Boats?

[kbs2244]

“I assume that river or lake craft came before sea travel and that lashing a raft together for a single river crossing might have been okay, but for actual river travel a boat is a hell of a lot handier than a raft.”

First, let me say this is based only on my knowledge of U S history.
But for down stream travel rafts seem to be pretty practical.

They were the primary means of trade and transportation on the Ohio River from Pennsylvania all the way to St Louis.
Some long “sweeps” were enough to steer with as you just floated downstream.

Many of the overland wagon train “pioneers” left St Louis by wagon, but they got to St Louis by raft on the Ohio and then crossed the Mississippi by ferry at Cairo, Illinois where the Ohio joins the Mississippi.

There was a thriving wagon industry on the west side of the Mississippi between Cairo on the east side and St Louis on the west side.
These pioneers now were ready to hitch up their oxen or horses for the overland part of the trip.

There was even a sub industry of guys that would try and get the wood from the abandoned rafts in Cairo across the Mississippi to the wagon builders on the west side. It wasn’t easy work. The Mississippi was over a mile wide and had a seven plus MPH current. And St Louis is upstream.

[Digit]

When the British army crossed the Irrawady into Burma in WW2 they did so on rafts!
The reason being that it is much easier to load wheeled vehicles, in this case three ton trucks, on a raft than a boat.
Also floating with the current might be okay on a raft but moving upstream is a different matter.
Hydrauically, a long narrow craft of a given capacity as faster and handier for a given motive power than a short wide one. This is why destroyers are long and narrow.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

There is no need for exclusivity in the debate. Some groups, particularly those that turned inland may well have followed the rivers upstream and, frankly, poling a boat or a raft into a strong current does not look like a lot of fun. In that case, moving alongside the river seems to make more sense (better hunting, more vegetation, steady supply of fresh water) and their problem would be crossing the river when needed. A raft seems like a simple solution to a river crossing.

Other groups, which remained along the coasts would have had more need for boats, either for fishing/hunting marine mammals or simple transport. Trade, in the sense of commerce, seems far too advanced a concept for the time period we are discussing.
Regardless of sea level there is no reason to think that ancient coastlines would have been any easier to walk along than modern ones. Inlets, tidal flats, bays or gulfs that would require massive detours, would all have made coastal travel by foot difficult in the extreme.

There is no reason to assume that HE did not come up with different solutions for different problems.

[Digit]

Once a boat has been understood Min the only time a raft would seem to make sense is for a once only use, as in kb's post and mine about WW2.
As regards poling upstream a boat of a given loading can be propelled by a smaller crew than a raft of the same capacity, or a boat can carry more for the same crew.
History has proved that once a boat is constructed, the raft is a dead duck, other than as a disposable item.
Even a Coracle is easier to propel than a raft!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Knowledge can be lost. A group which is marching overland or along a river (or not moving at all and merely enjoying a stay in a pleasant valley) may well have lost the need to build a boat.

Depends on a lot of things...not the least of which is how fast did they have to get across that damn river!

[Digit]

Depends on a lot of things...not the least of which is how fast did they have to get across that damn river!

Agreed Min, then the raft scores hands down, but as I pointed out, that is a one off. Having crossed they would be unlikely to carry it with them.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Agree completely.

This would have been a means to an end...not an end in and of itself.

[Digit]

But to return to my point about groups leap frogging each other.
Ethnologists claim that HG groups would have spread in Africa at about 15miles/generation.
Now when you consider how fast homo moved towards Oz the maths don't add up if each time ony the leading group advanced and the others settled.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I'm still wondering why the "leading group" would have to advance? Unless they had exhausted the resources in a given area why would they not stay put. You know what they say about real estate: location, location, location.

For that matter, groups tagging along behind would be moving into an area which had been picked over.

[Digit]

Unless they had exhausted the resources in a given area why would they not stay put.

If their numbers increase then that is precisely what would happen isn't it?

For that matter, groups tagging along behind would be moving into an area which had been picked over.

Precisely! So they either have to move inland or leap frog over the existing groups!
I used to follow a Forum on Asia archaeology and the Chinese maintain that HE left lots of evidence along the coast but little sign in land till the preferred shore line sites were taken.
Not only does leap frogging solve the population problems it also follows that as time passed the numbers of people leap frogging must increase, so the rate of expansion along the coast would accelerate, thereby expalining the speed at which SE Asia was reached.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

But do we see modern hunter/gatherer groups exhausting their environment to that extent? These groups tend to be quite small.

What is being suggested is a pre-agricultural population explosion.

[Digit]

No we don't Min as there is no where left for them to expand into.
The Kung control their numbers by extended nursing and so are not forced to keep moving.
If there wasn't a pre ag pop explosion why did He move on?
There seems to be only two reasons, pressure, of what ever kind, or a desire to see what's on the other side of the hill.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

There seems to be only two reasons, pressure, of what ever kind, or a desire to see what's on the other side of the hill.

Well...I can see following migrating animals, too. But the more I think about the "pressure" idea the less I like it. And, while I can see where a leader might send out a scout or two to see what was around them, the need to move for the sake of moving seems remote. People today will sit in sub-sahara africa and watch their farms turn to sand without moving.

[Digit]

Where can they move to Min. The fact that we filled this planet demonstrates conclusively that people have moved.
The fact that settlers reached Oz rather than arising there shows that people have spread out. Why?
The Kung occupy a small part of southern Africa, where they have been pushed into, previously they occupied a much greater area, so they must have spread. Why?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Why?

Yeah. That is the question. Along with "How" and "How long?"