Reference no: EM133206519 , Length: Word count: 1 Page

Assignment Task: After reading about the Ice Free Corridor and Costal Migration Route theories, which argument do you think is more plausible?

In short, both the Ice Free Corridor and the Coastal Migration theory describe possible ways that early North American inhabitants migrated from Canada's North to southern regions.

The Coastal Migration theory definitely has merit in my opinion; the close proximity to coast would grant the migrants access to numerous advantages. As the article describes, this proximity to the water can provide the migrating Americans with a steady source of food. Food availability is a important factor when determining potential migrating theories as this factor directly determine the survivability of the migrants using this proposed route. From previous Geography classes, it is also been brought to my attention that coasts may also yield warmer conditions due to convectional air currents from the sea, although this effect can be debatable in the overall cold conditions of an ice age.

The Ice Free Corridor seems lacking in terms of evidence by comparison. The article even stated that "the ice-free corridor may not have been a feasible route for the early Americans". Nevertheless, traces of human activity have been found in support of this theory. The notable presence of "fluted projectile points" shows clear evidence of human hunting through the use of tools, which would at least indicate that at some point humans have thrived in this region of the continent.

In conclusion, it is difficult to simply disregard one theory and say one is more plausible than the other; similar to many scientific theories, both the Ice Free Corridor and the Coastal Migration theory can be responsible for the south migrating early Americans, although they may have occurred at different times in history.

After reading about the Ice-Free Corridor and Coastal Migration Route theories it is hard to say which one I believe is the most reasonable. To me they both seem like they were possible in the past and that we really cannot know which route was the way humans migrated. Also after reading up on both routes it can be a combination of both that brought humans to where we are today.

The process of the coastal migration route is simply the idea that humans traveled along the coastline to different islands and lands over time migrating to where they thought was the best fit. This process makes sense to me because the coastline could be simple to follow; however, if this occurred thousands of years ago like the article I found says, there would have been a lot more weather and seasonal complications such as frozen waters. Therefore this process seems reasonable however could have come with other complications. An article focusing on the coastal migration route mentions that there have been multiple studies on the rocks and animal bones found along the Alaskan coast to determine when the rocks were exposed and whether or not there were sources of food 17,000 years ago along the coast. The studies cannot exactly confirm the migration route, but it leaves clues that it was a possibility.

The process of the ice-free corridor is also a possibility because of the security of always being on land. However, walking on land for thousands of kilometers in no specific direction and somehow ending up in a location to be civilized can be questionable. But an article I found states that the ice-free corridor could have been used for bison movement more than humans because of the glacier barrier that was in place about 13,000 years ago.

Overall, after reading the two articles I found the coastal migration route seems to be the process that can be proven to happen years before the ice-free corridor one.

Coastal Migration Route Article

Mohdin, A. (2018, May 31). Geologists find clues that early humans island-hopped their way into the Americas. Quartz. Retrieved February 2, 2022.

Ice-free Corridor Article

Lazaro , E. de. (2016, June 7). Researchers: 'Ice-Free Corridor' along Rocky Mountains Opened Up 13,000 Years Ago. Sci News. Retrieved February 2, 2022.

Upon reading through the two theories about the Ice-free corridor and the coastal migration route, it was hard to determine which route seemed more plausible for early settlers to use. In my opinion, both of these theories seem possible as a way for early settlers to migrate.

When examining the ice-free corridor, the theory was considered that "the earliest human migrations to the mid-continent should be sought elsewhere." Overall, lacking enough evidence to compete with the coastal migration theory. Although evidence was subpar, there were signs of human activity through the ice-free corridor path. With the discovery of hunting tools in the area, it can be viewed as a viable spot for many travelers to use for gathering food. With the evidence, the Ice-free corridor looks like a possible route many early Americans would have used to migrate long distances.

When comparing the ice-free corridor with the coastal migration theory, the lather provides more evidence regarding how early settlers migrated. When reading through the article, it describes the route as a trail with a steady source of food and supplies for migrators. As food is a vital source for long journey excursions, the supply of the coastal regions provides water, food as well as an easy and simple way to navigate to new places.

In conclusion, neither the ice-free corridor nor the coastal migration theory is a more responsible way for early settlers to migrate. Both show evidence that during this time, both migration routes were viable options. In my personal experience, the coastal migration theory seems more viable as it is near the coastline and provides better direction and supply chain to the Americans migrating.

A question I have for you guys, to keep the discussion going is, if you were migrating from the south, which route would you be more inclined to take?