Age through the early Middle Ages -- there used to exist a maritime culture on and around the North Sea shores, consisting of fishermen and traders who took their families along in their boats. These were usually small boats, made of wood and/or skins, surprisingly seaworthy and with the capacity to hold up to a dozen or more. Needless to say these were accomplished skippers and so were most adult family members. The fish-laden pack ice of the North serving as their natural bridge, they may have wittingly or unwittingly reached the trans-atlantic shore.
As is widely know already, the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Pacific seafaring peoples. Thor Heyerdahl even managed to demonstrate this in person. The origin of Oregon man's remnants may well have been a South Pacific, um, poop deck, so to speak.

We have come to accept the role played by chance in natural history, i.e. in plant and animal evolution and migration. Why shouldn't we accept its possible role in prehistoric human migration?

EDIT

The field seems to be in flux (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm) anyway.

2nd EDIT

Haplogroups (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/malhi/www/MalhiLab/downloads/Smith%20Malhi%20Eshleman%20Kaestle%20Kemp.pdf) are types of mitochondrial DNA that are specific for certain regions and population types. There are five haplogroups: A, B, C, D and X.

As this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403141109.htm)states, the haplo found in Oregon is type A and B, which is found only in Asia, Siberia and American Indians. Thus, the case for Asian/Pacific origin of the Oregon poop seems strong.

However, haplo X is found only in Europe and in certain American Indian tribes: Sioux, Navajo and Ojibway. Finds of prehistoric settlements on the U.S. East coast (such as Cactus Hill (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000415/fob1.asp)in Virginia) are dated to 16.000 BC, which makes them older than the Oregon poop. Most of the finds are Clovis-type, and similar in many ways to European stone age cultures.

BTW since haplo X does not occur in Asia and or Siberia, it must have reached American soil by sea. Maybe the ancestors of the Indians were part-European, or maybe they exterminated the European settlers and took their land.

Go figure :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

We have come to accept the role played by chance in natural history, i.e. in plant and animal evolution and migration. Why shouldn't we accept its possible role in prehistoric human migration?.

Oh, I don't rule it out by any means.

I just think that we tend to downgrade ancient human ingenuity, and invariably find out we were wrong after further examination. I'm sure many discoveries were made by chance, and probably a good few settlements. But I feel that many groups actually planned for migration, and did so with a skill and capability that we would find astonishing.

Plant and animal evolution and migration is ruled mainly by chance, but humans have always had the ability to manipulate their environment and thus skew the chances in our favour.

[Adrian II]

Plant and animal evolution and migration is ruled mainly by chance, but humans have always had the ability to manipulate their environment and thus skew the chances in our favour.Of course, and one does not exclude the other.

Take the Clovis-people, who were long considered to have been the first inhabitants of the Americas. They probably originated in Asia and crossed Beringia, the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska that runs beneath the Bering Sea, toward the end of the last Ice Age (around 10.000 BC). Did they consciously cross Beringia? Or did they follow the natural migration of the mammoth? The Clovis people were accomplished hunters whose flint darts and spearheads have been found in mammoth and bison carcases. It is quite possible that they merely followed their favourite game across Beringia, combining human ingenuity and natural diffusion of another species in one and the same migratory movement.

P.S. I am probably boring the pants off everyone else with my ramblings and links and stuff; it's just that I am fascinated by such riddles.

[Vladimir]

I wonder what sea levels in the Pacific were like during the various ice ages.

Indeed the point at which humans first reached the Americans has undergone dramatic change recently. Ancient human history is so fascinating! The thought of the grassy plains of north Africa and its effect on later Egyptian culture is only one such fascination. Why do you think they were so obsessed over the Nile?

[Adrian II]

I wonder what sea levels in the Pacific were like during the various ice ages.Ice 'eats' water. At the height of the last Ice Age global see level was apparently about 300 feet lower than today. The Florida costline for instance was twice as long. Beringia fell dry only toward the end of the last Ice Age, i.e. around 10.000 BC. However, archaeological finds in Alaska prove that the ice across Beringia was never a absolute obstacle to animals and men; there was human life in the Northern icefields even around 25.000 BC, when the glaciers were at their maximum size. Man is a versatile creature indeed.

[Vladimir]

Yes which is why I am curious as to how the lower sea levels effected migration in the Pacific. Some of the most ancient civilizations were almost certainly buried beneath the waves when the ice melted.

Heavy edit of my previous post.

[Geoffrey S]

Would be interesting to see if island hopping would be easier in the ice ages.

[Adrian II]

Yes which is why I am curious as to how the lower sea levels effected migration in the Pacific. Some of the most ancient civilizations were almost certainly buried beneath the waves when the ice melted.That is a somewhat puzzling statement. As far as I know (and please shoot holes in my ignorance wherever you can) the Polynesian islands were settled much later, during the so-called 'Polynesian expansion' starting around 1500 BC. I can't find any information on previous settlements, let alone sizeable civilizations, east of the Solomons.

[Vladimir]

That is a somewhat puzzling statement. As far as I know (and please shoot holes in my ignorance wherever you can) the Polynesian islands were settled much later, during the so-called 'Polynesian expansion' starting around 1500 BC. I can't find any information on previous settlements, let alone sizeable civilizations, east of the Solomons.

Looks like I was subconsciously trying to direct the threat toward something I wanted to talk about :grin: Early human seafaring migration most likely occurred in an arc from say Somalia to Australia. So the most ancient remains of seafaring people are most likely buried. Climate change would have encouraged migration and these people would have most likely resettled in coastal regions.

I was speaking more generally as people in general, all around the Earth, would have settled (when they did) first in low lying and coastal regions. Take the Black Sea migration for example. When it filled back up the locals moved out. Evidence of this can be seen in language patterns from Europe to India. When the oceans rose, more civilizations would be displaced.

Science channel had a good show on the true 10,000 BC (or thereabouts) when Africa was a fertile, wet plain where people with domesticated animals roamed. This pushes the line back once again to where civilization began. If it wasn't for the good weather this last 10,000 years we'd be back there with them.

[Adrian II]

Looks like I was subconsciously trying to direct the threat toward something I wanted to talk about :grin: Early human seafaring migration most likely occurred in an arc from say Somalia to Australia. So the most ancient remains of seafaring people are most likely buried. Climate change would have encouraged migration and these people would have most likely resettled in coastal regions.Yup, except that migration was most likely caused by population growth, not climate change. The big freeze setting in about 100.000 BC simply killed off an entire strain of migrants into the Levant. Those of you who appreciate graphic presentations will wet their pants over this nice link (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/).

Prehistory is more than a heroic struggle between resourceful man and merciless nature. Man can be selfdestructive, always has been. Don't discount population growth and civil war over (decreasing) natural resources as a main driving force behind migration, as well as a main cause for the disappearance of populations or civilizations in any given prehistoric period. Jared Diamond did a nice article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n11_v18/ai_19847179/pg_1) on the desastrous ecological breakdown of Mangareva, Henderson and Pitcairn islands, caused by overpopulation/deforestation by those nice, innocent Polynesians. The same seems to have happened on Easter Island, according to various antropologists.

Resulting in cannibalism! Ha!
:skull: https://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8950/eatfp3.gif (https://imageshack.us) :drama3:

[Vladimir]

Rats brought by trade. The destruction on many islands was most likely inflicted by a invasive species ravaging the flora. Then again, my reliance on TV instead of print may cause me to be off by just a few miles, and I can't provide a source. :shrug:

The first link is interesting but I think its migration to the Americas isn't congruent with recent findings. Especially in regard to Mesoamerica.

[Adrian II]

Rats brought by trade. The destruction on many islands was most likely inflicted by a invasive species ravaging the flora. Humans can be destructive, too. The above-mentioned Clovis people were such good hunters that they wiped several species off the face of the Americas. Soon after their arrival, the mammoth, giant armadillo, giant sloth and giant black bear were all extinguished.
The first link is interesting but I think its migration to the Americas isn't congruent with recent findings.Well, nothing in this field is absolute, conclusive, established truth.

Mind you, as the graphic shows, Europe was populated earlier (50.000 BC) than China (45.000 BC) and Siberia (40.000 BC). The Beringia crossing is put at 25.000 BC. European Stone Age migrants (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml) may have come in from the other side by sea, i.e. across the Northern Atlantic, at about the same time.

Anyway, where does all that leave Savannah Man (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm) who lived in North America around 50.000 BC?

[Fisherking]

Well, well, another brick in the wall…

It wasn’t just people who were not thought to have been here yet. Some other species made the migration with the native American ancestors…or did they?

Have a look. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041115002514.htm