Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Current evidence points to the emergence of the genus <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> in Africa. From these beginnings, human populations began moving toward the global north, east, and south in migratory waves. Motivations for these migrations included animal movements, overcrowding and resource scarcity, and, likely, curiosity and adventure. The movement into the Western Hemisphere, into North and South America, occurred significantly later than migrations into Europe and Asia; how much later is a question of enormous controversy today. How did the first peoples make their way to the Americas? When did they first arrive, and how did they migrate within these vast continents? The available evidence is inconclusive, leaving us with one of the biggest enigmas in human evolution. While there is some debate on whether earlier human species migrated into the Americas, the evidence we have today points to members of the species <OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Homo sapiens</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm> being the earliest humans to do so. At this point, there is no evidence of any earlier hominin species in either North or South America. The Western Hemisphere was wholly settled by migrants coming from other continents.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	There are many theories regarding the first human migration into the Western Hemisphere. Because of changing global climate conditions and the retreat of glaciers toward the end of the Pleistocene epoch, new lands opened to migrating animals and the humans who were likely hunting them (Wooller et al. 2018). As always, because of limited and ambiguous artifact and fossil findings, the primary pieces of evidence are open to multiple interpretations. Upon examining the range of theories, two primary arguments are apparent. Both of these arguments are backed by supporting evidence, and both rely on migratory patterns of <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> in the Americas that have been definitively established. While both migration theories are valid, the question that remains open to argument is which came first, coastal or interior migration?
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxUl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		The <OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>interior route</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm>, also called the <OpenstaxTerm>Bering Strait theory</OpenstaxTerm>, is the best-known and most accepted theory for the first human migration into the Americas. The foundation of this theory is the <OpenstaxTerm>Beringia</OpenstaxTerm> “land bridge,” which connected northeast Siberia and what is now Alaska when sea levels were lower due to glacial ice formation on the continents. This theory proposes that the earliest human habitants of the Americas crossed this marshy land on foot, most likely beginning around 15,000 years ago based on artifacts and dating sequences. The Beringia land bridge was alternately exposed and submerged multiple times over the earth’s history. According to the interior route theory, the earliest humans crossed this marshy land in pursuit of migratory herds of mammals and then proceeded to filter southward, splitting into multiple groups, some of which penetrated into the interior of North America as they continued to move east and south. <OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/ea785c09f134b349e130a0f03dca0bcde39537bc" alt="A map depicting North America, with an area of land, labelled Beringia, connecting the northern portions of North American and Russia. The upper two-thirds of North America is depicted covered in ice sheets. There are two lines drawn onto the map. 1) The line labeled &quot;Interior Route&quot; begins in the area labeled Beringia and traces down the Western portion of North America. In the approximate location of what is now Utah, the line branches off in three separate directions: one tracing eastward to the Great Lakes, one stretching south into Mexico, and one veering west to the coast of what is now California. 2) The line labelled &quot;Coastal Migration Route&quot; begins in the ocean beneath Beringia and travels east and south, tracing the coast of North American. The line forks around what is now Oregon, with one branch veering eastward into the interior of North American and the other continuing down the coast to Mexico." mediaType="image/png" width="1000" height="794" />
		<OpenstaxFigureText width="1000">
			Figure 10.2 The interior route theory argues that a northeastern Siberian population of hunters first entered the Americas on foot from Beringia following migrating herds, while the coastal route theory argues that the earliest migrants followed fish and sea animals by boat along the Pacific coast of the Western Hemisphere. Although the precise date for the earliest migrations is debated, it is estimated to be between 15,000 and 18,000 years ago. (credit: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)
		</OpenstaxFigureText>
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		The <OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>coastal route</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm> is also based on the migration of a northeastern Siberian population into the Western Hemisphere, but by boat rather than on foot. This theory, sometimes called the <OpenstaxTerm>kelp highway hypothesis</OpenstaxTerm>, proposes that the earliest migratory populations followed the continental coastline southward, subsisting on kelp, fish, shellfish, birds, and sea mammals. Research by archaeologist Jon <OpenstaxTerm>Erlandson</OpenstaxTerm> (Erlandson et al. 2007; Ocean Wise 2017) suggests that migrants may have followed these food sources all along the continental shelf, a shallow sea area near the shore. Some believe that they eventually reached as far south as Chile, in South America, before breaking into groups and penetrating the interior lands.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxUl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Each theory presents its own probabilities and problems in relation to dating sequences and artifacts, and there were possibly multiple early routes for the peopling the Americas. Scientific research does agree on some known facts, however. Genetic sequencing shows continuity between the earliest Americans and populations in northeastern Siberia that indicates the earliest inhabitants of the Americas arrived no more than 25,000 years ago, making the Americas the most recent continental habitation (outside of Antarctica). Humans were already inhabiting Australia by the time other humans first arrived in the Americas.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Archaeological sites in the Americas present fascinating evidence of early human migrations, with the dating sequences continually being retested and revised. Based on some of the early archaeological evidence, scientists had believed that the first American inhabitants were part of what is known as the <OpenstaxTerm>Clovis culture</OpenstaxTerm>, identified with a leaf-shaped projectile point used in hunting. As excavations have continued, though, there is growing indication of an extensive <OpenstaxTerm>pre-Clovis culture</OpenstaxTerm>, evidenced by a pre-Clovis technology based on gathering, hunting, and fishing, with dates extending back further than 13,200 years before present. Pre-Clovis projectile points are smaller, less standardized, and less worked (flaked), indicating a less advanced tool production. Many pre-Clovis sites are located below the Clovis period occupation. As archaeologists have continued excavations, the dates for earliest occupation continue to be pushed backward.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00002" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/565f347253b7f8c0963c4c6a5bacacb3f8caae1e" alt="A color photograph of four shaped stones mounted to a display board. They are of various tones, one bright white and the others darker shades. Each is vaguely rectangular at the bottom and shaped into a blunt point at the top. All four stones have an uneven surface, with evidence of chips having been removed." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="536" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 10.3 Clovis points from the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center. Clovis points are long, leaf-shaped points that are bifacial, or flaked on both sides. (credit: “Virginia Aquarium &amp; Marine Science Center Arrowheads Clovis Point Stone Tools” by C Watts/flickr, CC BY 2.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Why so much debate about the settling of the Americas? There are various reasons for the difficulties in establishing settlement dates. The Bering land bridge was periodically exposed and submerged under water during periods of glacial growth and retreat. Using core samples obtained by drilling down into the shallow sea floor, archaeologists have found evidence of large mammals and even fluted points (hunting tools) in and around the Aleutian Islands, through which the land bridge would have crossed. Establishing and cross-checking dates, though, has been difficult because most evidence is now submerged. This is a challenge also for the coastal route theory, as coastlines have receded since the end of the Pleistocene, and encampments would have likely been small, possibly temporary sites. Many sites are likely now submerged offshore (Gruhn 2020).
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Among the best-known pre-Clovis sites are the following:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxUl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Monte Verde Site</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm>, Chile. This is one of the most studied pre-Clovis sites. An extensive array of artifacts has been found at Monte Verde, including hearths, wooden and stone tools, animal bones, and even human footprints. The dates assigned to these artifacts, as early as 16,000 BP, put this site within the range of pre-Clovis dates seen in North America.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Debra L. Friedkin Site</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm>, Texas. This pre-Clovis site has a dating sequence of 13,500 to 15,500 BP. A wide range of pre-Clovis tools have been found here, including partially flaked tools, blades, and scrapers.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Cactus Hill Site</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm>, Virginia. A well-document Clovis site has been identified at Cactus Hill, but below this level of artifacts, there is evidence of pre-Clovis projectile points. Although controversial, these points have possible dating sequences of 18,000–22,000 BP.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxUl>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00003" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/567066b7ddd218f14863ceca4046412d69532214" alt="Color photograph of unpaved road leading into a green, leafy wooded area. A large, rectangular stone marker stands in a grassy area to the right of the road." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="532" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 10.4 A pre-Clovis archaeological site in Sussex County, Virginia, in the United States (credit: “Nottoway Archaeological Site Entrance” by Nyttend/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Based on this new evidence, scientists now agree that the Americas were first settled by a pre-Clovis population. How they arrived, when they arrived, what movements they made, and in what order they made them are major archaeological questions today. What we can conclude is that human populations continued to migrate after peopling the Americas.
</OpenstaxParagraph>

10.1.2 Controversies Surrounding the Peopling of the Americas

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods