17.06.2022 Views

Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas

by Jennifer Raff

by Jennifer Raff

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

archaeological evidence <strong>of</strong> people living <strong>the</strong>re after <strong>the</strong> LGM, during <strong>the</strong><br />

Late Glacial period (~14,000 to 12,000 years ago), but claims <strong>of</strong> earlier<br />

human habitation are not accepted by <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> archaeologists, and<br />

even potential candidate sites are very rare.<br />

Some archaeologists are comfortable with <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong>re are<br />

gaps in <strong>the</strong> currently known archaeological record <strong>of</strong> Alaska. In o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

words, <strong>the</strong>y believe that <strong>the</strong> earliest (well-accepted) archaeological evidence<br />

<strong>of</strong> people in Alaska, which dates to about 14,200 years ago, is much<br />

younger than <strong>the</strong> actual date when people first arrived. They claim that <strong>the</strong><br />

archaeological record <strong>of</strong> Alaska is biased in two ways: First, much <strong>of</strong><br />

central Beringia (<strong>the</strong> Bering Land Bridge) and <strong>the</strong> coastal regions that<br />

would have been above sea level during <strong>the</strong> LGM are now underwater and<br />

inaccessible. Second, because so much <strong>of</strong> it is remote and difficult for<br />

excavation teams to access, only a tiny fraction <strong>of</strong> present-day Alaska has<br />

been studied archaeologically. Enormous expanses <strong>of</strong> land have yet to be<br />

surveyed for archaeological sites. Therefore, <strong>the</strong>y argue, while one cannot<br />

assume people were <strong>the</strong>re based on <strong>the</strong> traces <strong>of</strong> indirect evidence found<br />

thus far, it’s far too early to definitively say anything about when people<br />

were first in eastern Beringia, especially considering that <strong>the</strong> first<br />

populations would likely have been small and dispersed, leaving a very<br />

light archaeological footprint (3). In o<strong>the</strong>r words, we are looking for very<br />

small needles in a very large haystack.<br />

But o<strong>the</strong>r archaeologists are uncomfortable with that assumption.<br />

Instead <strong>of</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sizing about sites that have yet to be found, <strong>the</strong>y argue,<br />

we should look at <strong>the</strong> story <strong>the</strong> existing archaeological record <strong>of</strong> Alaska<br />

tells us.<br />

They believe that <strong>the</strong> archaeological record within Alaska—particularly<br />

<strong>the</strong> lithics present at late Pleistocene sites—supports a later peopling model.<br />

They interpret a set <strong>of</strong> archaeological sites in interior Alaska around <strong>the</strong><br />

middle Tanana and Nenana Valleys—<strong>the</strong> earliest undisputed sites in Alaska<br />

—as <strong>the</strong> traces <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> earliest human presence in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Americas</strong>. In this<br />

chapter, we will explore this alternative model, <strong>the</strong> evidence it rests upon,<br />

and <strong>the</strong> assumptions it makes.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!