When did people first enter the New World and how did they get there? This has been a question that has been debated for centuries and will probably continue for many more years to come in the anthropological community. A number of theories have been proposed over the years that explain the migration into the Americas, but as new data is recovered, these theories are continuously restructured. The following is a basic look at two of the more popular theories of migration models in the New World.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Understanding the Debate 3 Land Bridge theory 4 Coastal Migration 5 Conclusion |
Starting with the Basics
To start things off with a simple and broad approach, the variety of models have fallen in place between two different camps. One school of thought believes in a “short chronology,” believing that the first movement into the New World occurred no earlier than 14,000 – 16,000 years ago. On the other hand, the “long chronology” camp assumes that people entered the hemisphere at a much earlier date, theorizing the possibility of 20,000 years or earlier.
Understanding the Debate
Part of the problem that arises between these opposing views is the relationship of archaeological evidence between North and South America. North American sites usually take a uniform techno-complex pattern known as Clovis. Their South American counterparts, on the other hand, don’t share this consistency and have a large diversity in cultural patterns. Therefore, South American archaeologist didn’t believe the Clovis model applied in the Southern Hemisphere. This brought about new theories that were developed to explain prehistoric sites that didn’t fit into the Clovis tool techno-complex in South America. However, there is now a growing effort to develop a Pan-American colonization model that integrates both North and South American archaeological records.
Land Bridge theory
Many people have been familiar with the “short chronology” theory, which was widely accepted in the 1930’s up until recently. This model of migration into the New World focuses on people wandering from Siberia into Alaska, tracking big game animal herds. They were able to cross between the two continents by a land bridge called the Bering Strait. During the Wisconsin, the last major stage of the Pleistocene beginning at 50,000 years ago and ending some 10,000 years ago, ocean levels were 200 feet lower than today. This information is gathered using oxygen-isotope records from deep-sea cores. An exposed land bridge that was at least 1,000 miles wide opened up between Siberia and the western coast of Alaska. From the archaeological evidence gathered, this culture of big game hunters crossed the Bering Straight around 12,000 years ago and eventually reached the southern tip of South America 11,000 years ago.
Clovis Culture
This big game hunting culture was known as Clovis, which is identified with fluted projectile points. It received its name from Clovis artifacts found near Clovis, New Mexico, the first evidence of this tool complex, excavated in 1932. Clovis ranged over much of North America and even appeared in South America. Pictured at the bottom is an example of a Clovis point. Notice the notched flute where a shaft was inserted. This flute is one characteristic that defines the Clovis point complex. Problems with Clovis migration models
However, there are some real problems with the Clovis migration model. If Clovis people radiated south after entering the New World and eventually ended up at the southern tip of South America by 11,000 years ago, this leaves only a short time span to populate the entire hemisphere. Frustrating matters more, in 1997 a panel of authorities inspected the Monte Verde site in Chile concluding that the radiocarbon evidence predates Clovis by at least 1,000 years. This makes it difficult to defend the theory of a north to south population movement. It is also worth noting that many excavations have uncovered evidence that early hunters also consumed less glamorous foods, such as turtles, shellfish, and tubers. This is quite a change of diet from the big game mammoths, long-horn bison, horse, and camels that early Clovis hunters apparently followed east into the New World.
Coastal Migration
This leads to a pre-Clovis culture theory and a variety of differing migration models to explain the problems associated with the Clovis-based theory. Moving into a “long chronology” model requires a new way of looking at the Americas. One method is to look toward an entirely different continent, Australia. There have been well-dated stratigraphic studies that point to people entering Australia some 40,000 years ago. At this period Australia was not connected to another continent, which leads to the assumption that it was reached by watercraft. If Australia was reached in this fashion, it only seems reasonable that the same could be applied to migration models in the New World. This school of thought has developed a coastal migration route of pre-Clovis culture.
Pacific coastal model
Pacific coastal model stresses that South America was actually reached by people before North America following a pacific route of water travel. Support for this argument is based on sites such as Monte Verde and Tiama-Tiama. Monte Verde consists of two cultural components. The youngest layer is radiocarbon dated at 12,500 years, while the older component possibly dates back as far as 33,000 B.P. However, the older dates associated with the site are still debated.
Atlantic coastal model
Archaeologist’s Denis Stranford and Bruce Bradley champion the coastal Atlantic route. However, their theory still bases evidence off of the Clovis complex, but associates it with the Europeans’ Solutrean tradition. They have hypothesized that Solutrean hunters and fishers may have worked their way along the southern margins of the Atlantic sea ice into the New World. Their argument is based on the similarities between the Solutrean and Clovis flint napping techniques.
Problems with coastal migration models
The coastal migration models have provided a new look at migration in the New World, but they are not without their own problems. One of the biggest problems is collecting data for these theories. The coastline of the Pleistocene is now under 60 meters of water. This makes excavation rather difficult and probably unreachable until the utilization of underwater technology advances. If there was an early pre-Clovis coastal migration, there is always the possibility of a “failed colonization.” Of course as mentioned, evidence of this would be under 60 meters of water. Another problem that arises is the lack of hard evidence found for a “long chronology” theory. No sites have been able to produce a consistent date that is older than 12,000 years. When you consider the amount of academic and CRM projects constantly producing radiocarbon dates, this becomes a staggering blow to the theory. There is also the possibility that archaeologists aren’t even identifying the tool technology of pre-Clovis sites. Early tools might have been crude stone flakes, edge-trimmed cobble tools, and tools of perishable bone that North and South American archaeologist could easily overlook.
Conclusion
Although, it may seem that there is still a great deal of guesswork associated with these migration models, the theories are constantly being revised and a greater emphasis in using New Archaeology has been applied. North and South American archaeologists now have a greater exchange of ideas and even look toward their European peers for new insight into this topic. However, there will probably always be debate surrounding this issue until more evidence is gathered. In conclusion, the point is not favoritism towards any one particular model, but awareness of the possibility of the antiquity of people in the New World and a continuing need for future archaeologists to further investigate the matter.
