by Mary Harrsch © 2025
Today's article will be the first in a series of articles about the forces that delayed technological development in the ancient Americas as compared to Eurasia. Exploring such questions with AI can lead to a lot of "rabbit holes" to research!
In my previous article about medical practice in the cultures of the Shaft Tomb Tradition of ancient western Mexico, I referred to their technological progress as roughly equivalent to the Chalcolithic/Eneolithic development in Eurasia. Artifacts from the Jalisco, Nayarit, and Colima cultures of western Mexico date to 300 BCE – 500 CE. But Chalcolithic/Eneolithic cultures in the “Old World” as it was termed when I was a child, date between 5000 to 2000 BCE. So why was technological development in the ancient Americas delayed by thousands of years?
 |
| A warrior of the Mississippian culture that developed around 1000 CE near the modern-day city of St. Louis, Missouri in the United States that I photographed at Cahokia Mounds, considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico. Although as a girl, I learned about the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas in elementary school. I did not learn about the Mississippian culture that developed within my own country until many years later when I studied archaeology in college! |
To explore that question, we must go back even farther into prehistory and consider various theories including isolation, climate change, and the impact of sudden human appearance on the ecosystems of the Americas during the window of time when the Beringia Land Bridge was passable.
The Beringia land bridge was an area of up to 1,000 km wide at its greatest point that formed across the North American Geologic Plate and Siberia east of the Chersky Range, a total of about 1.6 million km2 of land, that allowed biological dispersal to occur between Asia and North America during the Last Glacial Maximum between 20,000-18,000 years ago. It became completely resubmerged by approximately 11,000-10,500 years ago. Recent archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that humans may have lived on the Beringia land bridge itself for an extended period (sometimes called the "Beringian Standstill" hypothesis) before moving into the Americas, possibly for several thousand years.
Here in the Pacific Northwest where I live, most human occupation sites cluster around the 12,000-14,000 years ago timeframe with the Manis Mastodon site (Washington): dating to about ~13,800 years ago and Paisley Caves (Oregon) dating to ~14,300 years ago. However, there are some sites like Cooper's Ferry (Idaho) dating to ~16,000 years ago and Meadowcroft Rock Shelter (Pennsylvania) also dating to ~16,000 years ago.
Central and South American sites date even older challenging earlier migration models that assumed a north-to-south peopling of the Americas. ClaudeAI lists:
1. Monte Verde, Chile: This site has been dated to approximately 14,500 years ago, with some controversial evidence suggesting human presence possibly as early as 18,500 years ago. The well-accepted 14,500-year-old occupation predates many North American sites.
2. Pedra Furada, Brazil: Contains artifacts with contested dates ranging from 20,000 to as much as 50,000 years ago. These extremely early dates remain controversial in the archaeological community.
3. Chiquihuite Cave, Mexico: Recent excavations revealed stone tools dating to approximately 30,000 years ago, though these findings are still being debated.
4. Huaca Prieta, Peru: Evidence of human occupation dating to around 14,500 years ago.
5. Pikimachay Cave, Peru: Some archaeological materials have been dated to approximately 20,000 years ago, though the earliest dates remain contested.
6. Tibitó and El Abra sites, Colombia: Evidence suggesting human presence around 14,000-15,000 years ago.
These earlier dates in Central and South America have significant implications for understanding the peopling of the Americas, suggesting that:
1. Migration may have occurred earlier than previously thought
2. Coastal routes may have been more important than inland corridors
3. Multiple migration waves likely occurred
4. The earliest migrations may have moved more rapidly down the coastlines than previously believed
The presence of these potentially older sites in Central and South America has contributed to a major reassessment of early American migration models over the past few decades, moving away from the traditional "Clovis First" paradigm toward more complex models involving multiple migration pathways and timeframes.”
Even if there were multiple migration pathways, though, the general consensus is 5,000 people or less probably made it to the Americas.
So, I thought it might be insightful to compare the toolkits of these migrants to those of Eurasia during the same time period. I chose 12,000 years ago as my target mostly because there are still debates about dates derived for the older sites in Central and South America. DeepSeek points out by 12,000 years ago, resource competition in the Pacific Northwest and other regions of the Americas may have begun to influence settlement patterns and mobility as well.
I asked DeepSeek, “Would the technology of the migrants to the Americas been roughly equivalent to that achieved by other inhabitants of Eurasia?”
It replied, “The technology of the migrants who entered the Americas around 15,000 to 12,000 years ago was broadly comparable to that of contemporary Eurasian populations, but there were some differences due to environmental adaptations, available resources, and cultural priorities. Here’s a detailed comparison of the technologies and how they aligned or diverged:
________________________________________
1. Stone Tool Technology
• Americas: The earliest migrants to the Americas, often associated with the Clovis culture (around 13,000–12,000 years ago), used finely crafted stone tools, including distinctive Clovis points. These were bifacial, fluted projectile points used for hunting large game. Other tools included scrapers, knives, and drills.
• Eurasia: In Eurasia, similar stone tool technologies were in use, such as blade-based tools and microliths (small, finely worked stone tools). These were used by cultures like the Magdalenian in Europe and the Upper Paleolithic groups in Siberia. Eurasian tools were often more varied due to the longer history of human occupation and the diversity of environments.
Comparison: The stone tool technologies of the Americas and Eurasia were broadly similar, reflecting a shared Upper Paleolithic heritage. However, Eurasian toolkits were more diverse and regionally specialized due to the longer period of technological development and adaptation.
________________________________________
2. Hunting and Subsistence Strategies
• Americas: Early migrants to the Americas were skilled hunters, targeting megafauna such as mammoths, mastodons, and bison. They also exploited smaller game, fish, and plant resources. The Clovis points are evidence of their specialization in hunting large animals.
• Eurasia: Eurasian populations also hunted megafauna, such as mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses, and reindeer, using tools like spears, atlatls (spear-throwers), and bows and arrows (in later periods). They had a more varied subsistence strategy, including fishing, gathering, and early forms of plant management.
Comparison: Both groups relied heavily on hunting, but Eurasian populations had a more diversified subsistence strategy, likely due to the greater variety of environments and longer period of adaptation.
________________________________________
3. Use of Fire and Shelter
• Americas: Early migrants used fire for warmth, cooking, and protection. They built temporary shelters, such as tents or lean-tos, using animal hides and wooden poles. Evidence of hearths and charred remains is common at early sites.
• Eurasia: Eurasian populations also used fire extensively and built more permanent structures, such as mammoth bone huts in Eastern Europe and semi-subterranean dwellings in Siberia. These structures reflect a more sedentary lifestyle in some regions.
Comparison: The use of fire and basic shelter construction was similar, but Eurasian populations had more advanced and permanent structures in some areas, reflecting greater sedentism and environmental adaptation.
________________________________________
4. Clothing and Personal Adornment
• Americas: Early migrants likely wore clothing made from animal hides and furs to survive in cold environments. Evidence of personal adornment, such as beads or pendants, is rare but not absent.
• Eurasia: Eurasian populations also used animal hides for clothing and had a rich tradition of personal adornment, including beads, pendants, and carved figurines. The Venus figurines and other symbolic artifacts suggest a more developed artistic and symbolic culture.
Comparison: Both groups used similar materials for clothing, but Eurasian populations had a more elaborate tradition of personal adornment and symbolic expression.
________________________________________
5. Maritime Technology
• Americas: Some evidence suggests that early migrants may have used boats to travel along the Pacific coast, exploiting marine resources and bypassing ice sheets. However, direct evidence of early maritime technology in the Americas is scarce.
• Eurasia: Eurasian populations, particularly in regions like Japan and Scandinavia, had well-developed maritime technologies, including boats and fishing tools, by this time. Coastal adaptations were more advanced in Eurasia due to the longer history of human occupation in these regions.
Comparison: Maritime technology was likely less developed in the Americas, though coastal migration routes suggest some level of boat use. Eurasian populations had more advanced maritime adaptations.
________________________________________
6. Art and Symbolic Expression
• Americas: Evidence of art and symbolic expression in the early Americas is limited, though not absent. Some early sites, like Gault in Texas, have produced engraved stones and other artifacts that suggest symbolic behavior.
• Eurasia: Eurasian populations had a rich tradition of art and symbolism, including cave paintings (e.g., Lascaux, Chauvet), carved figurines, and decorative tools. This reflects a more developed symbolic culture.
Comparison: Symbolic expression was more pronounced in Eurasia, likely due to the longer history of human occupation and cultural development.
________________________________________
7. Environmental Adaptations
• Americas: Early migrants adapted quickly to diverse environments, from the Arctic tundra to temperate forests and coastal regions. Their technology was tailored to local resources and conditions.
• Eurasia: Eurasian populations had a longer history of adapting to diverse environments, from the steppes of Siberia to the Mediterranean coast. This allowed for more specialized and regionally varied technologies.
Comparison: Both groups were highly adaptable, but Eurasian populations had more time to develop specialized technologies for specific environments.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The technology of the migrants to the Americas was broadly equivalent to that of contemporary Eurasian populations, reflecting their shared Upper Paleolithic heritage. However, there were some differences:
• Eurasian populations had more diverse and specialized toolkits, reflecting their longer history of occupation and adaptation.
• Symbolic expression and art were more developed in Eurasia.
• Maritime technology was likely more advanced in Eurasia, though early Americans may have used boats for coastal migration.
Overall, the migrants to the Americas were highly skilled and adaptable, with technologies well-suited to their new environments. The differences between the two regions reflect the unique challenges and opportunities each group faced, rather than a significant technological gap.”
This comparison indicates, then, we have a point in time where the technologies of both “Old” and “New” worlds were roughly equivalent. So what barriers did migrants to the “New” world face to further technological development?
I asked DeepSeek, “Could population density of the overall landmass of the Western hemisphere and isolation after the Beringia land bridge disappeared due to rising sea levels account for lack of technological advancement in societies of the ancient Americas? It replied:
“The question of why societies in the ancient Americas did not develop certain technologies at the same pace or in the same ways as those in Eurasia is complex and multifaceted. While population density and isolation after the disappearance of the Beringia land bridge are factors that could have played a role, they are not the sole explanations. Here are some key points to consider:
Population Density
1. Lower Population Density: The Americas, particularly the Western Hemisphere, had a lower overall population density compared to Eurasia. Lower population density can mean fewer people to innovate, share ideas, and specialize in different tasks, which can slow technological advancement.
2. Resource Availability: In regions with abundant natural resources, there may have been less immediate pressure to develop certain technologies. For example, if food was plentiful, there might have been less incentive to develop intensive agricultural techniques.
Isolation
1. Geographic Isolation: After the Beringia land bridge disappeared, the Americas were relatively isolated from the rest of the world. This isolation meant that societies in the Americas did not benefit from the exchange of ideas, technologies, and goods that occurred frequently in Eurasia.
2. Limited Domesticable Animals: The Americas had fewer large domesticable animals compared to Eurasia. This limited the development of technologies related to animal husbandry, transportation, and agriculture.
Other Factors
1. Environmental Diversity: The Americas are highly diverse in terms of geography and climate, which can lead to a wide variety of subsistence strategies and technologies. However, this diversity can also mean that technological innovations developed in one region may not spread easily to others.
2. Cultural Factors: Different societies have different priorities and values, which can influence the direction and pace of technological development. For example, some societies may place a higher value on spiritual or artistic pursuits rather than technological innovation.
3. Historical Contingencies: Random events, such as natural disasters or the rise and fall of particular leaders, can also have significant impacts on the development of societies and their technologies.
Examples
1. Mesoamerican Civilizations: Despite their isolation, civilizations like the Maya, Aztec, and Inca developed impressive architectural, astronomical, and agricultural technologies. However, they did not develop certain technologies like the wheel for transportation or iron smelting, which were present in Eurasia.
2. North American Societies: Many indigenous societies in North America developed sophisticated agricultural practices, such as the Three Sisters (corn, beans, and squash), but did not develop large-scale urban centers or written languages to the same extent as some Eurasian societies.
Conclusion
While population density and isolation are important factors, they are part of a broader set of influences that include environmental conditions, cultural values, and historical contingencies. The lack of certain technological advancements in the ancient Americas cannot be attributed to any single factor but rather to a combination of these elements. Understanding the full picture requires a nuanced and multidisciplinary approach.”
No comments:
Post a Comment