Archaeologica.org

I still maintain they walked/waded from New Guinea to Oz though (after boating/rafting from Bali to Lombok/Flores around 1 mya).
Because they could.

More than likely.

Roy.

HE was already on Java by 1,57 mya. So he either walked there or boated/rafted there. The boat/raft supporters will consequently have to accept that HE knew about boating/rafting long before he stood on the beach of New Guinea facing Oz. So getting across was feasible. They knew about boating/rafting, after all.

I still maintain they walked/waded from New Guinea to Oz though (after boating/rafting from Bali to Lombok/Flores around 1 mya).
Because they could.

Agreed RS. In my very short post, that's exactly what I said. It could have been either way. We'll probably never know.

I still maintain they walked/waded from New Guinea to Oz though (after boating/rafting from Bali to Lombok/Flores around 1 mya).
Because they could.

But why would they? If you admit the knowledge of boating you should also realize that until comparatively recent times water travel was safer and cheaper than land travel. If they got to New Guinea by boat they sure hell didn't burn them ( a la Cortez!). They continued to use them to fish and sail around the island. Ask the Aussies and Japanese how easy land travel was on New Guinea as late as 1944.

Minimalist wrote:

I still maintain they walked/waded from New Guinea to Oz though (after boating/rafting from Bali to Lombok/Flores around 1 mya).
Because they could.

But why would they?

For all the same reasons they went to Dmanisi, Peking, and Monte Verde.

If you admit the knowledge of boating you should also realize that until comparatively recent times water travel was safer and cheaper than land travel. If they got to New Guinea by boat they sure hell didn't burn them ( a la Cortez!). They continued to use them to fish and sail around the island. Ask the Aussies and Japanese how easy land travel was on New Guinea as late as 1944.

Try today!
There's still no way to move across and penetrate the land in New Guinea except by river or air. There are no roads. Only extremely dense, impenetrable jungle and high mountains.

They continued to use them to fish and sail around the island.

Probably, but only aeons later after they had arrived the first time. I bet they stayed at the waterline/coastline for a very long time as they had already done for a thousand millennia (since Africa) before they permanently moved inland. Travel across water had got 'm to New Guinea, but it wasn't as if travel by water was a daily occurrence. They didn't just hop on a log or raft to travel a couple miles! That was a very hazardous mode of transportation they would avoid if they could.

I grew up in Tasmania myself and as far I as I know it 40,000 years around Tasmania was at least connected by a land bridge to mainland Australia. The height of the last glacial period, Bass Strait was a vast flat plain.

The Wallace Line separates Australia from Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

Obviously, that would include Tasmania. Welcome Just.

Minimalist wrote:The Wallace Line separates Australia from Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

Obviously, that would include Tasmania. Welcome Just.

The interesting thing is that aboriginal population in Tasmania were there probably even before modern humans arrived in Europe (around 50,000 years ago). Also until people reached South America they were for thousands of years southern most humans in the world.