Anne

Location, location, location. Resources are why people lived places,  
and still do today. But back before RRs, ships,  and trucks you lived  
where there was food to eat. One compelling reason for the rise of  
civilizations along the coast of South America is the upwelling of the  
cold nutrient rich waters. The result is some of the most concentrated  
fisheries in the world. Which have been exploited for thousands of  
years. Sumer et all and the Nile civilizations arose because of the  
incredibly fertile alluvial soil. Lots grew there wild and once people  
figured it out, it was a great place to farm.

The change in climate required to make southern Greenland habitable is  
considerably less than what would make Antarctica more salubrious. And  
a fairly small change during the Middle Ages doomed the Viking colony  
in Greenland (they could no longer grow grain and grass to feed sheep  
and cattle). As far as I am aware the conditions 20,000 to 40,000  
years ago were colder, with glaciers, not warmer.

The geography is also responsible for the rough seas around  
Antarctica. I doubt they would be substantially changed by climate. My  
understanding is that the seas are huge because there is no land to  
moderate them. No one would want to be in an open boat in 100 foot  
seas (read about Shackleton). The distances are also greater. Keep in  
mind the accepted migratory route to the Americas involved the  
expansion of glaciers, lowering the seas and making for a land bridge.  
Nothing like that could have occurred in the south, the ocean is too  
deep. And the climate change that made possible the settlement of  
Greenland, made the distances longer. But by 900 the Vikings had  
developed a really good open ocean boat. Nothing like that existed  
20,000 years ago. We're talking hide boats, rafts, or dugouts.

Not saying it is impossible, just highly unlikely. Occam's razor must  
be kept in mind. It is a great deal easier to cross the relatively  
short distance from either Europe to NA or Asia to NA via a northern  
route (mostly or all dry land) and then simply move rapidly down the  
coast. I have always had difficulty with the idea that ancient men and  
women would want to walk down a corridor between two glaciers in  
Alaska and Canada, when there were undoubtedly (given the resources)  
maritime folks who could just walk or paddle down the coast.

On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:53 PM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> James,
>
> Inasmuch as within the past 10,000 years we know for certain that at  
> some times the artic circle has contracted making it warm enough on  
> Greenland and Iceland for farming and herding, it seems rather  
> within a logical expectation that Antarctica could also have had a  
> climate change in the past 20,000 years coinciding with a migratory  
> attempt, say from Asia to Australia to Antarctica and up to America.  
> Not impossible.  It seems odd that the earliest and most advanced  
> civilizations in the Americas occurred in Chile and Peru rather than  
> within easy reach of a Bering Strait passage. Why would the more  
> lush lands on the west coast of North America be bypassed and a  
> civilization begun on the unlikely west coast of South America? By  
> putting all of our eggs in the Bering Strait theory, I think we are  
> missing some pieces of the puzzle.
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html