tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8223364479963486821..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Rats and the dating of the earliest colonization of New ZealandDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65120518072212909412008-09-29T00:37:00.000+03:002008-09-29T00:37:00.000+03:00I may be stating the bleeding obvious... but what ...I may be stating the bleeding obvious... but what if the first settlers didn't bring rats with them? Outrageous.<BR/><BR/>I know it's a ground shaking thought; but in a modestly sized craft they may have been too obvious to stowaway. I know the Maori deliberately brought them along, but earlier people may not have.<BR/><BR/>If South America was showing signs of Australoid habitation about 40k ago there is NO WAY New Zealand was only colonised so recently.mathildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06682429587184048584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38860943938548471532008-06-05T08:47:00.000+03:002008-06-05T08:47:00.000+03:00It's not mentioned in your comments but the scient...It's not mentioned in your comments but the scientists involved are now going to apply the same techniques to other islands where the timing of human arrival is disputed. <BR/><BR/>For anyone interested in the topic in more detail Tim has posted these two essays for me at his stite: <BR/><BR/>http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/search/label/Human%20Evolution%20on%20Trial%20-%20Change<BR/><BR/>http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/search/label/Human%20Evolution%20On%20Trial%20-%20Eastern%20Polynesia<BR/><BR/>The first deals with environmental change caused by human arrival and the second with connections between New Zealand and the rest of Polynesia. My idea has been to follow these people back to their (and our) origin from Homo erectus.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com