Jump to content

Talk:Beringia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

removal of supposition

The following was recently inserted (at the wrong location), which I have removed:

  • It is likely that small groups of humans would have been able to cross the Bering Strait under conditions that favored a fully frozen route, without the necessity of a completely lowered ocean surface height. Native populations would typically find conditions that they would comprehend, and for whatever reason, would have crossed the divide under many opportunities as conditions warranted. So the extension of populations into the nether regions of North America would have been predominantly driven by social needs, as it would have been likely that some populations of humans would have occupied both sides of the Bering Straits in many prehistoric times.

While much of this is quite reasonable, these are suppositions, and as such need to have a notable source making them, otherwise it reads like original research or opinion. To be included, some cite ought to be found and the wording re-cast in a more encyclopaedic manner.--cjllw | TALK 06:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Better research and citations

The article is working, it seems, from some rather dated material on Beringia. In:

  • Bonatto SL, Salzano FM. 1997. A single and early migration for the peopling of the Americas supported by mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 94(5): 1866-1871.

They indicate that migration could have been occuring as early as 55,000 ybp.

In addition, differing information has come from the comparison of mtDNA haplotypes and Y-chromosomal haplotypes. Compare:

  • Silva Jr. W , Bonatto S , Holanda A , Ribeiro-dos-Santos A , Paixão B , Goldman G , Abe-Sandes K, Rodriguez-Delfin L, Barbosa M, Paçó-Larson M, Petzl-Erler M, Valente V, Santos S , Zago M . 2002. Mitochondrial Genome Diversity of Native Americans Supports a Single Early Entry of Founder Populations into America. Am J Hum Genet. 71(1): 187-192.[1]

and

  • Lell J , Sukernik R , Starikovskaya Y , Su B, Jin L, Schurr T , Underhill P , Wallace D. 2002. The Dual Origin and Siberian Affinities of Native American Y Chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet'. 70(1): 192-206.[2]

L Hamm 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While many claims to pre-Clovis American settlement abound, from both archaeological and genetic disciplines, none as yet have 'majority' support. The timeframe of c. 12000 yrs remains the earliest evidential date for which there is universal agreement. The evidence produced so far for earlier dates continues to be treated with caution, if not outright scepticism, by many researchers who are awaiting more concrete data before assenting. No reason not to mention a few of the more notable "early arrival" claims however, but they need to be flagged as speculative and unconfirmed.
I agree however that the article as it stands needs a good deal more of reliable cites, in any event.--cjllw | TALK 06:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalize?

Why isn't this at Bering Land Bridge? →bjornthegreat t|c 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename Beringia?

I feel pretty strongly that this should be renamed Beringia, with 'Bering Land Bridge' etc redirecting to it. That's what it is properly called in the academic literature. How do I go about proposing this officially, or? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale sounds fair so I've moved the page for you. The typical rule is to be bold in such circumstances and move the page yourself, and wait for anyone to complain! Verisimilus T 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Since my earlier post above I've learned quite a bit :-) Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail

Unfortunately, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Almost all of the article is unreferenced. This includes quotations and speculation (Had this bridge not existed at that time, the fauna of the world would be very different.). While true, it requires a source. References should also be consistently formatted, preferably with a {{cite web}} template for internet sources. I recommend sourcing the article with in-text citations and placing it for peer review before renominating. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it still exist today?

To quote from a source on the web: "It is known, however, that the Eskimos crossed the Bering Strait in both directions until the Cold War and that they maintained active business, familial and cultural connections across the Bering Strait. Mention can me made of the extremely close proximity between the Little Diomede Island under US control and the Big Diomede under Russian control. These islands are only a few miles apart and when the Bering Strait freezes in the winter, there is a surface connection between the two islands. For centuries also, Siberians and Alaskans married, traded and made war with one another across the Strait."

So I've been given to understand from various sources that today you can walk from the US to Siberia, albeit only in winter! --Michael

Cite your source and edit it in. The first humans to cross the bridge may well have done it from bay to bay, similarly island-hopping along the former shoreline, rather than hiking through the interior.--Wetman 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
Apparently this guy walked across the Bering strait and was detained by the Russians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bushby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.36.133 (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor point

The lack of glaciation in interior Alaska and Yukon was, with little doubt, an artifact of the Alaska Range, but if the prevailing winds were southwesterly, it seems Siberia would have had a greater impact on moisture levels over the Bering Land Bridge. -Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.229.68 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Beringia lies (lay) northwest of the Alaska Range. So a wind blowing from the Pacific towards Beringia over the Alaska Range would be a southeasterly wind, not a southwesterly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Weil

When this was added as a reference it seems to have referred to [3] which is a conference presentation, not really a RS. She's written a number of papers at least one of which might source this, see [4], Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It occurred to me as since we have her email address that the easiest thing would be to email her, which I've done. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Her reply: "I wouldn’t use that as a reference, myself. Although the evidence presented is correct, it is only suggestive. Phylogenetic analyses including those animals (cimolodontan multituberculates in particular) are inconclusive.". I've deleted the sentence. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Nice work Doug. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See [5] "Ancient links between Siberians and Native Americans revealed by subtyping the Y chromosome haplogroup Q1a" which is a new article in the Journal of Human Genetics. "Q1a*-MEH2 likely traces a population migration originating in Northeast Siberia across the Bering Strait." However, this is a relatively late connection, "Despite the low coalescence age of haplogroup Q1a3*-M346, which is estimated in South Siberia as about 4.5±1.5 thousand years ago (Ka), divergence time between these Q1a3*-M346 haplotypes and Amerindian-specific haplogroup Q1a3a-M3 is equal to 13.8±3.9 Ka, pointing to a relatively recent entry date to America. " and "Although the level of STR diversity associated with Q1a*-MEH2 is very low, this lineage appears to be closest to the extinct Palaeo-Eskimo individuals belonging to the Saqqaq culture arisen in the New World Arctic about 5.5 Ka" Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Layman's explanation from Spero News Nov 20, 2013
http://www.speroforum.com/a/BVQKGAXBXG41/74573-New-evidence-shows-Native-Americans-origins-are-older-than-previously-thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.146.191.53 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This refers to a more recent study, see [6] which says "the study concludes that two distinct Old World populations led to the formation of the First American gene pool: one related to modern-day East Asians, and the other a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population related to modern-day western Eurasians." and "The presence of a population related to western Eurasians further into northeast Eurasia provides a more likely explanation for the presence of non-East Asian cranial characteristics in the First Americans, rather than the Solutrean hypothesis that proposes an Atlantic route from Iberia." Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Other Connection Events

According to the article, there have been other episodes of exchange between between East Asia and North American fauna. Examples are given from the Cretaceous and early Cenozoic. The trouble is that that the Bering Land Bridge as I've heard of it and as represented in the article is an Ice Age phenomenon caused by eustatic sea level drops. Sea level was significantly higher than it is today in the Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic. So, how? The article doesn't say. Editors of this article probably know more about this, they should evaluate sources for the earlier exchanges and also consider explaining causal mechanisms further in future versions of the article. Geogene (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is still focussed on the land bridge

This article commenced its life as the Beringian land bridge, and changed its name in 2008 to Beringia (see up this Talk Page). However, the maps are still focused on the land bridge and have simply been relabelled Beringia. From my understanding, Beringia was a much larger area than the one defined at the top of this article, and is more correctly shown in the tiny map down at the bottom of the article with the caption "Beringia area coverage" - this map needs to be relocated near the top of the article. Also, the first map is from a website (refer to: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/parcs/atlas/beringia/research.html) which states that "Beringia is a large (~34 million square kilometers) region of the Arctic comprised of far eastern Russia (East of the Lena River - ~140E) and northwestern North America (Alaska and northwest Canada - west of 130W). At present, the area consists of western and eastern land masses seperated by the a shallow body of water called the Bering Strait." The Lena River is much further to the west than the area depicted in most of these maps. I would be pleased if an interested party could find an accepted definition of Beringia and make some amendments. Perhaps there should be a sub-heading in the article for the land bridge and associated maps? William Harris • talk • 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Evidence shows that humans were here a lot longer than the short time this land bridge was thought to be used. A bias, archaic theory to legitimize British colonization and the extermination of the Native People. Edit needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.49.109 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Although the land bridge existed based on substantial evidence, the generally unchallenged idea that it was the route for human migration to North America is severely flawed and worthy of serious reevaluation. People transited many coastal and open ocean crossings much earlier, notably the Sundaland-Sahul crossing about 15,000 years earlier, as well as the Straights of Hormuz and many others. It is vastly more likely that the migration took place along the Pacific ice cover coast. Transporting families and baggage by water is vastly easier than doing so by land. Navigate by the sun and stars and by the bird migrations. -Htconner (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is by no means an encyclopedic article. - Montréalais

I would like to know how far below sea level the area in question currently is. Dietary Fiber

According to [http://www.cabrillo.:That shoud read 7,000, not 70,000, Danny. Tannin 01:11 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Danny

I for one have absolutely no problem with 64.'s points being added (in NPOV language) but unfortunately at the moment it's hard to get a word in edgewise on this article. Hephaestos 00:02 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Acording to a book I've just looked at, the last time the land bridge was exposed was between 24,000 and 9,000 bc User:G-Man

In the Summary Box comments, an anonymous user is slandering a Wikipedia contributor as promoting "scientific racism" for the "sin" of writing about the Bering Land Bridge, a very mainstream scientific theory which has a lot of science to back it up. This same anonymous user then claims that this land bridge is only as real as Atlantis! Finally he makes insulting comments about "Don't believe what they tell you about Indians". His over-the-top comments make clear that he has no interest in dispassionately discussing the article. He just has an axe to grind, and is willing to demonize all those who write about the scientific consensus on this issue. And the consensus is this: Much data exists for the existence of a land bridge at various times; much data indicates that people lived near this bridge at times that it probably existed. And there is indisputable evidence that Asians did cross over from the northern Asia area to northern North America, somewhere in the vicinity of the putative Bering Land bridge. Does this prove that this land bridge existed at all the times it is said to, and that people crossed it? No, and the scientific community makes no such absolute claim. The current consensus is that it probably existed, that's all. It is not held as a dogma! At the moment, some new evidence has surfaced which questions whether people crossed this land bridge. Fine. But that is no reason to hurl charges of "racism" at those who write about a mainstream belief! RK

If people didn't walk from Asia to North America, what did they do? Did they build canoes and sail from North Africa to Brazil? Dietary Fiber

There is quite a lot of genetic evidence indicating that modern american "indians" ancestors were asian in origin. This seems to be solid evidence that either they walked across the land bridge, or crossed the Bering Sea in boats of some kind. Maybe even BOTH at various times!!! -- RTC 03:31 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Folk Genetics I wish to call attention to four genetic similarities that exist today between native Americans and Asians. First, newborn babies of both native Americans and Asians have a blue-green spot at the tail bone, called Mongolian Spot. It appears as a bruise that disappears after a few years. Second, both native Americans and Asians share a weakness in metabolizing alcohol. White Europeans took advantage of this weakness in subduing the natives that is harming them to this day, with 12% alcohol related death rate. This weakness due to a gene mutation of Aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH2), whose effect is similar to taking Antabuse, a drug used to treat alcoholism by disabling the liver from metabolizing alcohol. This gene defect, also known as alcohol flush, is prevalent among Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and also native Americans. Third, the earwax found in native Americans is of the dry type, same as Asians, and different from the wet type found in Europeans and Africans.LoopTel (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Finally, in yet another report, the incidence of prostate cancer is significantly lower for both native Americans and Asians as compared to Europeans and Africans.LoopTel (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they floated across on icebergs! Dietary Fiber

Maybe some did... we will never know that one :-) -- RTC 03:36 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I have restored a clearer version of the Clovis sentence. There is indeed a theory that the Clovis people were not the first to reach America, a good deal of deeply questionable evidence for it, and a smaller amount of evidence that appears much more difficult to discredit. The jury is still out on that one. Be that as it may, there is no question that the Clovis were the first significant human arrivals in America: the Clovis left evidence of their passing everywhere and had a profound effect on the ecology of the North American continent. This is why I wrote "notably the Clovis arrival" - this is probably not the right article in which to explore the pre-Clovis controversy

It is certainly not dogma. -RK

Which is why American archaeologists rejected accelerator mass spectrometry outright when a site in Brazil showed up with cave paintings 60,000 years old - far too old for the Bering Strait Puts them right up there with Duane Gish and other creationists, eh? I'm sure you've heard of Pedra Furada? Also, they've never found Clovis points in Asia or Alaska, but they insist that Clovis came from Asia; it's like some wacky diffusionist claim. Mibbyagain

On a side note, here's evidence humans were in South Carolina 50,000 years ago:

http://www.sc.edu/usctimes/articles/2004-11/topper_discovery.html

Doesn't help much to have humans in South Carolina before Siberia.

It does help though when the evidence is so tenuous that nobody whose opinion matters is taking it seriously [7]. adamsan 08:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, "everyone whose opinion matters" seems to be a mixture of out-of-their-field types and people resorting to ad hominems. That was certainly the case with Pedra Furada and Monte Verde; they "discredited" it via ad hominems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibby529 (talk • contribs) 6 May 2005

The statement "The strait reopened about 15,500 BP" disagrees by thousands of years with other references. Can someone check the reference given in the quoted book to see if it is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.87.100 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beringia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

new paper on "Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Human"

"Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Humans," published in the April issue of the journal Evolutionary Anthropology. The authors examined recent developments in anthropological genetics, archaeology and paleoecology and how these findings inform us about the original migration to the Americas, as well as the human occupation of the former land bridge between Alaska and Siberia, known as "Beringia."Read more at: [8]

Abstract

Until recently, the settlement of the Americas seemed largely divorced from the out-of-Africa dispersal of anatomically modern humans, which began at least 50,000 years ago. Native Americans were thought to represent a small subset of the Eurasian population that migrated to the Western Hemisphere less than 15,000 years ago. Archeological discoveries since 2000 reveal, however, that Homo sapiens occupied the high-latitude region between Northeast Asia and northwest North America (that is, Beringia) before 30,000 years ago and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The settlement of Beringia now appears to have been part of modern human dispersal in northern Eurasia. A 2007 model, the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis, which is based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in living people, derives Native Americans from a population that occupied Beringia during the LGM. The model suggests a parallel between ancestral Native Americans and modern human populations that retreated to refugia in other parts of the world during the arid LGM. It is supported by evidence of comparatively mild climates and rich biota in south-central Beringia at this time (30,000-15,000 years ago). These and other developments suggest that the settlement of the Americas may be integrated with the global dispersal of modern humans.[9] Doug Weller talk 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

skeptics

Shouldn't there be some space given to the skeptics like Vine Deloria et al. who argue that Beringia never existed? Or to the indigenous communities who argue that these hypotheses do violence to their own origin beliefs and their claims at idigeneity? 130.68.130.115 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC) R.E.D.

As I said at the talk page for settlement of the Americas, When they publish their ideas in good scientific journals sure, and if they get traction in the scientific community. If someone is offended by science it is their problem, not ours. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Red Earth, White Lies - " creationist claptrap"Moxy (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Not to mention that the whole "colonialist science" argument is based on a faulty premise: if accepting Beringia means that Amerindians aren't indigenous to the Americas, then by the same count the English aren't indigenous to England, either. So any white person who uses Beringia to refute Amerindian claims to the continent shoots themselves in the foot. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The article needs a little bit of cleaning

The sentences starting with "Land animals migrated through Beringia as well" is a repetition what was already written (more than once) in the Beringian refugium paragraph and has nothing to do with the title of the paragraph (Human habitation). אביהו (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Beringian refugium

I have created this new section, to which I have added a gallery of some of the plants that inhabited Beringia 15,000-11,500. I am not precious about this gallery and if editors here believe that it does not fit in with the article then it can be removed. I placed it there so that visitors would clearly see that the area was not an icy wasteland before the Holocene. There are some people who believe that the first inhabitants of North America came on sleds - they would have done so with some difficulty. Regards,  William Harris |talk  21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@William Harris: Have you seen this new evidence supporting a Beringian standstill. "Earliest Human Presence in North America Dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: New Radiocarbon Dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada" {http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169486} Doug Weller talk 14:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. If you should visit Beringian wolf#Range you will find that there was a gap in the Wisconsin glaciation until 23,000 years ago, which offers the possibility or an early movement south before the sheets closed. The steppe bison and musk ox from Beringia came through it, pursued by their canine predator. (I believe that somewhere in this region, the missing ancestor of the modern wolf and dog will be found.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Should the sentence "Below is a gallery of some of the plants that inhabited eastern Beringia plants" be "Below is a gallery of some of the plants that inhabited eastern Beringia plains"? אביהו (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
אביהו Yes, I've fixed it. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beringia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pre-20kA Colonisation

(Pre- talk-reshaping content)

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Americas were populated as early as 35,000 years ago. In particular, Watanabe et al. (2003) "Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil" shows well verified Thermoluminescence and Electron Spin Resonance dates for cave paintings. I realise that, within the context of the Bering Land Bridge, this may be a bit off topic. What do people think? 86.158.68.160 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an old thread so you might want to move your comment (and mine) to a new section at the bottom, but this [10] although not a reliable source by our standards is a pointer to the issues. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I second Doug on the move and would like to point out (in case it isn't clear per old comments) that the Bering land bridge was exposed for a long period of time before the 21Ka LGM; the last interglacial was 120 Ka. Awickert (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a newbie and didn't know how to start a new section. Doh! 86.170.56.70 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The better place would probably be Settlement of the Americas. However, after reading some articles, I'd have to say that "well verified" is wrong. "In total contradiction to the other group working on the site" would be more like it. I am inclined to sit on my hands when looking at the Watanabe et al. study because the radiocarbon ages are young and there could be issues regarding inheritance in the TL data. I am not very familiar with EPR dating, except that it is related to radiation damage, so the sources of and potential shielding from radiation need to be constrained. Overall, I trust the more well-vetted 14C dates the most. Awickert (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(Benign restructuring)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page because I think this needs to be discussed again. In the past few years, it is my impression that evidence for pre-clovis peoples in general, and pre-20K people in particular has grown. The Settlement of the Americas article makes this issue seem more relevant, while this article still largely dismisses the possibility, and other articles, such as the Bering Sea page follow the lead of (and refer to) this article.Elriana (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Animation

I came across this very cool animation which shows the shape of Beringia and how it's changed over the last 20,000 years. Since it's on a U.S. government site, it might be fair game to use it on the page itself (works produced by U.S. employees as part of their jobs are public domain). It'd certainly be better than the current image, which doesn't really give a clear picture of how big it was, etc. 131.107.0.80 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Somehow this animation was listed as a link twice under different names: "Paleoenvironmetal atlas of Beringia", and "An animation of flooding of the Bering Land bridge over 2000 years"; I edited the page so that it held this link only once. I agree, though -- helpful depiciton of the land bridge's development and recession. -Julia

Signed and dated for archiving purposes only. William Harris • (talk) • 12:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Appears That it may not reflect what I heard only This year (‘20)

Latest discovery (or dogma, Not beyond the realm of possibility) is that North American peoples came from across the South Pacific, and not (as recently taught) via some Bering land bridge. Clearly that does disallow the plausibility of *pre-anthropoid* species having spread across the international date line, much earlier, east and via Panama or the Caribbean or I suppose even with big oceanic shortcuts along the Pacific coast of the Americas to North America, butIn my opinion the ambiguity presumably is due to neglect& needs to be addressed.
—2601:199:C201:FD70:DD12:9BEE:5935:6BAF (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Article implies that the land bridge appeared some time near 125,000 BP, but does not say when

The most relevant section of the article currently reads:

The last glacial period, commonly referred to as the "Ice Age", spanned 125,000–14,500 YBP and was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, which occurred during the last years of the Pleistocene era. The Ice Age reached its peak during the Last Glacial Maximum, when ice sheets began advancing from 33,000 YBP and reached their maximum limits 26,500 YBP. Deglaciation commenced in the Northern Hemisphere approximately 19,000 YBP and in Antarctica approximately 14,500 years YBP, which is consistent with evidence that glacial meltwater was the primary source for an abrupt rise in sea level 14,500 YBP and the bridge was finally inundated around 11,000 YBP.

This leaves it unsaid when the land bridge first appeared, though it's natural to assume that it was around 125,000 YBP. Amaurea (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

What is YBP?

This is not a precise way to measure how many years ago something happened. I know that it means, "years before present," but why you would anyone use that as a measure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:C500:E100:1C53:C73F:141C:10A7 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beringia/Archive_1&oldid=1181272342"