That saying is 7000 years after the fact.
> I doubt that the saying is modern but it's antiquity is impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.
But the DNA from dogs is not. Once again it's evidence vs no evidence, only speculation.
> You know very well what I was implying
Sorry, I don't.
> but, for the record, in reply to "I don't know where you are getting your information..." here are a few sources: https://phys.org/news/2012-03-evidence-
... umans.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html
... ric_Craft/. Enough.
Just as I pointed out earlier, Neanderthals would have had less distance to swim that channel than this young lady: https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/n ... n-swimmer/
As far as Crete:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0185248
A few quick points about Crete. 1) If a hominin species really had command of boats that early, why pick a junk yard of the most horrible lithic material ever and ignore islands farther north and closer to the mainland with high quality obsidian (for which there is no trace on the mainland from trade etc.) until after hard evidence for boats. 2) The amount of lithics could have been made by one person in less than a day (which implies a desperate victim of chance rather than a boating culture). 3) The flawed logic used would imply that hippos needed boats to get to Madagascar.
> You've documented your position and I've documented what I agreed and disagreed with about it.
On the contrary, I presented evidence from site reports and DNA and you presented a repeat of negative arguments and speculation about distance and seem to be calling both equal value.
1) "Hard evidence in site reports from the interior and coast of Alaska demonstrates
people were fully aware of the interior (and traveled over interior ice) thousands
of years before evidence for boats, whether they had dogs or not, nor would they
have needed to traverse the entire 2000 km in a single season."
2) "Big mistake by Erlandson and the University of Oregon showing Channel points and
crescents in the same hand from same site and suggesting they have anything at all
to do with a coastal adaptation."
3) "IOW, where then are the sites in the Aleutian Islands?
Both archaeology and DNA evidence shows they were settled from east to west, just the
opposite direction of what would be predicted from the 'kelp highway' model."
4) "On land you can always build an igloo and survive at least until your food runs out,
at sea (even close to shore) there is no such escape."
5) "How does Braje et al. 2017 know there was a marine culture in Japan? Because the sites
that tell him that aren't underwater in the Old World at the start of his "kelp highway".
They only get drowned out when they come to America."
6) "Also, why do they use a lithic point symbol on their map instead of Jomon pottery?
Because the evidence for pottery distribution in the Old World, away from Japan runs
counter to their hypothesis."
> As new evidence comes to light it might inform a future discussion but at this point in time we have reached an impasse.
You didn't comment on any of the sites on the map, particularly the one with the question (?) mark. Question marks don't instill a lot of confidence in ones argument.
Other than a diversion about dogs, which I admitted I didn't need, I really didn't see a lot of evidence to refute any of my statements that have actual data to support them. Did I reference them all? No, but no one asked.
Meanwhile, the evidence for boats on the Pacific Coast of North America remains "underwater".