Here are two much more recent papers on the topic:<p>Nature <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14895.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/natu...</a><p>Science <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884.abstract" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884.abstract</a>
It's a small world after all. Interestingly, DNA from Aboriginal Australians suggests Australia experienced a wave of migration from India about 4,000 years ago.<p><a href="http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2013/01/aboriginal-genes-suggest-indian-migration/" rel="nofollow">http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2013/01/aborigin...</a><p><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21016700" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21016700</a>
Also Kon-Tiki
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition</a>
The dating method sounds very unreliable:<p>"The style of the art means it is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old."<p>Art style? Yeah, right..... I call bull.
Until carbon dated, I call this false.<p>If i draw something today in that style, it would not make it 50000 yrs old.