Friday, January 06, 2006


Land bridge?

About 15,000 years ago, humans crossed a land bridge that joined Asia to Alaska at the time. What would today's world be like if the land bridge that joined Alaska to Asia had never existed?

One should read the history of the Anistasi Indians before you make a statement like that.
The Anasazi creation myth shouldn't be used as a disqualifier for landbridge migration. Also, historically, their culture began around 1000 bce, long after the migration.

Anyway, without the land-bridge, I imagine that the migration would have been merely delayed until a seafaring culture made it's way out to North America. In then end, not an awful lot would be different.
Honestly, I think I would need to know a lot more history to answer this question adequately. I assume the first seafaring culture to reach it were the Norse? Vikings? But the first significant impacts came from Columbus's expedition. Let's assume that since no one crosses the land bridge, the land is uninhabited. Just speaking on the surface so to speak; if there are no occupants, there's no initial conflict. With that, there would be no exchange of information. Agricultural techniques would be denied to Europeans for a while longer. Disputes over land claims would be solely under Europeans. Perhaps the Asian culture would change too, and have a more expansive mindset. Instead of countries like China isolating themselves, they might advance in technology at a quicker pace. I think the changes that could occur as a result of having no land bridge are exorbitant in numbers, and life would be drastically different than it is now.
You're right and I didn't. My point is ,who knows. It's for damn sure not you or I.
With out that land bridge the Indians would not have been there to help the pilgrims survive their first winter in the new world. The Spainish would never have looted all of that Aztec and Incan gold. Sachajewiah would never have led Lewis and Clark to the Pacific Ocean. Sir Walter Raliegh would never have brought Tabacco back to Europe. Corn, Tomatoes and Potato's would remain undiscovered and uneaten, no Pizza, no Taco's, no French Fries .........
The following sentences should not be interpreted as sarcasm, illwill or flamebait:

Sorry, BBLB, I shouldn't have been so confrontational. I should have asked what is is about the Anasazi that might make me rethink the question?

And, yes, who knows? But, that's half the fun of speculative fiction or "what-if" history.
I dont think much would have changed given the following two sights. they involve the DNA of native americans. It is belived that the land bridge people were some of the last to get here.
The buffalo would have evolved into a superior culture and driven the Spanish out.
Well there has been some recent genetic discoveries that suggest a small percentage of the native American popultaion may have a small amount of European ancestory from a group of people from Stone Age France who crossed the ocean and used similar survival techniques to what the Inuit practice (there was a show on the Discovery Channel recently about it, they said most Native tribes have 3 genetic ancestoral groups with a few having the 4th from the European group). So perhaps they would have come to dominate the Americas. So who knows for sure?
This is to assume the land bridge theory is correct. There very well could have been, but either way I definately believe people came here via the ocean.
I know almost nothing of the land bridge except that there was to have been a migration. What was to keep people from coming earlier that 15000 years, or later for that matter, if it disappeared & then froze over?

From everything I've read & seen on my buddies, History Channel, National Geographic, & Discovery, a lot seems to point to very early migration from Africa, Far East, & South Pacific via the sea.

I would suggest they came from the land bridge, Northern Europe, Africa, & the East, but the two continents remained lightly populated. Subtract the ones from the land bridge & you probably have little impact on history.

bdleaf makes an excellent point of Columbus making the first "significant" impact. How would the absence of just that one migration seriously affect history after 1492?
Insofar as the impact of American Indians on the rest of the world is rather negligible, I suspect history would not be all that different in their absence.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

eXTReMe Tracker