When did the first people settle in what is now the United States?

Question

I am just curious as to how long people have been here and when the first people lived in what is now North America. I realize that there have been native americans for a long time, but are there any records of cro magnon men in the United States/Canada area? What about South America?

Answer 1

you mean the Americas. we native people believe that we have been here since the beginning, and that in fact the people of Asia are decedents of native Americans. there  is no PROOF that people came here from Asia ,but many animals did go to Asia from N.A. the most famous being the horse going to Asia. now there is an Italian lady anthro working down in S. A. that clams she has proof that it was peopled as far back as 40,000 years ago.

Answer 2

The actual dates are probably at least 40,000 years.  Paleoanthropologists almost never say what they don't know IMO.  The oldest proven sites or accepted sites may be around 15 thousand years ago but there are genetic studies that suggest 40,000 years.  There are also some archeological sites with unverified claims to around that age.  We are extremely unlikely to find the first remains because since they were first there were very few of them and they are older.  What happens in digs is that they simply don't go deeper than 12,000 years because of bias and because it is very difficult and dangerous to go deeper.  Paleoanthropologists are notorious for making outrageous claims of discovering the first or the oldest or the .....

Answer 3

Um a long time ago?

Answer 4

South America was settled by nomads from North America after they crossed the land bridge from Europe. Any mankind dating before this is almost non-existant.

Answer 5

Before the 1600's.

Answer 6

I will agree with David H, for the most part.  There were three waves of migration into North America from Siberia via the Bering land bridge.  The accepted time for these migrations are between 15,000 and 10,000 with 12,000 being the usual figure cited in text books.  Recent evidence has been submitted attempting to show a migration from Europe across the Atlantic at much the same time though there is not enough to support this theory yet.  Other issues arise from two sites Medowcroft Rock Shelter (Pennsylvania) and Monte Verde (Chile).  Monte Verde has been dated to 12,500 and this date is now generally accepted even by former skeptics while dates from Medowcroft have been as old as 19,600.  These dates would push back the dates for first entry or necessitate extremely fast expansion of human populations (Alaska to Chile in 500 years).  Another issue arises concerning the Kennewick Man skeleton found in Washington State and dated to 9,300 yeas ago.  This skeleton has some distinctly European features and has been used to support the trans-Atlantic migration theory,  

The dates can feasibly be pushed back by accepting theories of boat travel rather than the need for a land bridge.  If the populations arrived by sea then the dates could b pushed back many thousands of years.

There is no evidence to suggest that Native Americans (or anyone else) arrived in the Americas 40,000 years ago as Jim states.  There is a reason scientist use evidence and that is to keep people from making wild statements like this with absolutely no support but their own imaginations and crazy conjecture.  Australia was just being settled at this time (dates range from 40,000 to 60,000 years ago) and genetic markers can prove that no modern Native American population was yet divided from Asian populations at this time.

Answer 7

Humans (Eurasians) migrated from Siberia into North American via the Bering Land Bridge approximately 15 thousand years ago (during the Wisconsin glaciation) and then gradually spread south. There is both archaeological and genetic evidence of this migration found in modern Native American populations.

These populations were all modern Homo sapiens sapiens. There is absolutely no evidence of earlier species of Homo ever having arrived in the Americas before this time. All earlier species of Homo were by then extinct.

By the way, Cro Magnon is just another words for early Homo sapiens living in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic.

Answer 8

There is fighting by scientist going on about that subject.  There are many unexplained things and it looks like all kinds of people visited.  People may have more advanced in the Ice Age than we give them credit.  It used to be thought that Asians came by foot on a land bridge but now there is talk that they came by boat.  Since some American Indians look like Asians, it is most likely true that Asians were the ones to settle.  Just keep updated about the most recent studies.

Answer 9

I think the native Americans were the first here and got here many many many many many many many many many many many many MOONS ago.

Answer 10

First of all, Cro Magnon is a site name that resulted in some European Homo sapiens being called Cro Magnon.  Cro Magnon, however, is just another name for Homo sapiens, aka Modern Man, aka humans.  Seeing as Cro Magnon specifically were European Homo sapiens, however, they really have nothing to do with migration to North America until more recent times (Vikings at approximately 950 – 1000ad and then European Colonialism 1492ad).  Previous to this European colonialism the major migration to North America occurred from North-Central Asia during the last major ice age when the bearing straight became a land bridge.  This ice age period was between 10,000 – 12,000 years ago and it was this migration that eventually radiated to fill the Americas to become the dominant genealogical expression of the Native American tribes.  Some argue (purely because of ethnocentrism) that the Clovis technology that was the major stone tool technology in the Americas came from Europe and show it’s similarity to a French stone culture that dates back to around 14,000 years ago.  These same “scientists” if I can call them that, search the eastern seaboard with great zeal looking for signs of Clovis technology to prove their non-point.  The reason why I call this a non-point is because the empirical evidence that is available, that being the Y-DNA/mt-DNA evidence clearly demonstrates that the 10,000 – 12,000 year ago migration DID come form North-Central Asia.  Here are some links that clearly show the spread of Y-DNA and the resulting pre colonial Y-DNA frequencies in the Americas: http://jewsandjoes.com/images/FTDNA-Migr... http://notavalidname.files.wordpress.com... If the migration of the Clovis technology from West Europe were true then the American Y-DNA/mt-DNA haplogroups should show at least a little of the Western European haplogroup’s influence, yet none of the Western European’s predominantly R1B haplogroup is represented anywhere in the pre colonial American natives.  The 10,000 – 12,000 year ago migration, however, was not the first.  There have been a few archaeological sites that predate the 12,000 year ago beginning of the major migration from Asia or else are differential enough that have offered some clues as to there being multiple migrations into the Americas.  One such site was that of Kennewick man who’s facial reconstruction offered a look at a man who looked distinctively Caucasian http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/image... thus this initially fueled the fire of Early European migration supporters.  The best hypothesis so far is that Kennewick Man is actually a relative of the Ainu people of northern Japan who are an ethnic group with Caucasian-like features much like those of Kennewick.  Many sites that have fueled these debates, plus the questionable origins of Clovis technology are shown on this map: http://www.laputanlogic.com/images/2003/... The evidence is not enough to predict whether all of these pre 12,000 migrations (and their ancestors like Kennewick Man) are all bearing straight migrations, or if some of the south American sites could even have been migrations from the South Pacific (Oceania).  What is clear from the genealogical evidence, however, is that as the major migration of 10,000 – 12,000 years ago spread across the Americas, is that they did a wholesale replacement of the previous migratory populations because the Y-DNA and mt-DNA is quite purely that of this migration and not similar to either that of the Ainu, nor any other South Pacific or Asian groups that may have been a part of these earlier migrations.  The original dates of these earlier migrations coming to the Americas is not fully know but it is suggested to be somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 – 18,000 years ago, although sometimes you can see some obscure figures in the 35,000 – 50,000 years thrown into the discussion.  I personally do not find the 35,000 – 50,000 year ago range credible because that type of time frame would not be consistent with the spread of archaeological evidence radiating through Asia and down into Oceania.