>> Wouldn't that be cool.

Oh yes indeedy! As you say one does not have to exclude the other.

Some recent skeleton discoveries in the US have put some doubt that the south American population came via north America. There have also been some indications that early north American people didn't cross via the north. This could just be an anti-Native American thing though to say that 'hey, you stole it before we did!', so it may be crap. It all gets very interesting ...

It seems pretty clear that people followed the herds. Something that has always impressed me is the sudden decline and even extinction of American large animals which coincided with the arrival of humans. That suggests that hunting techniques and tools (including the atlatl) were sufficiently well developed for slaughter to be comparitvely easy. Possibly, as the animals were unaccustomed to humans, they were not afraid and so could be approached closely. Isn't it odd that the North American tribes never came out of their "Stone Age" hunter/gatherer lifestyle?

The rapid colonisation of the entire Americas all the way down to Tierra del Fuego does seem incredible if the Bering Strait ice link with Siberia was the only entry route. We recently discussed early trans-Atlantic voyages following the television screening of Ice Age Columbus. Unfortunately, any discussion is hampered by prejudices. For a very long time, any archaeologist claiming a pre-Folsom site was condemned to the wilderness and the "its too old" argument meant that evidence was lost, hidden and ignored because it didn't fit. The racial thing also gets very nasty, with the "Indians" wanting to hang on to their "First Nation" status and rednecks just frothing at the mouth to claim that Europeans (Kennewick man) got there first.

The true picture will gradually become clearer when academices stop being scared of the Atlantic, recognise that it is a sea route and not an obstacle as proved by so many very small modern boats (even canoes) making the crossing. I see no reason why the journeys could not be two way. I fully agree with FW's comments on the similarities of the Irish and Inuit skin boats and throw in, for good measure, the many skin boats depicted in Scandinavian rock art (also discussed here recently). Archaeologists are almost certainly never going to find any evidence of them though! Surely the easiest way to move around was by following the coast lines where food was plentiful. That led to island hopping and the very early colonisation of Australia long before anyone reached Europe. We tend to see things still far too much from a Euro-centralist land-based viewpoint. Water ways were the early routes just as they are still in the Amazon rainforest. Overland was much tougher.