Migration Vs Human Migration

1238 Words 5 Pages
There is a consistent debate on whether humans came to the New World through the coastal route or the continental route. For both sides there is an abundant amount of compelling evidence for one to come up with their own conclusion. There are a variety of arguments for where the migration came from like: Asia, Europe, or Beringia. The Asia argument asserts the first migrants came from Siberia, the Solutrean hypothesis argues that people came from Europe (Oppenheimer et al,. 2014). In Beringia there was ice-free corridor between Asia and the Americas, that allowed people to migrate (Goebel et al., 2008). The continental route argues that the first migrants spread rapidly during the last ice age from Beringia to Tierra del Fuego passing through an ice-free corridor, in western Canada (Goebel et al., 2008). The coastal route presented more favorable environment conditions with less technical innovation (Mandryk et al., 2001). During the Last Glacial ice period, 3 mya, America and Asia were connected through a land bridge called Beringia. In the bridge fossils were found, supporting the idea that …show more content…
There was a prominent belief that an ice free corridor, is what brought the first people into the Americas through the Beringia bridge (Goebel et al., 2008). However there is multiple evidence that although people did come here through that route, they were not the first people to come to the Americas (Mandryk et al., 2001). The coastal route was available 1,000 years earlier, this is how people came to the New World through a route that was accessible and helped humans live in a vegetated environment (Mandryk et al., 2001). This was proven through different analysis of freshwater to marine sediments and data of the landscape by a hydrographic program (Mandryk et al.,

Related Documents