By Land and by Sea: New evidence of at least two early migration routes into the Americas

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


There's new evidence that the first inhabitants of North America might have arrived by both land and sea. Researchers analyzed the genetic material of modern indigenous people from North and South America to trace two rare lines back to the continents' first inhabitants. The study, published in Current Biology, provides the first genetic evidence that the ancestors of many living Native Americans took two distinct routes from Beringia (a region that included the now-submerged Bering land bridge as well as portions of Siberia and Alaska) some 15,000 to 17,000 years ago.

The new findings fly in the face of the prevailing genetic theory that just one wave of migration traveled down the ice-free Pacific coast from Beringia. 

"They all arrived at the same time — it's the arrival route that's different," says lead study author Ugo Perego, a postdoctoral genetics student at the University of Pavia, Italy. Perego and his team studied genetic information from the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation in Salt Lake City, which has a large collection of genetic and genealogical data.

The new picture painted by this study shows one seafaring path to the Pacific coast and another route overland via an ice-free passageway just east of the Rocky Mountains (between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets) to the Great Lakes area. The Pacific course would have led to the rapid population of the western coasts of both continents down to Tierra del Fuego, and the land-bound travelers would have remained in the Great Plains and eastern regions of North America.

"It's interesting," says Connie Mulligan, an anthropology associate professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's the first genetic evidence that both a land and sea route may have been used." But Mulligan says more research is needed to confirm the findings, which may be explained by  a population bottleneck in Beringia, during which great deal of differentiation could have occurred.

Researchers widely believe that the American migration began in Asia before crossing into Beringia — much of which is now under the waters of the Bering Sea. But there is disagreement among geneticists, archeologists and linguists about the timing, frequency and location of the movement of people from Beringia into North America. Some posit that indigenous languages were too diverse to have stemmed from a single group of people. 

"Our genetic study reveals a scenario in which more than one language family could have arrived in the Americas with the earliest Paleo-Indians," study co-author Antonio Torroni, a professor of genetics at the University of Pavia, said in a statement. The two paths might also explain some of the large technological differences between regions in the pre-Columbian Americas.

In March 2008, the same team of researchers completed a massive genetic tree of indigenous American DNA, which revealed that about 95 percent of Native Americans today could trace their genetic heritage back to six individuals who lived 15,000 to 17,000 years ago. This fact, however, actually made tracing the migration routes more difficult. "Super common lineages were so common that they created a lot of background noise," says Perego. So Perego and his team used the genetic material from descendants of the other 5 percent to home in how the first inhabitants got here.

Perego hopes to soon use the more common lineages now to explore lines of expansion.

Image © iStockphoto/Oytun Karadayi

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe