Excellent video and definitely one of the finest I've seen on the topic. Your attention to detail is wonderful. I will be eagerly awaiting your next video. Also, that Tom Dillehay quote at the end is soooo perfect. Lastly, thanks for the shout out!
My yard is located across a river from the Sweets Knoll and Boats sites in Dighton, MA, which dates to the paleoindians 10-12,000 years ago. I recently found some really fascinating artifacts and brought them to be looked at by an expert and he told me what I’ve found date to at least 8,000 years and possibly as early as 12,000 years ago. There was a massive dig done in 1969 in my back yard, it’s called the Bear Swamp Site I & Site II in Berkley, MA. If anyone’s interested, the dig was published in the 1969 Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archeological Society- Volume 30, by Arthur Staples and Roy C. Athearn.
Dammit, I just found this and now have to wait for pt. 2. Was really hoping that the next part had already been released. Alas, guess I'll have to like and subscribe.
As a behavioral ecologist, one of the things that always baffled me about the Overkill Hypothesis is the weird assumption that it's entirely caused by humans. For one thing, humans never migrated alone; before domesticating dogs, we followed our prey species out of Africa, and since domestication, we always brought dogs with us, and dogs are just as capable of overkilling as humans are (though we tend to call it "surplus killing" when non-human animals do it). We also have circumstantial evidence in the fossil record for minor extinction events occurring whenever animals are able to move into new environments, such as the Great American Interchange, which caused the extinction of many endemic South American mammals when the Panama Isthmus finally connected North and South America. We see this over and over again, whenever isolated continents or islands get connected to other landmasses. Yes, humans - no matter the culture - can and do cause extinctions, and we do have evidence of some extinctions caused by the first peoples of the Americas. However, they did not come into the Americas alone, and, for example, were unlikely to have caused the extinction of dire wolves (current thinking is that competition with the newly arrived grey wolf was the main contributing factor to the extinction of dire wolves). Beringia helped a lot with moving animals and plants between Eurasian and the Americas long before humans even made it to the area, for example, mammoths and wolves migrated into North America, and horses and camels migrated into Eurasia. PBS Eons has a lot of really great videos exploring extinctions of various animals due to biotic interchanges, like terror birds and dire wolves. What follows is an ecologist's burbling about predator-prey behaviors and how non-human animals can - without the "help" from humans - cause extinctions. Because, let's be real, other animals have been the primary cause of more extinctions than humans have, just based on the simple fact that Kingdom Animalia have been killing each other for millions of years before we humans ever evolved. Which isn't to say that human-caused extinctions isn't a very real and very devastating problem, just that we're not the undisputed masters of life and death. But back to our canid friends, areas with noticeable feral, stray, or owned-but-outdoor-living dog populations have really high mortality rates for other domestic animals (particularly sheep and cows (in Minnesota during 2015, more cows were killed by domestic dogs than all wild predators - including wolves - combined)) as well as decreasing wild animal populations, such as deer. And we see similar trends with invasive species - we always talk about how a handful of invasive animals (particularly rats) can utterly devastate an ecosystem. Herbivores are really good at eating as much edible plant life as they can and reproducing, and predators are very good at killing. Furthermore, killing is emotionally rewarding to predators - it feels good, it gives them a natural high. Evolution had to find a way to convince predators to kill instead of simply scavenge already dead animals, and they way it settled on this was to make killing emotionally rewarding. Otherwise, predators like wolves would not risk getting kicked in the skull or gored by bison. The less of a high a species gets from killing, the less carnivorous they are. Omnivores like black bears are much more sensitive to pain and don't get as intense a high from killing as wolves and cougars do, and thus they're quite content to scavenge the kills of others and attack easy prey, like newborn fawns or calves that don't kick back. On the other hand, cougars are hypercarnivores, rarely eat rotten meat from scavenged kills (spoiled meat is more likely to make cougars get sick and die, whereas bears and wolves are usually able to consume rotting meat with little ill effect), take more risks when hunting, and have a higher pain tolerance. Another thing a lot of people get wrong is that if you hunt when you're actually hungry, you're not going to have enough energy to find, chase, and kill your prey. You have to hunt when you have enough energy, which tends to mean opportunistically hunting when you happen upon prey, whether or not you're actually hungry, and then caching leftover food. Carnivores are more likely to kill more animals than they can eat in one sitting if the opportunity presents itself, and sometimes - but not always - cache the extra food for eating later. The most famous yearly surplus killing in my neck of the woods are the Pacific Northwest fall salmon runs, a huge favorite amongst nature documentaries because so many charismatic megafauna - grizzlies, wolves, cougars, bald eagles - gather together and fish for salmon, frequently eating only the fatty brains before returning to the waters to catch more. Less popular are the surplus killings that target newborn fawns and calves, but most herbivores have adapted to this by developing what's called "birth synchrony"; that is, a short birthing season means that there will be more neonates born/hatched than can be killed by all the local predators. The shorter the window, the more the more the local ecosystem is "flooded" with neonates. Predators will often time their own birthing season to their prey's birthing season, as the influx of easy-to-kill prey neonates will help feed their own newborns. However, it also means that this window of easy killing is short, as the newborns quickly grow out of the easy-to-kill stage and become more savvy to their native predators, and then the death ratios flip - young predators begin starving to death as it becomes harder to catch the now larger and stronger juvenile prey animals. When you add new, invasive predators to these otherwise relatively stable systems, the effectiveness of birth synchrony can deteriorate and cause greater stresses to both the native predators and the native prey species. Add new, invasive prey species as well, and things break down even further - now more native prey species are starving to death, meaning their population decreases. Their birthing synchrony means all the neonates of their now decimated population are being born at the same time, and now the larger-than-normal predator populations (boosted by the new invasive predators) are able to kill even more neonates than the prey population can handle. This rarely results in immediate, species-wide extinction, but it can accumulate to quasi-extinction levels, followed by ecological extinction, followed by actual extinction. Typically, species can adjust and adapt to one or two accumulative effects, but the greater the changes in a short amount of time, the greater the chances for extinction.
I always found it sad that so many people with anti-indigenous sentiment used Bering strait theory to undermine indigenous land claims, and that as a result many indigenous people dislike the theory itself, which didn't state anything ideological. Indigenous people of the Americas, and indigenous people from Eastern part of my country Russia could benefit from acknowledged common origins and common struggles today
I think it goes to show that “how long a people have lived here” is the wrong thing to focus on when it comes to justice and land claims. Indigenous people were and are being oppressed and genocided. Regardless of whether they arrived in the Americas the day before the Europeans or millennia before, the oppression is wrong, and the injustice must be rectified. The indigenous v. settler framing is meant to highlight the injustice and conquest inflicted on people here, not to say that one group deserves to be here more or that people must stick to their own kind. If we lose sight of that, then we enter dangerous nationalistic thinking. Your rights and existence are not dependent on whether you live in the place you were born.
The advanced Atlantis phenomenon is fascinating and fun to observe. Those who buy into it, however, have never read Plato, where he tells us the Athenians had defeated them - at least once. Really? A bunch of guys with pokey sticks and handheld shields defeated an advanced civilization? Could they really have been that advanced if that's all it took?
It's likely like the Trojan war kernels of truth mixed in with mythology. I don't think he ever said they had laser guns. Could of just been a high culture on the Azores islands
@@danf7411 I agree. And Plato never said they had laser guns is exactly my point too. I think our constant desire to believe that the past was better and the ways of past peoples was superior and they were wiser and greater than us today, fuels the runaway ideas of the late great Atlantis. I enjoy them all as great fictions, but there are clearly those who are mentally invested in them being something more than they were, if they were. But everytime I hear one that is suggesting they were aliens, or time travelers, or that they've left for greater refuge in the stars, I think about the Athenians, with pointy sticks, defeating them... 😁
Dude great work! Very stoked to see where the new channel takes you. One thing I have written on ancient America’s channel would be, when possible, maybe a short interview with indigenous experts ideally from the area of the topic. Cost wise that could be rough! If they are in the Pacific Northwest area I could help, but great job!
A video on the native findings on Cedros Island which is off the western Pacific coast of Baja California Sur in Mexico would be nice. They say there were people on that island 11000 years ago. Its such an out of the way place. Chances are they got there by boat. Should point out that back 11000 years ago the sea was 120 meters lower which means Cedros island was connected via a mountain ridge (which today is 30 to 40 meters submerged) to the Vizcaino Peninsula.
Columbus didn't step foot on the continent, just the continental plate. He made contact in the Carribean, with the Taino. I wish more would include this, it's confusing to many to say he landed in America as its such a broad term.
Great stuff, I too followed Ancient America's endorsement of your Channel. I might be in the minority but I would have loved to hear even more details. Looking forward to exploring all of your videos
My only complaint about this video is the volume. Had to listen to these with headphones because of how low your speaking volume is. Great stuff so far though. I enjoy your content but please raise the volume in your editing, thank you!
Hi there! I love your videos so far and am very excited to see where it goes! Do you think you could do a series about California Native Americans? Despite making up such a large and diverse portion of the pre-Colombian population of the US, I rarely see too much information about the pre colonial history of this region. While the enslavement and genocide of indigenous Californians is very important to for us to all know about, I would like some more information on the thousands of years of history and culture that came before.
Hello, it's great to know a new channel on ancient Americas history, few suggestions, check the volume level it's way low and try to make your channel logo more "brand-like" high contrast, etc. Hope this constructive suggestions help you to grow this excellent kind of content.
Great video. Glad I got sent this way. Suggestion - audio is kinda low and kinda high pitch. Hard to hear over the ruckus running around the house. But that's just me being ocd.
The Kidütökadö/Gidu Ticutta/Gidi'tikadii Northern California Paiute or Surprise Valley Paiute at fort Bidwell Indian community in northern CA’s original territory surround goose lake up into Oregon and the Warner mountains. Hard to find any info 😩
Howdy! Ik you’re probably already planning on doing some videos on the five “civilized” tribes? Specifically I would love to see a cultural and religious analysis of the Cherokee Nation, I’m a descendant of people who walked the trail and ended up close to Tulsa, but they were assimilated in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the last cultural connection to that heritage died with my great grandmother. Id love to learn about the culture and the religion cause I’m wanting to become a cultural anthropologist focusing on non-abrahamic religions and culture, so it’d be really cool! I appreciate you reading this if you do.
6:53, wouldn't it be the other way around? Since European contact was through navigation, do they assume that the Indians also arrived in this way and from there they began to look for possible progenitors in civilizations linked to the sea?
iirc about galileo, it was less about his theory but more that he said something to the effect of, "im right and everyone else is a dumb idiot" and this included the Pope personally, not merely the office but the Pope himself which is why he got house arrest for years, primarily for being full of himself and annoying. Iirc the Church went with the theory not too long after, the church had scientists and stuff, an army, the whole time
Yay! Congrats! You deserve to have the equipment you need. These videos are so important especially as misinformation is rampant online and the erasure of our people seems to be trending. PS. I fell asleep watching the creation archetype video and my dreams were crazy! All those stories! @@IndigenousHistoryNow
How about we give a rest to the use of projectile points to define cultures. Why do we use other material culture ground stone tools. Finding out which dude made the best gun tells us nothing about a people. It's like using tanks as an indication of a whole culture. This must have been started by men who measure the size of the tools of the ancients, drank beer, burped, and proudly stated... his is bigger... Sarcasm aside, we really need to get past projectile points.
Different cultures used different projectile points throughout different periods of time. It’s an excellent method, why would it be done away with? It’s not as though that’s the only way archaeologists or scholars identify people, it’s just one of the many, many pieces that fit into an enormous puzzle.
The Mormon religion is entirely based on this two race theory. Joseph Smith supposedly transcribed The Book of Mormon from "golden plates" that he discovered in a mound, and these plates, that he conveniently lost, were the written histories of the Nephites. These Nephites were ostensibly the "whitesome and delightsome" descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel; a righteous people who somehow made their way to America, developed a great culture and built great cities. The Lamanites were a savage and evil race with red skin who came to the Americas later and eventually eradicated the Nephites in a war that ended around the year 400 CE. The Native Americans were the descendants of these evil and savage Lamanites. To this day BYU archeologist are searching for evidence to substantiate this story.
@IndigenousHistoryNow at minute 4:13. 2: Strongest genetic and linguistic relation to northeastern Siberian populuation. While this is true, we didn't descend from them, they descended from us. You need to reverse the arrow. You went over the linguistic part and not considered the research done in the 1960's that proved linguistic track migration went from east to west, influencing the polynesian and sub-asian cultures and starting in south america. There was even evidence that there were 3 track migrations, one of the west coast, 2 meso-american, 3 pre-culture incan. Althoug h you make strides to amend the apparent racism in theory, you fail to realize or forget the direction of the arrow of migration is a part of the racial bias against our people to begin with. We are continously savages that never created anything, spawned anything, and whats more, are just import asians. Nah... there's no way that indigenous people are the genesis. I would encourage you to reverse the arrow, and look at the evidence again.
Any thoughts on tall skeletons with red hair, double rows of teeth, and six fingers and toes? What do you think of the Navajo's specific classification of five fingered being and surface dwellers? I've heard it said that ancient Phoenicians covered themselves in red ochre. I'm also aware that that North America was known for it's easily accessible pure copper ore essential for Bronze Age development. As for Atlantis, Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis" was published in 1627 after his death - the likely source of inspiration being Plato's "Timaeus". Only by the dismissal of widespread accounts of a global deluge, can we come to the conclusion that Atlantis was purely a figment of the imagination. Why are the moʻai megoliths of Rapa Nui buried up to their chest? Easter Island has historic accounts of a "short-eared" race of people who ranged from ten to twelve feet in height.
