WI: Native Americans never crossed over from Asia

BELFAST

BELFAST

The new food plant found in the New world like Maize, Potatoes, Tomatoes etc would not be there.
Tobacco would be missing also.
The Americas would be a very different place without the native Americans.

The Ecological Impact of Native Americans in Eastern North America
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=21408

Study reveals environmental impact of American Indian farms centuries before Europeans arrived in North America
http://smithsonianscience.si.edu/20...merica-long-before-european-settlers-arrived/
 

Gurroruo

pa_dutch said:
...Which probably wouldn't change much aside from maybe language. Whoever the ancestors of the first Native Americans were, the languages diverged so much that linguistics researchers can't find any common traits uniting all of them, let alone links to Siberian languages. The people who became OTL Native Americans would simply mix into the other native Siberians, and any who went south or west might just mix into the ancestors of the Japanese, Koreans, Manchurians, Turkics, and so on.

Look at it this way: The Inuits went as far as Greenland. If Alien Space Bats suddenly placed another large, hospitable island next to Greenland, within close kayak-rowing distance, of course some pre-modern Inuit would get enough curiousity and seize the opportunity to settle it. There isn't, so they didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes of course they'd blend in, I never inferred otherwise. I only said that the OTL Native Americans might end up elsewhere within Eurasia which you've just agreed to after initially arguing against.
 

Mongo

pa_dutch said:
Whoever the ancestors of the first Native Americans were, the languages diverged so much that linguistics researchers can't find any common traits uniting all of them, let alone links to Siberian languages.
Click to expand...

A lot of linguists would disagree with that statement. There are a number (I've seen the number 23 in one online discussion) of so-called "Pan-Americanisms", or linguistic traits that are found throughout the North and South American languages, but rarely found outside the Americas. Of course they could have been spread by diffusion, but the sheer number of such shared traits would support shared descent as the reason for (most of) them.

One example of a Pan-Americanism is the pronoun system (with n- "I" and m- "you"), which is found in every part of the Americas, but rarely in the Old World.
 

jahenders

Banned
It would depend, of course, on whether you butterfly away all of the migrations or just some of them.

Assuming you wipe out all of the land-bridge (or Bering) migrations, the Europeans would find vast, empty land when they arrived (though there might be some isolated settlements somewhere).

That would cause a very different chain of events.

First, Columbus likely wouldn't assume he'd found India (no natives that 'resemble' Indians), but instead found some isolated island in the middle of the ocean.

Second, the Spanish and Portuguese would find no civilizations and no riches (gold, jewels, etc) when they arrive. They might be notionally interested in the land, but that's not an eye-catching find back home. The interest of those countries will certainly be lower and slower.

Third, the English settlements will have no help from natives, but may find more game.

Fourth, you'd have much later cross flow of "american" plants -- tobacco, etc. The Europeans might eventually find them, but it might be a while before they figure out a use and cultivate them.

In general, colonization will proceed much more slowly at first and will probably be more English and French oriented, with the Spanish and Portuguese limited to a few key bases. Eventually, the gold will be found and draw more, but much, much later.

Once the English, French, etc have substantial colonies, the spread will pick up pace because anyone who's disaffected can just go wander off into the wilderness with no worries of attack by natives. You'd wind up with more homes/settlements in the middle of nowhere, with civilization then growing up to their door.
 

Gurroruo

jahenders said:
It would depend, of course, on whether you butterfly away all of the migrations or just some of them.

Assuming you wipe out all of the land-bridge (or Bering) migrations, the Europeans would find vast, empty land when they arrived (though there might be some isolated settlements somewhere).

That would cause a very different chain of events.

First, Columbus likely wouldn't assume he'd found India (no natives that 'resemble' Indians), but instead found some isolated island in the middle of the ocean.

Second, the Spanish and Portuguese would find no civilizations and no riches (gold, jewels, etc) when they arrive. They might be notionally interested in the land, but that's not an eye-catching find back home. The interest of those countries will certainly be lower and slower.

Third, the English settlements will have no help from natives, but may find more game.

Fourth, you'd have much later cross flow of "american" plants -- tobacco, etc. The Europeans might eventually find them, but it might be a while before they figure out a use and cultivate them.

In general, colonization will proceed much more slowly at first and will probably be more English and French oriented, with the Spanish and Portuguese limited to a few key bases. Eventually, the gold will be found and draw more, but much, much later.

Once the English, French, etc have substantial colonies, the spread will pick up pace because anyone who's disaffected can just go wander off into the wilderness with no worries of attack by natives. You'd wind up with more homes/settlements in the middle of nowhere, with civilization then growing up to their door.
Click to expand...

The OP involved an empty America, but aren't you forgetting the butterflies of a empty America on European history and civilization
 
BELFAST

BELFAST

No Irish Potato famine.
Slower Population increase in Europe due to no American plants.
 
Last edited:

DG Valdron

No potatoes, no maize, no sweet potatoes, no squash, no peanuts, no turkey, no cassava, no guineau pigs, no quinoa, about fifty other items.
No pre-cleared land under agriculture.

On the other hand - sloths, glyptodonts, mammoths, mastodons, saber tooths, dire wolves.
 

RGB

BELFAST said:
No Irish Potato famine.
Slower Population increase in Europe due to no American plants.
Click to expand...

A small caveat: this only really applies to the potato in marginal areas of Europe not suitable for prior cultivation, and not until the late 1700s.

But once it gets going it gets going spectacularly.
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

Wasn't there a theory about the possibility of Black populations having migrated earlier than Siberian populations in Americas?
I must confess that I don't know if it's particularly minor or important as a theory, but it was sold to me as much more likeler than Solutrean hypothesis.
 

Gurroruo

LSCatilina said:
Wasn't there a theory about the possibility of Black populations having migrated earlier than Siberian populations in Americas?
I must confess that I don't know if it's particularly minor or important as a theory, but it was sold to me as much more likeler than Solutrean hypothesis.
Click to expand...

This is the OP

What would have happened had the Europeans come to the Americas only to find the lands uninhabited? How would this have impacted the course of immigration to the New World, settlement, etc.? Also, I am pretty sure that this is not ASB, but please correct me if you feel otherwise.
Click to expand...
 

Umbral

Gurroruo said:
Yes, they wandered in search of land which means that instead of wandering to America over Beringia they could wander elsewhere to find good land and good game.
Click to expand...

All 70 of them?

Most native americans are descended from an initial population that may have been as low as 70 individuals. If they didn't go east to the Americas, they'd likly have died or been absorbed seamlessly into Siberian populations. In fact, it is believed that parts of the founder group migrated westwards into Siberia.
 

Socrates

In which parts of the Americas were all the trees cut down by native Americans? I'm assuming places like the Great Plains and Pampas couldn't have trees growing regardless, but maybe I'm wrong.
 

Mr.brightside

That's a good point but remember there was more volcanic activity in the Jurassic. There was no equivalent of the central Atlantic magmatic Provinces happening at the same time so reduction in carbon sinks could have noticeable impact.
 

'Ezana

Why are a lot of people still assuming that Europe colonizes the Americas or even develops the technology to do so? This type of POD will affect European climates, after all.
 

Gurroruo

Umbral said:
All 70 of them?

Most native americans are descended from an initial population that may have been as low as 70 individuals. If they didn't go east to the Americas, they'd likly have died or been absorbed seamlessly into Siberian populations. In fact, it is believed that parts of the founder group migrated westwards into Siberia.
Click to expand...

Yes all 70 of them. I didn't say they'd go off and start some big civilization, I said they could wander elsewhere and that they didn't have to just settle in Siberia. That was my argument that they could wander elsewhere and they could of. The fact that there were 70 of them just wants it easier for them to wander elsewhere. So yes all 70 of them.

Socrates said:
In which parts of the Americas were all the trees cut down by native Americans? I'm assuming places like the Great Plains and Pampas couldn't have trees growing regardless, but maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everywhere, but particularly the Amazons
Derek Pullem said:
Lots of trees does not equal low CO2 on a global scale.

The most forested epochs like the Jurassic were in a CO2 rich atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Mr.brightside said:
That's a good point but remember there was more volcanic activity in the Jurassic. There was no equivalent of the central Atlantic magmatic Provinces happening at the same time so reduction in carbon sinks could have noticeable impact.
Click to expand...

I am not a scientist well versed in this theory so I can't argue against what you say Derek, it is easily possible that I just misconnected the argument of the scientist who discussed how Humans started global warming. But I'd like to clarify that by lots of trees I don't mean a forest, I mean swathes of forests. The Americas were host to great civilizations of large populations that had a considerable affect on their climate. I forget the exact now but millions, maybe its tens of millions, of trees were estimated to have been lost to American populations before the arrival of the Europeans which devastated their populations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top