Re: Australian finds >100 000 BP?

Steve Whittet (
5 Oct 1996 22:13:39 GMT

In article <rim.844039228@dolphin>, says...
>Bob Keeter <> writes:
>>If he got to Austrailia 100k years ago, what was
>>keeping man out of the North American and South American
>>continent in the same time frame?
>Getting to Australia required the ability to survive sea voyages of ~100km
>a pleasant climate; getting to America required _either_ the ability to
>sea voyages of thousands of km _or_ the technology to handle arctic
>(in an ice age, no less). The problems are a different order of magnitude.
> Cheers
> Bob McKay

Actually coasting the island chains around the periphery of the
Northern Pacific rarely required going out of sight of land.

Starting with the south China sea, Japan, the Kurils, kamchatka,
the Komandore Ostrova, the Aleutions with the Near, Far and Rat
islands then down the Queen Charlottes and the California coast.

The longest stretch is between Glinka and Cape Wrangle about 200
mi now. Less if sea levels were lowered or pack ice were present.

The route goes about as far north as Britain or Maine and the
majority of it appears to have been well stocked with flora and fauna.

Recent finds in Fladmarks refugia on the Aleutians have found the
earliest known human skeleton in Alaska dated c 9,000 BC and
guess what, it turns out to have been Caucasian.

(see sci.archaeology.moderated)

The skeleton will probably be repatriated before any further
studies can be made.

> ,-_|\ Bob McKay,