I think I misunderstood the actual implications of this article. I had assumed that the 'Europeans' mentioned would have been the people who were descended from one of the original African migrations, whereas it seems to be that they are they are not so regarded in the article. Were there any 'Europeans" at that time? (Indeed are there even any 'Europeans' at the moment?!) Surely 15,000 years ago the term European would have been nearly meaningless, as they would have been merely a collection of individual, and in fact even culturally, unrelated tribes.
The way I have been using 'Europeans' is that they came from what we now call Europe. The people would have been what we generically call Cro-magnons. These were the first modern humans in Europe. They were so called because the first remains were found in a rock shelter by that name in SW France. At the time of course there would not have been any unified group or country. They are mostly unified by the style of the artifacts they left behind. Actually I don't think there was a fixed style that they all used, but they were all made in the same general way. They were also the ones who produced the cave paintings that have been found in so many places in Europe.
We all come from the original African migrations do we not? Certainly this was the direction that I thought research favoured.
Yes, we did all come the original African migrations. After we moved out of Africa and split up to go all our various ways we began to take on the differences that we know of today, so that we can talk about Europeans and Africans and Orientals and so on.
Surely it is possible that these people came from both areas. The Americas are huge- one lot could have been on the eastern side and another the west-- not to mention another lot creeping slowly up from the south. Why the controversy? All the possibilities seem valid.
The controversy comes about because the first findings that clearly showed the presence of humans in the Americas were from about 11,000 years ago. Since then there have been findings that absolutely show there were people in the Americas by 15,000 years ago. But some people have found evidence they think moves the first humans in the Americas back around 31,000 years ago. This is still contested by more conservative members of the archaeological community.
The problem showing that the first Americans came from Europe is that there is strong evidence for an Asian source for the peopling of America. I think initially the idea came from the fact that Native Americans show some Asian characteristics. That and the fact that during the last glaciation there was a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska, so that it would have been relatively easy for people to cross from Siberia to the Americas. DNA evidence also supports this idea.
Does the supposition of European origins stem from the discoveries that support the evidence of Clovis people? And, as a person of Welsh heritage I must mention the fact that some (now non-existent) Native-American tribe that seemed to have customs and language with echoes of Welsh influence!
What we know about the Clovis people is basically that they made a certain type of very elegant stone blades. They were hunters, because the first blades were found with animal remains in the 1930's. At first they were thought to be the "First Americans", but discoveries since then have shown that other cultures preceded them. The age of the other cultures is controversial. Some claim as far back as 31,000 years ago, but most American archaeologists will not accept those dates. However, they are not considered to have a European origin. The evidence for a European origin for any Americans (prior to the Norse) is still considered highly doubtful by most archaeologists. The article I referenced in my first post in this thread contains one of the claims for some sort of European origin for the first Americans.
The problem that I think most archaeologists have with a European origin is that there was never a convenient land bridge in the NE the way there was in the NW. I must say that this not necessarily an insuperable barrier to migration across the Atlantic. There were islands across the North Atlantic, just as there are today. These would have been more closely spaced during a glaciation, so island hopping would have been accomplished more easily. However, it is still more difficult to island hop than it is to walk across a land bridge.
The Norse did the crossing that way in the 10th century (900-1000 CE). But they didn't make any permanent settlements in North America. That doesn't mean that no Norse blood managed to get into the native population. Cross breeding between different social groups has always been around.
Oh, one more thing, your mention of coming from the south. There has never been a land bridge between South America and any other continent, well not since mankind evolved. Movement from any place else would then depend on accidental transports. If somebody in a boat in Asian waters got blown out to sea they could have been caught in the current that curves up the eastern coast of Asia and then brought down the west coast of America. This would not have happened often and not many people would have been able to make it. The same could happen to people off the west coast of Africa. If the winds were right they could have reached Brazil, but again, not many and not often. This has happened for cattle egret in historical times. When I was young in the 40s and 50s the cattle egret was an African bird. Then a few showed up in Brazil. By 1956 the first ones had been spotted in Florida. Now they are found all across the United States. It is assumed that a few were caught in some winds and carried across the Atlantic.
Bill Gill
