Marine Archaeology

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:32 pm

Yeah, really RS. I'm not arguing my own personal theory here. In fact, after this post I intend to just let it go. I'm just informing you of the science and then you will think as you want.

Australia has been connected with Tasmania to the south, and on occassion, with New Guinea to the north. But the dividing line is the Wallace Line.

This is an ocean rift between two continental shelves. They have never been connected. The shortest distance, during the LGM, was 50 miles. This was between the mainland and Flores. There was no other way to Australia.

Although orthodox science does not mention the fact that Flores was inhabited by HE 800,000 yrs. ago, you will find nothing that says humans walked to Flores or any other land mass below the Wallace line. Ignoring this fact is the only strategy. Read Robert Bedanarik "Erectus Ahoy".

It's the implications of early seafaring that are so staggering. So, let me know if you ever find an article or paper that says anybody walked to Flores or Australia.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:30 am

Do us all a favour RS and drop it will you? Those aren't 'voids' in you idea they are damn great holes!
You refuse to believe that early man could traverse the oceans so you have to create an entirely spurious chain of ideas to support that view rather than accepting known facts.
That is bad science!
If you check my earlier posts your pic would not be a surprise to you, it certainly isn't to me as I pointed out that Papua was joined to Oz.
Your marsupials in Sulawesi are all small species, of a size and life style that could survive rafting. The larger ones did not make it cos large animals don't normally survive rafting.
If there had been a land bridge the large anumals would have been first across as they could have crossed before the water completely vanished.
Think about it!

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:52 am

Beagle wrote:
[...] The shortest distance, during the LGM, was 50 miles. This was between the mainland and Flores. [...]

Between what 'mainland' and Flores?

Anyway, with the risen sealevels since, you'll agree that we have much wider/larger distances (than 50 miles) today.

However, when you check Google Earth, you will see that the distance between Bali and Lombok is a mere 20 miles, between Lombok and Sumbawa is 8 miles, and between Sumbawa and Flores is 12 miles.

Not even close to those "50 miles"!

Now, just for argument's sake imagine for a minute that there were much lower sealevels then. That would DEcrease the distance between islands, wouldn't it? And a lot! But for estimates' sake let's be conservative and decrease the distance by just a third. That would work out to 13 miles, 5 miles, and 8 miles, respectively.
Now, that sounds a lot easier to negotiate than it did before, doesn't it?
That was "raftable".

But paddling across a local strait in full view of your goal is NOT "seafaring"!

Besides, I maintain that for long periods (many dozens of millennia) they could even walk (or wade) from (now) island to (now) island.
And, eventually, to Oz.

As an illustration:
the sea north-east of Sulawesi – 150 by 250 miles – has an average depth of 3 feet!
People there live in huts on stilts/poles just above sealevel. All their lives. Never even touching dry land. And they've done so as long as human memory serves. For many millennia.

Shallow seas never stopped humanity.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:10 am

But paddling across a local strait in full view of your goal is NOT "seafaring"!

Besides, I maintain that for long periods (many dozens of millennia) they could even walk from (now) island to (now) island.

If you want to split straws on 'seafaring' I'll acept it, but you forget they could have known of the existance of land beyond the horizon anyway.
But instead of your calculations on widths of channels and walking from island to island lets see som maps/graphs/data to support it.
That doen't mean I disagree with you statement, in fact, if the sea levels dropped sufficiently it's more than likely, but I'd like to see some evidence on both ideas.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:20 am

Besides, I maintain that for long periods (many dozens of millennia) they could even walk (or wade) from (now) island to (now) island.
And, eventually, to Oz.

Well, there you are RS. As I said in my previous post, you'll believe what you want to believe. If you were undecided, or on the fence, whatever, there may be some merit in this discussion. But, for whatever motive you harbor, you choose to take a position that I think is not only untenable but intractible.

I'll never understand why people want to do this. I argued this very point with a person last summer. I asked him, like you, to provide any evidentiary links. He couldn't. Thank goodness he's banned.

You will only change your mind when you do your own research RS. Please do.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:34 am

Digit wrote:
instead of your calculations on widths of channels and walking from island to island lets see som maps/graphs/data to support it.

You haven't got Google Earth?
Get it here: http://earth.google.com/

And here are the "evidentiary" maps (in case you can't whip 'm up yourself) you wanted:

Any other requests?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:42 am

I have Google Earth RS. I don't know if you missed my previous post or not, but if you study the Wallace Line this is bogus. Now I'm done, and don't intend to reply. (hopefully)

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:47 am

Beagle wrote:I have Google Earth RS. I don't know if you missed my previous post or not, but if you study the Wallace Line this is bogus. Now I'm done, and don't intend to reply. (hopefully)

What is "bogus"?
Those maps?
Sue Google . . . !

Now, if you maintain that is bogus while you see it in front of your eyes, who is intractable here . . . ? Whose position is untenable . . . ?
You are correct: that would indeed close this debate.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:56 am

RS - It seems that you are down to arguing about the 50 miles?

That's cool with me. We can just disagree on that one.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:02 am

As Beag points out RS, there is no dispute in the matter of many of the islands to the north of the Wallace line, after all, these islands are all on the same continental plate.
But I would point out that your presumption that lowering sea levels narrows straits is not necessarily correct, it depends on how much you lower the levels and the structure of the land on either side.
Lowering sea levels also does not automatically reduce the speed of currents through a strait, in fact the reverse can occur if the strait is narrowed.
Your argument above the Wallace line is resonable, as it is below the line, but petrologists state that the land along the line has never been dry, ipso facto, no land bridge!

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:04 am

Beagle wrote:RS - It seems that you are down to arguing about the 50 miles?
That's cool with me. We can just disagree on that one.

If it were only as simple as that, Beag . . . :
on that "50 miles" you don't just disagree with me, but you disagree with Google Earth and with your own eyes!

Reminiscent of our good friend Archaeologist's posits: fundie posits . . . !

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:23 am

As I have pointed out till I'm blue in the face RS, distance was never a concern of seamen, only TIME.
Till you have a reliable source of controllable power the shortest distance is not necessarily the shortest transit time.
In a narrow strait the surface currents and tides are one of the most important factors, particularly if you are paddling or drifting, both pro and con.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:18 am

Digit wrote:
distance was never a concern of seamen

"Seamen" as a moniker for a bunch of paddling halfwits is a bit (much) too grandiose for my taste.

, only TIME.

Why?
Did they have watches?
Did they have a plane to catch?
Time, imo, would have been the least of their concerns. They probably had hardly a concept of time!

Till you have a reliable source of controllable power the shortest distance is not necessarily the shortest transit time.

Of course not. But 1) you infer they 'planned' their transit time – I don't think they did anything of the sort: they went out on a limb. No 'plan'. And 2) even IF they did find out the crossing was going wrong or would take 3, 6, or even 20 times longer than 'planned', that would have been "mid-stream". To late to turn back and what were they going to do about it on a raft? Zilch! Hope, pray, and paddle.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that 99 out of a 100 attempted strait crossings, then, on rafts, turned into disasters.

In a narrow strait the surface currents and tides are one of the most important factors, particularly if you are paddling or drifting, both pro and con.

Absolutely.
However, much narrower straits doesn't neccessarily mean faster currents. In some situations it does. In others it doesn't.
And much shallower waters generally means much less tidal variation.[/i]

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:29 am

Did they have watches?
Did they have a plane to catch?

I think I'll just ignore that. But the 'Halfwits' appears to be another guess on your behalf.
As an aside, the general belief is that a larger brain equates to greater intelligence, but, has the growth been linear or have certain functions increased faster than others, have some faculties been sacrificed to allow for growth of others.
Till you can answer that RS you and I have no way of comparing our intelligence in practical matters with that of your 'halfwits'!

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:38 am

Digit wrote:
As an aside, the general belief is that a larger brain equates to greater intelligence, but, has the growth been linear or have certain functions increased faster than others, have some faculties been sacrificed to allow for growth of others.
Till you can answer that RS you and I have no way of comparing our intelligence in practical matters with that of your 'halfwits'!

Are you seriously doubting HE – or even early HSS – were 'halfwits', compared to us?

LOL!