tempforanthro

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   afaik, or can even imagine, there were no land routes across the Pacific at even glacial maximum. If you know different, tell.
2. 2.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   Nicely summarized.
3. 3.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   put a contact in your profile
4. 4.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   In this case it really is just a genetic grouping. Refers to the understood native population of, roughly, Australia--there is some overlap nearby. The subject of human migration as revealed by genetics is super interesting: really puts int
5. 5.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   I cant comment on Hyerdahl--I just don't know much. A related hole in simian evolutionary theory pertains to new vs old world monkeys, if you want a deep rabbit hole. edit: the US, afaik, is different in that cultural anthro shares dep
6. 6.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   No worries, though I did not mention Polynesians. This is not the venue to parse out what Australasian means, but, at least genetically, we would be discussing a much older population. It is by definition about seafaring people, however, as
7. 7.▲
   by tempforanthro 5y ago

   I dont want to pollute this thread, but want to briefly describe my time (mid 2000s) as an undergrad with half a double-major in US anthropology. I was on several occasions warned-off from doing projects that pertained to this very subject