Re: Australian finds >100 000 BP?
Bob Keeter (firstname.lastname@example.org)
28 Sep 1996 15:46:06 GMT
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
>Thanks for the information. It's very exciting. Is there any chance
>of someone typing in the full article?
You might try: "http://www.smh.com.au:80/daily/"
>Where is the site?
>Has the area been geologically raised in the last 150 kya? IOW was
>the site a coastal one at the time of occupation?
>It does not disprove "Out of Africa" as another poster suggests.
>If they had boats they could have come from anywhere.
Ah, Paul, you miss a "really" important issue. To the best of my
knowledge, Austrailia has been separated from mainland Asia (and
Africa) for quite a long time. If the local yokels made it across
on a boat or raft, if they flew, or swam, or whatever that makes
early man quite a bit more mobile that anybody had reason to suspect!
I'm not one of those who have to depend on space aliens to
transport man around the different continents, BUT I am a
believer that man wasnt quite the homebody that some seem
to imagine. 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? True, we dont have any
evidence that indisputably goes back that far, but, if it
were physically possible, the looking might not futile!