Not to dismiss your experiences with academic anthropology, but this paper isn't actually about any transoceanic seafaring cultures. It's about the population structure of some of the first peoples of the Americas and their ancestors, which predate polynesians by something like ten to twenty thousand years. I made the same mistake on my initial reading too.

No worries, though I did not mention Polynesians.

This is not the venue to parse out what Australasian means, but, at least genetically, we would be discussing a much older population.

It is by definition about seafaring people, however, as the only accepted migration path to the americas has been over the bering straights.

edit: oops. now i see where you are coming from. Mea culpa. see comment re Pleistocene boats. Apologies for my derp

not necessarily seafaring people; the migration was over land, possible due to the lowering of sea level during the Last Glacial Maximum

afaik, or can even imagine, there were no land routes across the Pacific at even glacial maximum.

If you know different, tell.

> I could go on at length to describe my perception of why this was/probably still is, but a short take is: the architecture of American social science legitimacy is so delicate that even counter thoughts from undergrads need to be put down.

I'd like to read the long take. Maybe write it down somewhere :)

put a contact in your profile

> some other N. American immigration hypotheses (eg, that pleistocene peoples could make boats)].

Why were they so opposed to this? You can't leave us hanging...

EDIT: ok and why is this at -1??

There was a debate back in the 80s/90s about how the "beringia standstill population" got into the Americas south of the ice walls. It became a bit of a pressing issue once Monte Verde was accepted as unambiguous evidence of the pre-clovis hypothesis. There were basically two main, competing theories to explain it:

1) the "ice-free corridor" / inland route, where people simply walked from Alaska to the continental US/Canada and then on to South America and

2) the pacific coastal route, where people migrated along the coast. There's a variant of this involving boats, but they're practically the same in that they post-date the first boats by a huge margin and it only changes the chronology a little bit.

The ice-free corridor was the primary hypothesis for a bit because it matched the behavior of the Siberian populations they were descended from better, but it was basically defunct by the mid 00s because the timelines on plausible ice-free corridors were too late to explain Monte Verde. Since then, PCR has been the dominant theory for pre-clovis migrations and it just took undergrad textbooks awhile to catch up. I wouldn't be surprised if even lower level classes like AP World were still teaching the inland hypothesis.

The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the archaeological evidence for a coastal migration out of Beringia just isn't there?

That's why studies of the PCR have focused on more southernly areas, in particular the PNW and the Channel islands. If you want lots of details and citations, I'd recommend perusing the 40th anniversary review paper: https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2019.80

The problem with that problem is that all the evidence would be 300 feet underwater.

Nicely summarized.

In South Africa, Australia, South America, New Zealand, the 'native' (ie. non-European) peoples are granted near-mythical status, on the basis that they arrived tens of thousands of years before Europeans.

But if this kind of genetic evidence indicates that there were actually waves of migration, conquest and assimilation, that non-European migration waves were relatively recent, and that Europeans are just the most recent one, then the status of Europeans as 'bad guys' and everyone else as 'good guys' falls flat.

It doesn’t make sense to generalize across those (incredibly different) regions and also your generalization is just wrong.

I was about to ask the same question about the hypothesis.

Offtopic: sometimes HN audience gives weird scores. Don't take it personally (but it's kind of part of the etiquette not to explicitly discuss the scoring since it's never directly related to the topic of the discussion).

I wonder if this is more of an issue with American academic institutions than it is in other parts of the world (anthropologists avoiding the boat hypothesis, that is)? I note that this article [1] (from Norway) explicitly makes the connection to Thor Hyerdahl's theory - which, as I understand from what you've written here (and from talking to others) is considered in the same category as the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs by American anthropologists.

[1] https://sciencenorway.no/archaeology-history-society-and-cul...

I think Heyerdahl's issue is that he approached it as South Americans travelling to Polynesia, instead of some of the most capable navigators the world has seen travelling to South America.

Some claim it was racism, but IIRC, he based it on prevailing winds and currents, which are west to east... except for during an ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) event, which were poorly understood, or even widely known of, at the time of Kontiki.

And there's some evidence of correlation between Polynesian westward migration, and ENSO events.

I cant comment on Hyerdahl--I just don't know much. A related hole in simian evolutionary theory pertains to new vs old world monkeys, if you want a deep rabbit hole.

edit: the US, afaik, is different in that cultural anthro shares department with archaeology and human/primate genetics at the undergrad level. It's good in the sense that the culturals have to take a bit of science, bad in that politics invade all the subfields.

That was not a rant by any means; it was genuine, and refreshingly resonant to (i'm sure) many reading with similar learned skepticisms about graduate academia.