Boats?

[Digit]

No, Roy: man got to all the islands east of Bali, and Oz as well. And survived until this day. Elephants didn't.

Exactly, and can you not see the flaw in your argument based on that?

Code: Select all

Again: there is no comparison.

I covered that by saying 'craft'.

As for wading an esturay I seem to have a different understanding of the word, as I understand the word we are dealing with salt water, so even with the tide out, which will increase a river current's speed I can not see how any estuary can be waded.
I know you claim that happens in your country, but that is today, after some of the greatest hydraulic engineering contruction in the world.
Convince me that the RMS delta could be waded across 5000 yrs ago.

Roy.

[Sam Salmon]

Estuaries are all different. Very different. Most can be waded through. Especially at low tide.....

Crocodiles notwithstanding that is.....

[Digit]

Plus Sharks, Moray Eels, quick sand, incoming tide if you don't time it right.
I think I'll wait till some one invents a boat!

Roy.

[E.P. Grondine]

1) Does anyone here know if apes can tolerate the iodine in seafood, or if this is a peculiarly HSS trait?

2) Could Neanderthals tolerate seafood? BTW, porpoise are mammals.

3) I think the Zamanshin impact separated an advanced HE into what would become neanderthals and sapiens.

[Rokcet Scientist]

As for wading an esturay I seem to have a different understanding of the word

Apparently.

as I understand the word we are dealing with salt water

No: salt when the tide is coming in, fresh when the tide is going out. I.o.w.: brackish water.

so even with the tide out, which will increase a river current's speed I can not see how any estuary can be waded.

Apparently you've never heard of 'dead tide': a period of about half an hour when the tide is not coming in, nor going out. I.o.w.: no current! 4 times a day. Two of which – the change from low tide to incoming tide – are excellently 'wade-able'! So estuaries can be waded during low tide and dead tide. That's 13 hours each day! I.o.w.: plenty 'wade-ability'!
Also: estuaries are very shallow by nature!

I know you claim that happens in your country, but that is today, after some of the greatest hydraulic engineering contruction in the world.
Convince me that the RMS delta could be waded across 5000 yrs ago.

Tide dynamics and estuaries haven't changed in 5,000 years, Roy. If anything hydraulic engineering channeled and therefore deepened sea arms.
Which, BTW, has dramatically changed our view on how to manage them. We are now reversing the concept of water/tide management: we're not enclosing and channeling water anymore, but we instead now give it more room (as opposed to less room). We've opened the big dykes for a free flow of the tides, and only close them if there's a huge north-westerly storm. On average about once every 2/3 years. Also our rivers (estuary arms really) are getting more room – they're being widened – to allow the great spring floods (strongly increased by de-forested Alps – for skiing... – and upriver dykes) to come through without inundating inhabited areas.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Crocodiles notwithstanding that is.....

Not many crocodiles in most parts of the world. Don't know of any within 6,000 kilometers of here.

Plus Sharks, Moray Eels, quick sand

Sharks prefer not to eat humans. They don't like our taste and prefer seals and fish with 30% fat.
Shark attacks on humans are either out of curiosity (but only BIG, 'pelagic' sharks have the guts for that), but in 99% of cases they are plain mistakes: the shark thought he was attacking a seal. When he finds out he was mistaken he usually disappears. Consequently 99% of shark 'attacks' result in only one bite! Which is not funny, of course, but mostly very well survivable.
Moray eels 1) don't bite unless provoked, and 2) don't live in estuaries, but in the open sea.
Quick sand is an extremely rare coincidence/occurrence. I have never seen it IRL. Have you?

Plus Sharks, Moray Eels, quick sand, incoming tide if you don't time it right.
I think I'll wait till some one invents a boat!

Yes, you would, and I would too, probably, but our ancestors were'nt sissies...

Like FDR said: "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".

[Digit]

No: salt when the tide is coming in, fresh when the tide is going out. I.o.w.: brackish water.

In other words they have turned in land and are not crossing the mouth of the river, ie it's a river crossing. The Teifi, where I live, can not be waded untill several miles in land and is heavily wooded, as were most of our rivers, thus negating the advantage of following the coast with its more open landscape.

Not many crocodiles in most parts of the world.

Oz is noted for them, how many do you need before you give up wading?

Sharks prefer not to eat humans.

Some seem less choosey than others.

I have never seen it IRL. Have you?

In England, yes! Try Morcombe Bay, there's acres of it. 19 Chinese recently died there. Like most flat esturine areas the tide comes in faster than a man can run! The quick sands are nice and warm when the tide goes out I might add and the area is noted for its abundance of sea food, and for being lethal!

but our ancestors were'nt sissies...

And they weren't bloody stupid either!

Love the pics of the mud flats as well, on the Thames when the tide goes out they are over a metre deep! Just right for wading across, if you're into that sort of thing!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Oz is noted for them, how many do you need before you give up wading?

One croc would do it for me!

[Rokcet Scientist]

No: salt when the tide is coming in, fresh when the tide is going out. I.o.w.: brackish water.

In other words they have turned in land and are not crossing the mouth of the river, ie it's a river crossing. The Teifi, where I live, can not be waded untill several miles in land and is heavily wooded, as were most of our rivers, thus negating the advantage of following the coast with its more open landscape.

Shit happens. Sometimes you have to make a detour.

Not many crocodiles in most parts of the world.

Oz is noted for them, how many do you need before you give up wading?

By far the largest parts of the world do not have crocs.

I have never seen [quick sand] IRL. Have you?

In England, yes! Try Morcombe Bay, there's acres of it. 19 Chinese recently died there. Like most flat esturine areas the tide comes in faster than a man can run! The quick sands are nice and warm when the tide goes out I might add and the area is noted for its abundance of sea food, and for being lethal!

Granted. But they are great exceptions.

Love the pics of the mud flats as well, on the Thames when the tide goes out they are over a metre deep! Just right for wading across, if you're into that sort of thing!

HE was!
And so are 'we' (well, not me!): tens of thousands of people trek and wade every year from the Dutch mainland to the northern islands. They regard it as a 'sport' called (translated) 'wade-walking'.









Oh, and BTW: in at least 5,000 years of 'wade-walking' by millions of people, there is not one known occurrence of shark attack, moray eel bite, or quick sand! Not one!

People do drown occassionaly, though.
Shit happens.
How many people have been killed crossing the street in your neighbourhood in, say, the past 10 years?

[Digit]

Sometimes you have to make a detour.

I'l say, thatnks for the pics, I was expecting them, now show me some for a major river in Britain!
Take the Thames, anyone on the right bank in Kent would be almost in Wales before he could wade across it, and that would include massive detours to the south to get around the tributeries.
There is not one major river in Britain that I know of that can be waded within its tidal reaches.
Just how far north would a trekker have to travel to get across the Mississippi?

But they are great exceptions.

They are very common where a river has a very broad estuary, we play sports on the Goodwins when the tide is out, but historically thousands have died on them.

They regard it as a 'sport' called (translated) 'wade-walking'.

Yep! Show me somewhere else in the world where I might find that number of nuts all in one place at tghe same time.
In the past your objection to boats has been that none have been discovered.
Fine, I accept that, so your criteria for the 'invention' of something is 'find it'!
Fine! So when would you date clothing from, the bow and arrow, the spear, shoes/boots etc the sling or any wood, fabric, leather or skin item.
Take a fossilised skeleton, dated from a layer of volcanic ash, the earliest one found, were there not other specimens walking this planet at that time.
When an animal dissapears from the fossil record, was the latest one found the last one on Earth?

How many people have been killed crossing the street in your neighbourhood in, say, the past 10 years?

None!

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Sometimes you have to make a detour.

I'l say, thatnks for the pics, I was expecting them, now show me some for a major river in Britain!
Take the Thames, anyone on the right bank in Kent would be almost in Wales before he could wade across it, and that would include massive detours to the south to get around the tributeries.
There is not one major river in Britain that I know of that can be waded within its tidal reaches.

Britain wasn't populated until about a million years after 'boats' were developed...

My point in showing you those pix was to establish that it can be done, easily, and was done to get to the other side.

Just how far north would a trekker have to travel to get across the Mississippi?

Dunno. As long as there's an uncrossable river (until you have floatation devices) or a mountain range preventing humans to cross them (like the Andes, Alps, Rockies, or Himalayas) it's known as a 'natural barrier'. The only way to get to the other side is to make a detour. Yes, sometimes thousands of miles. Maybe even thousands of years. But so what? They didn't have watches, calendars, or appointments! It wasn't as if someone was waiting for them there...

Yep! Show me somewhere else in the world where I might find that number of nuts all in one place at tghe same time.

The number of nuts, of all ages, that go 'wade-walking' each year in the north of Holland is probably not much different from the total number of HE, also of all ages, that 'wade-walked' the world's coastlines between 2.0 and 1.0 million years BP.

In the past your objection to boats has been that none have been discovered.

It was? Can't recall. Show me a link/quote please.

How many people have been killed crossing the street in your neighbourhood in, say, the past 10 years?

None!

Well, in your town or city then. You know exactly what I mean...
Negotiating today's daily traffic is 10 times more dangerous than 'wade-walking' with a good guide across mud flats is.

[Digit]

Britain wasn't populated until about a million years after 'boats' were developed...

You need to do some more reasearch RS. Britain has been occupied then the occupants driven out by ice quite a number of times.

My point in showing you those pix was to establish that it can be done, easily, and was done to get to the other side.

Problem with that RS is it is probably the only place on the planet where it can be done. You have a string of islands that have in effect created a barrier reef with a lagoon behind them.
We did the same thing in WW2 with the Mulberry Horbour. A one off is a one off.
That water is too shallow for most Sharks, so your point is quite moot.

Dunno

etc
and such a barrier was the crossing to the Andamans and to Oz.
Your belief in walking to both requires the acceptance of unproven tectonic activity and fails to explain the crossing of Wallace Line, which is one of your 'Natural Barriers', only by that very poor swimmer/wader, man!!!

'wade-walked' the world's coastlines between 2.0 and 1.0 million years BP.

Till they reached a major river then spent 'thousands of years' diverting around it. Based on their time from the Andmans to Oz they could not have had many natural barriers to cross, till they reached the Wallace Line of course.

It was? Can't recall. Show me a link/quote please.

Way back! When you first postulated walking. Or do you now offer a different reason for the non existance of water craft?

Well, in your town or city then. You know exactly what I mean...

Two! and several times as many tourists drowned!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

First of all, those mud flats do not look exactly inviting to cross. But what intrigues me even more than the "how" is the "why?" As in the old "why did the chicken cross the road" jokes.

I am firmly in the I LOVE BOATS camp. Until comparatively recently in human history travel by boat was preferred to almost any other method for a lot of reasons. But what was so appealing about the far shore that made people risk giving up an environment that they knew for one that they did not know? Could they hunt? Fish?? Where were the fresh water sources??? Was it occupied???? Were the occupants friendly or hostile????? The list goes on.

There was no conscious intent to settle the earth, it just happened. But what was the mechanism that drove people to keep moving on into the unknown? It's one thing to speculate that there was some sort of wanderlust but while a person might be curious leaders of groups rarely are. A scout might go to the next valley and come back to say that it was habitable but would the leaders decide to abandon what they had for pie in the sky?

I don't envision OOA as some sort of conveyor-belt system in which groups continually arose in Africa and formed up and set out for the rest of the world like American pioneers forming up in St Louis for a wagon train. But if one group crossed the Red Sea then they would have to prosper and multiply just to set up the next group to move out. Given what we know of life-span and infant mortality, this seems like a dicey proposition.

Thoughts?

[JSteen]

First of all, those mud flats do not look exactly inviting to cross. But what intrigues me even more than the "how" is the "why?" As in the old "why did the chicken cross the road" jokes.

I am firmly in the I LOVE BOATS camp. Until comparatively recently in human history travel by boat was preferred to almost any other method for a lot of reasons. But what was so appealing about the far shore that made people risk giving up an environment that they knew for one that they did not know? Could they hunt? Fish?? Where were the fresh water sources??? Was it occupied???? Were the occupants friendly or hostile????? The list goes on.

There was no conscious intent to settle the earth, it just happened. But what was the mechanism that drove people to keep moving on into the unknown? It's one thing to speculate that there was some sort of wanderlust but while a person might be curious leaders of groups rarely are. A scout might go to the next valley and come back to say that it was habitable but would the leaders decide to abandon what they had for pie in the sky?

Thoughts?

Territory, no? Isn't it the old "too many young males making trouble" kind of thing where they're kicked out to find their own territory? I guess they'd have to come back and bring women once they'd found a good hunting ground. Or maybe it was more setting out in mixed groups because there just wasn't enough food for the whole group. Or maybe an actual split in leadership where the group splinters and one group sets out to find their own territory. Or maybe they were already thinking big back then and went off on quests to seek the holy land or some such.

Also, this might be a dumb question but couldn't they swim across the rivers?

[Digit]

Also, this might be a dumb question but couldn't they swim across the rivers?

Possibly, but you'd have to leave pretty much everything behind.

Roy.