https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144203370383
Flake. Tiny. And they described a polished hand axe, with
a handle, that re-writes history...
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Don't talk BS, there is no way a sane person would go into >> deep sea with a bark, or skin canoe
Which did the monkeys use to cross between the old & new
worlds? Hmm?
The famous Eskimo kayak was made of animal skins on a
frame...
The first ocean travelers were likely victims of
happenstance: Natural disasters, storms, unknown
currents. They never wanted to venture into deep waters.
The trip chose them, not the other way around.
It's extremely unlikely that any archaic humans would have
crossed open waters. Even in roman times ships rarely
sailed out of view of land.
With sea level much lower, the land much larger and closer
together, the first Australians could probably see the wild
fires even if not the land itself. They knew the land was
there.
It was less "Venturing into the unknown" and more floating
across a stretch of water.
A dugout canoe is logic. A tree floats. So, make a place
to sit within it and YOU float... but it's not exactly
efficient.
Tree bark? Okay. Or animal hide...
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
There is so much wrong in what you've written.
The only thing "Wrong" is that I was bothering to reply to you.
Lets start with new world monkeys. It is obvious that they >> separated very early, judging by nostrils.
You'd have to define "Early."
In fact, obviously, it can even be before they became monkeys.
The oldest monkey fossils are New World monkeys.
Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates.
Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.
So you see the issue: Dugout Canoes are not necessary.
Regarding "the first travelers" idea, the emergence of humans
in Australia coincidence with the emergence of ground tools. If your
idea was right, humans would emerge in Australia anytime in the last 2
million years.
Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...
Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.
So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.
Regarding Roman times, you don't have the slightest idea, of
course they went to open waters
You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely
to ever materialize.
What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks"
of their day: Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port.
There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water,
do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.
Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!
"Cornwall and Devon were important sources of tin for Europe
and the Mediterranean throughout ancient times and may have been the
earliest sources of tin in Western Europe, with evidence for trade to
the Eastern Mediterranean by the Late Bronze Age."
Oh! I keep forgetting you're retarded!
You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination
part is.
But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
]
Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates.
Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.
So you see the issue: Dugout Canoes are not necessary.
The dating, of course, doesn't give you the ultimate number.
Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.
Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...
Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.
So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.
I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse case
than South America.
Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?
You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly >>> every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely >>> to ever materialize.
What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks" >>> of their day: Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port. >>>
There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water, >>> do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.
Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!
It is you who doesn't understand the piracy problem at all. >> Even today we have piracy in some passageways, like Singapore Strait,
off the coast of Peru, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, the
Gulf of Guinea, South China Sea.
And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.
You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination >>> part is.
But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.
They found traces of Minoans in Norway,
No. Someone claimed that they found carvings. But there's claims like
that everywhere!
"The Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the Phoenicians sailed
around the British Isles on their way to the tin mines of Cornwall.".
I'm willing to say that you're confused and meant this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiterides
Traders are known to have invented tall tales to mask the true location
of their products - and hence eliminate competition - but science has
gotten pretty good at pinpointing the origins of metals.
It's pretty easy, with the right equipment and a database of results...
A hand held device can tell you the composition of a metal -- it's
purity and it's impurities -- then you just match that to a source...
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.
Still it doesn't matter. There is a fossil record bias, a lot
of animals we will never find. We do have the outcome, today's world,
and we have to use logic to figure out how today's world emerged, not
constrain our thinking solely on fossil record, although fossil record
is extremely helpful.
That's called an "Argument from ignorance."
I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse >>>> case than South America.
Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?
What is the "Wallace line" to you? A lot of animals never >> cross it. How is Wallace line worse than Atlantic Ocean? In your eyes
Wallace line is wide all the way to Mars, while Atlantic Ocean is just
a little pond. Hm.
Typical narcissist...
"Wallace line? NO! Everyone is wrong about that! No difference what
so ever. None. And I even said so!"
And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.
You really don't know those things.
A cat sprayed in your mouth, didn't it?
Just like you spray your narcissism... "No! Can't admit ANYTHING! Can't
back off a single inch or.. or.. OR ELSE!"
Yes, but: "Control of the tin trade seems to have been in >> Phoenician hands, and they kept their sources secret.". If the source
was nearer, it wouldn't be a secret. Probably you can determine the
source of unused tin, but what about tin which was smelted into bronze.
Pulling you back to the conversation: The issue was never distance.
What you were pretending to be addressing was the fact that the ancients rarely sailed beyond sight of land. As a narcissist, you can't concede
the point and you can't admit that you're wrong so you had to convince yourself that it was something else you were claiming... this distance
thing.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
No, I didn't use ignorance as an argument, I used logic as >> argument. Per logic, Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line.
Which is ignorance, not logic. It's not "Logical" to "Argue" what
you think should be the case, ignoring what is the case.
So, why they built the Lighthouse of Alexandria?
So you also have no idea what a lighthouse is, what it's used for...
Here you have a paper where they research Bay of Biscay in >> Bronze Age. I didn't read the whole paper (it has 828 pages, and it
doesn't talk only about maritime trade), I only saw some tables. You
can see on page 35 that sailors were going in paddled boats directly
from Brittany to NW Iberia by sea crossing
These tables that tell you this... are they in the room right now?
Honey, look at a map. You just follow the coast.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I think that it should be the case that Atlantic Ocean is far
wider than the Wallace line, but it actually isn't? Are you crazy? Are
you narcissist?
What you think isn't relevant. Monkeys are found on both sides
of the Atlantic. They are not found on the other side of the
Wallace Line.
So no matter what you want to argue, the crossing was made in
the Atlantic.
Honey, look at a map. You just follow the coast.
Cherry pie, page 35, just a little read, direct route over >> open sea from Brittany to NW Iberia, 10 - 12 days, Bronze Age.
And very few if any would ever do that.
Open sea and get caught in a storm? Death. Hugging the coast and a
storm brews up? Beach yourself and wait it out.
Just look at the map. They had zero incentive to do anything but
sail within sight of the coast.
On 12.9.2024. 3:03, JTEM wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I think that it should be the case that Atlantic Ocean is >>> far wider than the Wallace line, but it actually isn't? Are you
crazy? Are you narcissist?
What you think isn't relevant. Monkeys are found on both sides
of the Atlantic. They are not found on the other side of the
Wallace Line.
So no matter what you want to argue, the crossing was made in
the Atlantic.
Don't you get it, what you (and everybody else) is saying doesn't have the slightest of senses. They did manage to cross huge
Atlantic Ocean, but they didn't manage to cross narrow Wallace Line?
Don't you get it, there was *no* crossing between Africa and South America, just like there was *no* crossing between Africa and Madagascar, in the time leaping primates were active. Monkeys from
Africa *never* crossed to Madagascar, monkeys *never* crossed Wallace
Line, but they did cross by far the widest of them all, Atlantic Ocean?
No, in the time their ancestors moved from Africa to South America there
was *no* crossing, for god's sake, it was all connected to Antarctica.
Do you get it (finally)? The link between South America and Antarctica
broke only 35 mya.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Actually, it doesn't have to be connected over Antarctica, on
this map you will see that Africa and South America had some kind of
connection 80 mya:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11959-7/figures/5
The status quo hasn't even caught up to the facts yet and you're already placing the New World/Old World split back to 80 million years ago?
Why don't you just admit that you're wrong?
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Don't you get it, what you (and everybody else) is saying >> doesn't have the slightest of senses.
I stated what is: Monkeys are on both sides of the Atlantic, but they
are not on the other side of the Wallace Line.
Your "Ideas," if I may call them that, ignore reality.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 72:08:31 |
| Calls: | 9,819 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,678 |