How did the Native Americans Get to The West?

[youngborean]

I am currently reading Red Earth, White Lies by Vine Deloria and thought about what a fruitful topic this would be to discuss. In one chapter in this work he asserts (through an analysis of the scientific literature) that there is no physical evidence for a human migration across a theorhetical Behring Straight, but that it is assumed that this theory is correct and has had a bunch of political ramifications in trials such as the Souix v US government in Lincoln after Wounded Knee (74 wounded knee). So my question for debate is whether or not this theory is:

1. A foregone conclusion that has been accepted in the lack of real physical evidence. In this case I would suggest comments to whether or not it should be taught to students as history (as it was taught to me).

2. The real history of the migration of their population documented by various facts.

3. An irrelavant issue that says nothing about public perceptions about integrity of science.

[juliod]

I'm leaning toward the irrelevant one.

there is no physical evidence for a human migration across a theorhetical Behring Straight

The problem is that we would not expect to find physical evidence of such a migration. The "land" they would have crossed would have in fact been ice sheets. Any camp sites or settlements would have been lost in succeeding periods of thaw, and many or most would have been above what is now water.

But that does not imply that the theory of arctic migration can not be supported very well by linguistics, genetics, and anthropology. Whether or not it really is a sound theory, I do not know.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Vine Deloria Jr., a renowned author, historian, scholar, political scientist and activist, is the winner of the 2003 American Indian Festival of Words Author Award. Glenn Welker Copyright © 1996-106

Notice that anthropologist is not listed as one of Mr Deloria's qualifications. Perhaps we could have a look at how scientists in that field react to his claims.

I also seem not to be able to find what alternative to the Bering strait theory he is proposing.

• Parallel Evolution?
• Divine Creation?
• Migration from proto-Africa to proto-South America when they were both part of Gonwana?

In Red Earth, White Lies, Vine Deloria, Jr., masterfully challenges the accepted but grossly inaccurate scientific theories of evolution, radiocarbon dating techniques, and the Bering Strait migration hoax. He warns coming generations of scientists, both Indian and white, not to repeat the ethnocentric omissions of the past by ignoring Indian oral tradition.... I have been waiting for this book all of my adult life.

Bold mine.
By lumping evolution and radiocarbon dating in with the Bering Strait theory as hoaxes, it looks to me like he is throwing in his lot with the fundamentalist anti-science crowd.

[Goat]

I am currently reading Red Earth, White Lies by Vine Deloria and thought about what a fruitful topic this would be to discuss. In one chapter in this work he asserts (through an analysis of the scientific literature) that there is no physical evidence for a human migration across a theorhetical Behring Straight, but that it is assumed that this theory is correct and has had a bunch of political ramifications in trials such as the Souix v US government in Lincoln after Wounded Knee (74 wounded knee). So my question for debate is whether or not this theory is:

1. A foregone conclusion that has been accepted in the lack of real physical evidence. In this case I would suggest comments to whether or not it should be taught to students as history (as it was taught to me).

2. The real history of the migration of their population documented by various facts.

3. An irrelavant issue that says nothing about public perceptions about integrity of science.

You do realize you are building a strawman, since the bering straight theory isn't the only one out there. There is the southeast asian connectoin via MtDna. There also is the linguistic patterns. The current thinking is that the original inhabitents came over 25 to 40,000 years ago, very likely from Southeast Asia, due to the archelogical finds, and to the
mitochondria dna evidence. There is also evidence that there were some migrations that were not Asian in origin, so the picture is a bit more complicated than that.

This newspaper article (from 1999) was showing that evidence was starting to go against the Berhing straight theory 8 years ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/08/ancient.woman/

[Cathar1950]

I guess I am going with Dan on this.
There seems to be linguistics, genetics, and anthropology that suport a migration also from europe. The question is which way did the go.

Mack also made an interesting observation.
It does look like anti-science.
I have read a number of the guy's books and I don't recall him being that anti-science and much as he was anti-establishment and he has an entertaining Marxist slant and like the work of Marvin Harris makes some great comparisons and shows the material nature of culture.

[youngborean]

The problem is that we would not expect to find physical evidence of such a migration. The "land" they would have crossed would have in fact been ice sheets. Any camp sites or settlements would have been lost in succeeding periods of thaw, and many or most would have been above what is now water.

His reference to this point would be that all of the oldest remmants of artifacts don't exist anywhere near the areas of migration. Not just right where the straight would have been.

But that does not imply that the theory of arctic migration can not be supported very well by linguistics, genetics, and anthropology.

I totally disagree. There is nothing arctic about the evidence from any of those disciplines, I think that was Deloria's main point. That the real blaring problem with the applicability of science (using this case as an example) is that it is subject to societal trends (like fads) and therefore should include an assessment of the societal influences that built them.

Bold mine.
By lumping evolution and radiocarbon dating in with the Bering Strait theory as hoaxes, it looks to me like he is throwing in his lot with the fundamentalist anti-science crowd.

I don't even think this reviewer is calling them all hoaxes (only the Bering Strait migration). And obviously this reviewer is not Deloria. As far as proposing other theories he reviews possibilites that have consquently been shunned because they are not what is popular. Much of his work deals with the work of E.F. Freeman and a lot of archeological sites in the west that would call the human evolutionary theories into question because of there old dates, such as sites in Mexico that were dated to 250,000 BP excavated by Cremo and Thompson.

You do realize you are building a strawman, since the bering straight theory isn't the only one out there.

I am using my educational experience which at the time was based solely on this theory as well as the Bering Strait migration being used as evidence to disallow the Sioux to have complete status as indigeneous in their trail in Lincoln post wounded knee. As far as true scholarly dissenters go who haven't been chased out of the academy, cite some beyond a growing complication. This book was published in 1995 so maybe the scientific establishment has gone back on some of its gross assumptions in this area. So is your point is that Scientist jumped the gun in Deloria's day but now have moved on to show that there is more evidence without out reminding everyone that they made grave mistakes in the past? This would only reflect the problem that he addresses and I am trying to tease out. This is that the major operating factors in the cultural relavance of science are emotion and chaos both of which tend to be completely disregarded when trying to explain what was previously wrong.

It does look like anti-science.

Well his writing is anti-science to some extant, but I am failing to see why that should automatically through it out. I think he is highlighting some fundamental problems with how science is applied to the general public. We have a growing world of people who believe without a doubt in the objectivity and cultural neutrality of science without having any personal basis (scientific or philosophical education) to have that perspective. If this is the case then why shouldn't Deloria be able to address them. His main points are not really against the scientific method but with how science is culturally applied and stepped in western (or more specifically a west is best) philosophy. Especially in education and application towards natives.