I don’t think there is a parallel situation in human evolution and land exploration where traveling and expanding along a coast was an option, or where initial access likely involved a seafaring culture where the only motivation is simple expansion. Even today most small coastal communities can exist entirely within a few kilometers of the coast without expanding further. Early communities were probably no more than a few families that spawned an outcast group every few generations.
That’s the majority of human migration. We follow water bodies, but not to the exclusion of all growth. By that logic we’d never have made it inland at all.
There’s no logical reason for a supposed pre Clovis culture to not go inland. 10,000 years and you really think they stayed 10km from the waves that whole time? It makes no sense. They would be the only group in human history to do that and they’d have needed to do it for millenia
But we never had a circumstance like coming to the America’s at any other time in history. Previously, it was never a seafaring culture able to expand, with the technology to be successful, and where their expansion ability was practically limitless. You’re talking about a significant shift in culture to go inland. If a new technology gave you such freedom to find a place where no one else seemed to be, and if you were trying to escape a place where people were dangerous and could be found anywhere in small groups, why not stick to this great new thing that made your life better and the lives of those in recent memory? Large groups have complex problems. Maybe early people in the Americas had no reason to form large groups, and no motivation for anything more than a peaceful life, much like people seeking a rural lifestyle today. All of Eurasia and Africa would have had people scattering about long before homo sapiens were alone. I doubt there was ever a time anyone was confident they were the first or completely alone in a new place until the Americas. If for generations it became clear that no one was around, and that traveling a short distance meant fresh land and resources while still in possible contact with other humans, why would you risk going inland. If you knew how to survive on the coast with this great technology that made it possible for your ancestors to escape a bad place, why would you go back to being bound to the land when your technology could give you everything you need. It is likely to be part of an oral tradition that living on the land is a bad thing that leads to criminals and conflicts. I could picture myself making it to America and telling my descendants to avoid living like the people I had escaped from. That kind of experience and tradition is entirely plausible. It could easily become a situation where people don’t want to push their luck and find more hostile people if they do exist. I’m not saying this is what happened, I am saying I find the ideas plausible especially thinking of the context of myself playing in large open old growth forests and how I limited my exploration and range in arbitrary ways. I expect prehistoric people to have a similar depth and development as a modern child.
Yes, we absolutely do. There are lots of other sea fairing cultures that managed to turn inland.
I’m sorry, it’s just completely implausible that there were people in America for ten thousand years without making any movement inland. Not only does it not make any sense, all the evidence we do have that maybe they were already on America comes from sites very far inland. Following your logic they made it to New Mexico and then back leaving only a single set of footprints behind. And never left the sea shore again? No.
I don’t think there is a parallel situation in human evolution and land exploration where traveling and expanding along a coast was an option, or where initial access likely involved a seafaring culture where the only motivation is simple expansion. Even today most small coastal communities can exist entirely within a few kilometers of the coast without expanding further. Early communities were probably no more than a few families that spawned an outcast group every few generations.
That’s the majority of human migration. We follow water bodies, but not to the exclusion of all growth. By that logic we’d never have made it inland at all.
There’s no logical reason for a supposed pre Clovis culture to not go inland. 10,000 years and you really think they stayed 10km from the waves that whole time? It makes no sense. They would be the only group in human history to do that and they’d have needed to do it for millenia
But we never had a circumstance like coming to the America’s at any other time in history. Previously, it was never a seafaring culture able to expand, with the technology to be successful, and where their expansion ability was practically limitless. You’re talking about a significant shift in culture to go inland. If a new technology gave you such freedom to find a place where no one else seemed to be, and if you were trying to escape a place where people were dangerous and could be found anywhere in small groups, why not stick to this great new thing that made your life better and the lives of those in recent memory? Large groups have complex problems. Maybe early people in the Americas had no reason to form large groups, and no motivation for anything more than a peaceful life, much like people seeking a rural lifestyle today. All of Eurasia and Africa would have had people scattering about long before homo sapiens were alone. I doubt there was ever a time anyone was confident they were the first or completely alone in a new place until the Americas. If for generations it became clear that no one was around, and that traveling a short distance meant fresh land and resources while still in possible contact with other humans, why would you risk going inland. If you knew how to survive on the coast with this great technology that made it possible for your ancestors to escape a bad place, why would you go back to being bound to the land when your technology could give you everything you need. It is likely to be part of an oral tradition that living on the land is a bad thing that leads to criminals and conflicts. I could picture myself making it to America and telling my descendants to avoid living like the people I had escaped from. That kind of experience and tradition is entirely plausible. It could easily become a situation where people don’t want to push their luck and find more hostile people if they do exist. I’m not saying this is what happened, I am saying I find the ideas plausible especially thinking of the context of myself playing in large open old growth forests and how I limited my exploration and range in arbitrary ways. I expect prehistoric people to have a similar depth and development as a modern child.
Yes, we absolutely do. There are lots of other sea fairing cultures that managed to turn inland.
I’m sorry, it’s just completely implausible that there were people in America for ten thousand years without making any movement inland. Not only does it not make any sense, all the evidence we do have that maybe they were already on America comes from sites very far inland. Following your logic they made it to New Mexico and then back leaving only a single set of footprints behind. And never left the sea shore again? No.