Let's say that the band of Paleo-Indians which were the first humans to reach the Americas all die in a snowstorm while crossing Beringia, leaving the New World/the Americas uninhabited until the Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut peoples migrate from Siberia on boats, the Vikings land in Vinland, and the Polynesians land at modern-day Chile? What do the Americas look like with a later peopling of the Americas with Na-Dene, Viking, and Polynesian settlers instead of Paleo-Indian settlers? What happens to the megafauna?
No Paleo-Indian migrations to the New World
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
So, what would the Americas look like here without the Paleo-Indians but with the later waves of migrations still around?
Interesting topic. There was a timeline based on a similar premise called Empty America, though I'm pretty sure that the other two waves of expansion didn't happen in that scenario.
I'll limit my speculation to languages and migrations, since I'm not too caught up with North American megafauna. I don't think a lot of species would survive into the Holocene, regardless of humans.
Between 6000 BCE and 4000 BCE, the Na-Dene quickly expand throughout the continent, with Proto-Tlinglit speakers expanding south, wedged between the Pacific and the Rockies. Proto-Eyak-Athabaskan can expand through the interior (like Haplogroup B2 did), spreading east. The Paleo-Eskimo expand throughout the Arctic, likely expanding further south via either the St. Lawrence or the Eastern Seaboard. I could see them getting everything east of the Appalachians. Central and South America are colonized by Tlinglitan speakers via the West Coast. Another possible migration route could be island hopping via the Caribbean, possibly by Paleo-Eskimo speakers. This migration could expand into the Orinoco, later reaching the Amazon via the Casiquiare Canal. The Andes could serve as a barrier between the two peoples in South America.
This is all assuming the main branches had diverged in Beringia, though if not the case, similar linguistic developments might also happen in this scenario. Another postulate in this suggestion is that the Paleo-Eskimo spoke a Dene-Yeniseian language, though it's highly likely.
Next up, we have the Eskimo-Aleut. They migrated into the continent around 2000 BCE (potentially much later, due to possible Eskimo-Aleut loanwords in Northern Tungusic languages), via the Aleutian Islands, so I can see this also happening in this timeline. I don't see any major changes happening with them, as they had a technological advantage over the Paleo-Eskimo, though this could potentially be butterflied away. In that case, they stay a small language family in far western Alaska.
The Vikings could settle Labrador and the Maritimes, potentially migrating into the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence. They can also migrate south along the East Coast. However, I don't think this would happen in rapid succession, as Viking settling wasn't too intensive. I could see a scattered pool of Vikings in North America by 1500. They could also introduce diseases into North America, depending on if and when they lose contact with Europe.
I can't see Polynesians getting too far, but they can settle along the coast of South America. It'll be interesting if they introduce agriculture to the natives, though it's probably too late to matter.
Speaking of agriculture, if they develop farming or not is up to the TL writer, though they already have a disadvantage of having considerably less time in the continent than the Paleo-Indians had in OTL, and even then it wasn't a lot.
Last edited:
I would say that agriculture is a distinct possibility, especially if the TL writer thinks that the primary cause of megafauna extinction was Paleo-Indian hunting. Megafauna provide a solid basis for domestication which has a good shot of leading to agriculture relatively easily.
The problem is the first Human that crossed into America crossed at at least 20,000 years ago, the oldest American Settlement that is without dispute is from the 40.000 to the 25,000 to the 15.000 BC, so most of the modern groups of what we consider "native americans" will come regardless
So after that you have the Clovis, around the 16.000 to show up, the chronology give us a lot of entry points, and multiples dates of human migration to america before the Na-dene and proto Eskimo Aleut to be significant the lost of the first human band
The problem is the first Human that crossed into America crossed at at least 20,000 years ago, the oldest American Settlement that is without dispute is from the 40.000 to the 25,000 to the 15.000 BC, so most of the modern groups of what we consider "native americans" will come regardless
So after that you have the Clovis, around the 16.000 to show up, the chronology give us a lot of entry points, and multiples dates of human migration to america before the Na-dene and proto Eskimo Aleut to be significant the lost of the first human band
It is imaginable that some of these migrations did not take, that some of these populations became extinct.
Marc
Donor
In terms of population demographics it doesn't matter how small the initial groups are. Barring insufficient food resources, numbers quickly can become exponential.
They can. Equally, it is entirely that small populations could be decimated by any number of factors: sudden environmental changes, pandemic disease, social collapse, all sorts of combinations of these factors ...
Is there any evidence of more than one origin for pre-Na-Dene/Inuit migrants?
Well to be fair there is evidence of at least TWO migration waves during the pleistocene, but we aren't sure when was the first immigration wave, ´so could be one clan (twenty people), could be hundreds(around a thousand people), we don´t know, and the fossil and archeology records could be under permafrost/water line, and the Bluefish cave support the Beringia refuge theory, that say the humans arrived to America before the Last Glacial Maximum, and disseminate to americas during the first glacial retreat, this is during the late Pleistocene, heck the Clovis culture surged during the Pleistocene, and then just before the Holocene really early holocene there was even more human migration waves, if you eliminate the very first proto paleo indians, the direct antecesor of the paleo indians, you still have plenty of human migration waves
I read a study a few years ago based on genetics, suggesting the entire NA population had a founder population of around 71 people. I think it meant both Paleo Indian and Na Dene and empathized that this population is the total who passed on their genetics rather than the total. Regardless, what evidence we have suggests a founder population of under a 100.
As far as i understand the NA-Dene come from a later immigration than the Paleo- Indians as they have genetics represented to a third migration wave, but still have marks of the first migration wave haplogroups
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas-saw-three-waves-of-ancient-settlers/
but all this is extremely new investigación so is highly controversial and experimental