Genetic support for the Berengia Ice Bridge colonization

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

The Inuit cross 500 miles or more in dugouts with regularity, and have been doing so pretty much as long as they've been there.

Also, I was unaware of this, but apparently whether Stone Age people had boats isn't even disputed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

No argument here.  I'm just saying that the Atlantic crossing is just as likely as the Bering crossing, IMO.

And nothing says they didn't BOTH happen.

I'm in total agreement, and in fact there's a growing body of evidence that indicates that not only did both happen, but that our busy little Stone Age ancestors made several ventures across both the Atlantic and the Pacific over the centuries.

[Kai]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

The Inuit cross 500 miles or more in dugouts with regularity, and have been doing so pretty much as long as they've been there.

Also, I was unaware of this, but apparently whether Stone Age people had boats isn't even disputed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

No argument here.  I'm just saying that the Atlantic crossing is just as likely as the Bering crossing, IMO.

And nothing says they didn't BOTH happen.

I'm in total agreement, and in fact there's a growing body of evidence that indicates that not only did both happen, but that our busy little Stone Age ancestors made several ventures across both the Atlantic and the Pacific over the centuries.

Sure puts the later European explorers to shame if it's true.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

The Inuit cross 500 miles or more in dugouts with regularity, and have been doing so pretty much as long as they've been there.

Also, I was unaware of this, but apparently whether Stone Age people had boats isn't even disputed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

No argument here.  I'm just saying that the Atlantic crossing is just as likely as the Bering crossing, IMO.

And nothing says they didn't BOTH happen.

I'm in total agreement, and in fact there's a growing body of evidence that indicates that not only did both happen, but that our busy little Stone Age ancestors made several ventures across both the Atlantic and the Pacific over the centuries.

Sure puts the later European explorers to shame if it's true.

In what way? Senegal to Brazil is about 1600 miles now, but 50,000 years ago the seas were significantly lower (that's roughly the time period that it is estimated that people also started migrating to Australia) and I don't know what that means, functionally speaking, for that gap but it must have been significantly less.

Honestly, the Europeans of Columbus' era were nasty, filthy, primitive little savages and about the only thing they had going for them was that they had figured out guns and how to build big boats, but for 500 years now we've held tight onto the colonialist notion that they were vastly advanced and accomplished things impossible for any prior culture. It's kind of silly. Like I said, the Inuit were and still are crossing 500 miles of ocean in little wooden dugouts, and apparently it's established that Stone Age people had similar wooden dugouts, we know that Australia was settled by boat... it's a little odd that it's taken this long for our archaeologists to let go of the peculiar hubris of the assumption that people just couldn't have gotten here by boat, WELL, JUST BECAUSE, and acknowledge the possibility that if the little Stone-age assholes were so busy migrating to everywhere else on the globe all of the sudden, they might just have had the moxie to get in some of those little boats of theirs (maybe even lashed them together in large masses, per legend) and see what's on the other side of the big water.

However, if that migration occurred, it would seem that after the Ice Age ended there were no further migrations from Africa (I am saying this because American natives are the second-farthest from the African genome, beaten out by Australia), but there were further migrations from Asia, and probably not infrequent exchange between Alaska and Siberia, whether by boat (likely) or by land (completely speculative).

But there are a ton of unknowns, so really, all of it's pretty speculative.

[Kai]

I am very surprised, because this is the first I've heard about it. And that's still, at shortest distance, 1900 miles of Atlantic Ocean to cross.

True, but it has the added advantage of not being full of huge chunks of ice.

Assume some reed monstrosity averaging 4MPH.  500 hours, or just a hair under 3 weeks.  It could be done by stone age people with difficulty.  It could be done by bronze age people fairly easily.

Of course, one storm and everyone's dead, but you wouldn't have to get lucky more than once or twice.

The Inuit cross 500 miles or more in dugouts with regularity, and have been doing so pretty much as long as they've been there.

Also, I was unaware of this, but apparently whether Stone Age people had boats isn't even disputed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

No argument here.  I'm just saying that the Atlantic crossing is just as likely as the Bering crossing, IMO.

And nothing says they didn't BOTH happen.

I'm in total agreement, and in fact there's a growing body of evidence that indicates that not only did both happen, but that our busy little Stone Age ancestors made several ventures across both the Atlantic and the Pacific over the centuries.

Sure puts the later European explorers to shame if it's true.

In what way? Senegal to Brazil is about 1600 miles now, but 50,000 years ago the seas were significantly lower (that's roughly the time period that it is estimated that people also started migrating to Australia) and I don't know what that means, functionally speaking, for that gap but it must have been significantly less.

Honestly, the Europeans of Columbus' era were nasty, filthy, primitive little savages and about the only thing they had going for them was that they had figured out guns and how to build big boats, but for 500 years now we've held tight onto the colonialist notion that they were vastly advanced and accomplished things impossible for any prior culture. It's kind of silly. Like I said, the Inuit were and still are crossing 500 miles of ocean in little wooden dugouts, and apparently it's established that Stone Age people had similar wooden dugouts, we know that Australia was settled by boat... it's a little odd that it's taken this long for our archaeologists to let go of the peculiar hubris of the assumption that people just couldn't have gotten here by boat, WELL, JUST BECAUSE, and acknowledge the possibility that if the little Stone-age assholes were so busy migrating to everywhere else on the globe all of the sudden, they might just have had the moxie to get in some of those little boats of theirs (maybe even lashed them together in large masses, per legend) and see what's on the other side of the big water.

However, if that migration occurred, it would seem that after the Ice Age ended there were no further migrations from Africa (I am saying this because American natives are the second-farthest from the African genome, beaten out by Australia), but there were further migrations from Asia, and probably not infrequent exchange between Alaska and Siberia, whether by boat (likely) or by land (completely speculative).

But there are a ton of unknowns, so really, all of it's pretty speculative.

I've been looking for a sea level 50 tya map to support your first comment.

I continue to find it strange that I can't find any supporting evidence for the Atlantic crossing hypothesis.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Boy, it's a good thing Carter was reelected in 1980.  If Reagan had gotten in, we'd never know shit about genetics.  Stupid old neandrathal.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The only "evidence" for the Atlantic crossing hypothesis are the sites with significantly older evidence of settlement. I named two of them upthread so you should be easily able to look them up. There is no more physical evidence of Atlantic crossing than there is of a land bridge; it's all entirely a matter of looking at what evidence we have of human settlements and trying to come up with hypotheses that fit what little we do have. If you read the recent archaeology papers that are out there, I recall several that talk about alternate settlement hypotheses... I don't really have enough information to help you with that, so if you're really curious you might want to read from primary sources.