4 ms·

> ~14,000 years as separate populations. Perhaps even less. http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/romanbust.htm http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/article

• Retric 10y ago
  The baring strait is also only 51 miles so there was likely quite a bit of accidental crossings if nothing else. For comparison Australia was populated around 65,000 to 75,000 years ago and that takes more than 200 miles by sea.
  • danieltillett 10y ago
    I don't think there is any good evidence for Australia being populated before 45,000 years ago. Modern humans hadn't even left Africa 75,000 years ago.
    • Retric 10y ago
      Your dates for leaving Africa seem to be off base. Homo sapiens ventured out of Africa around 100,000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations There where early tool across Afro-Eurasia as far back as 1.7 to 2.6 million years. Early human ancestors may have maintained separate populations spreading genetic mutations between them with occasional waves of migration displacing existing populations. Supporting the first idea is the wide range of habitat giving advantages to prior populations who are better able to cope with existing conditions. http://www.nature.com/news/teeth-from-china-reveal-early-human-trek-out-of-africa-1.18566 http://www.nature.com/news/teeth-from-china-reveal-early-hum... There really does not seem to be much evidence to tell one way or another.
      • danieltillett 10y ago
        The data regarding the early venturing out of Africa is not good, but even the wiki article says humans reached Australia 46,000 years ago.
        • Retric 10y ago
          There are several sites that are dated to ~46,000 years which is somewhat suspicious as it's approximately the limit for radiocarbon dating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#cite_note-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australi... Lists a lot of dates prior to 46,000 years including as much as 200,000 (which is not generally accepted) but again not a lot of evidence for that. However, if you accept the first habitation probably did not leave a lot of clear evidence some date prior to 46,000 years seems likely.
  • dredmorbius 10y ago
    You're assuming that sea distance is a constant. For substantial periods of the past 50k years, Australia, Indonesia, and the South Indian subcontinent were joined or nearly so, due to lower sea levels. Much of the area remains quite shallow. At about 15-20kya: http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/ice-ages-and-sea-levels.html http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/ice-ages-and-sea-le... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/CLIMAP.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/CLIMAP.j... Australasia[edit] The Australian mainland, New Guinea, Tasmania and many smaller islands comprised a single land mass. This continent is now referred to sometimes as Sahul. Between Sahul and Sundaland – a peninsula of South East Asia that comprised present-day Malaysia and western and northern Indonesia – there remained an archipelago of islands known as Wallacea. The water gaps between these islands, Sahul and Sundaland were considerably narrower and fewer in number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
    • Retric 10y ago
      http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/SahulLGM.jpg?e8ab49 http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/SahulLGM.jpg... shows a fairly wide gap between Australasia and Europe. "However, Sahul and Sundaland even at the height of the LGM were separated by at least 80 kilometres (50 miles)." Last thing I read suggested the gap was ~100 miles though this may have been a more recent period. Thus, a 50 mile gap between Asia and the United states was likely crossed a few times.
• empath75 10y ago
  Man that's a pretty strong statement to make based on a tiny sculpture that looks vaguely roman.