What's the alternative hypothesis? I admit I don't have much of a specific interest in north american pre-history
What's the alternative hypothesis? I admit I don't have much of a specific interest in north american pre-history
There doesn't need to be a single populating event at all. That there has actually always been an exchange between all the continents throughout history. Though the big one & most relevant is that Native people were on this continent for thousands of years prior to what land bridge theory says.
Fundamentally what Land Bridge theory exists to do, & why I find it so gauling is it exists to say we are not the original inhabitants of Turtle Island, & thus have no intrinsic right to the land.
Even Land Bridge theory has people on turtle island before the land bridge, the so called Clovis people, which allegedly Native people's colonized. But the simple truth is, Clovis people are Native people & Native people are Clovis people, & the whole thing is a lie.
Okay so like, I dunno if this is just me being too autistic but I asked what the alternative hypothesis to "the first people to the Americas came across the Beringian Land Bridge" was and I don't think you told me what it was?
What you said was definitely interesting and I'll take it on board, but it didn't directly answer my question so I'm a little confused
We don't talk about other nations like this. We know Native Australians have been on that continant for at least 65000 years, but we don't hypothesize a single event where they all showed up at once, despite it also being an isolated continent.
No land bridge or grand theory. Boats & human migration over period does the trick. So why would Turtle Island need a land bridge 11000 age to populate this continent?
So your issue is not as I phrased it, that people showed up via Beringia but that it's phrased as a relatively rapid epoch-defining event? I've been looking at it in terms of very direct facts, not mythologies (as in, the way yanks talk about "The Pilgrims" as the first European colonists)
What I am saying is; we have no fucking clue. Native folks were here before land bridge theory by tens of thousands of years, but that when you are dealing with these kinds of timeliness you really can't make definitive grand statements. Also; that there doesn't need to be a grand theory
I think that's a yes?
We don't talk about any other peoples this way. There's no "How did people populate Europe" debate, for instance. The whole nature of the conversation is racist on its face, because it assumes there has to be some mythologized event that brought Natives to Turtle Island in the first place
I did not. Because, as I stated, there simply was no grand single populizing event at all.
And why would there need to be? Even if we assume people came over the northern channel between modern-day Russia & Alaska, people periodically swim it contemporaniously. So the idea that anyone would need a land bridge to cross is, when boats exist, is... weird.
Okay so it sounds like the alternative hypothesis is coastal settlement instead?
Just standard human migration. Humans doing human shit. But yeah; it would have probably been along to coasts. The important one is the timeline. Native folks where here well well before Berigia theory says we were.
The problem with saying anything exect is, it was tens of millions of years ago. We just don't have the records to make grand proof positive statements. Like I was reading up on Scandinavian History from as resent as 13000 years ago & we don't know shit.
Tens of millions?
So when you go back 20 or 30 or 40 thousand years ago, just who fucking knows man. Like we know there where people on Turtle Island back then, even settlers had to admit that which is why they invented the Clovis people, but more then that?