Archaeologica.org

rich wrote:I knows its a real long shot but seeing that pic of the cave painting you showed earlier ("the Sorcerer"), I wonder if it connects with the statement in that doc :

The interpretation presented above is in line with what I have written elsewhere concerning
the interpretation of the paintings (Lahelma in press). Moreover, it gives a possible explanation to
the ‘strange’ and ‘ambiguous’ imagery of the composite elk-boat images. They can be seen to arise
from a ‘shamanistic-animistic’ system of beliefs, in which 1) anything (including boats) can
potentially be alive; 2) in which both elks and boats are invested with a capacity to move from one
zone of the cosmos to another, and 3) in which both elks and boats may function as the shaman's
vehicle in this passage. In such a system of beliefs, boats and elks can have been thought of as, in a
sense, interchangeable. A possible expression of these ideas appears to be found in the rock painting
of Pyhänpää on Lake Päijänne, where an elk, a human (shaman?) merging with its rear leg, and a
boat attached to its forehead form a single image (fig. e).

If so I wonder if that's a representation of a boat in that context. Kinda don't think so, but hey - like I said - a long shot. It would add age to the idea of boats.

Totally! How do you come up with this stuff?

Don't get me wrong - it's just a thought with no actual proof to back it up. Like I said - it's a long shot - a really long shot. But if the connetion can be made to either cave drawings or rock carvings where they show boats - it would help a lot. After all - those cave paintings and rock carvings sure go back a long way - a lot further than the wood from boats.
Just grasping at straws trying to figure out how to prove there were boats back then.

Yeah... I know we have different agendas here. You want to find a really old boat. I'd like to find a really old shamanic boat - one that gives us some evidence for the Paleo shaman.

Beats me, though, how you would ever be able to tell the difference!

Unless. of course, we found a painting of a boat in the middle of a continent, like Africa, and nowhere near any rivers. Then someone might wonder what else the boat could be about.

Actually the pic of the boat John pointed out would really be good but it's hard to find anything on it but that one pic and a reference to an expedition they made. But the more the better anyways. Why use a flyswatter to kill a fly when you can smash it into total oblivion with a good ol' rock!

rich wrote:Actually the pic of the boat John pointed out would really be good but it's hard to find anything on it but that one pic and a reference to an expedition they made. But the more the better anyways. Why use a flyswatter to kill a fly when you can smash it into total oblivion with a good ol' rock!

Don't you think the figures in the boat look a bit strange though? The two on the left are barely discernible as human. The one second from left looks like some odd animal. And are those arms or oars ... and why are they in such odd positions?



Or am I just not seeing it right?

Not sure if those are oars or fishing nets or some form of sail. Or maybe even representing something pouring out. I didn't draw it so I couldn't really explain it other than it appears to be a boat. Maybe John can explain it.

Ishtar wrote:Yes, I noticed that stuff about elk boats and wondered whether that's why the boats haven't been recognised as boats when they appear in cave art ...maybe anyway.....

Excellent. I think you have made a very good observation. Perhaps the boats are not recognized because they appear as something else, like a dragon or sea-serpent. And indeed, that's the way many early boats were fashioned.

Yes, there's that famous Sumerian one, isn't there, that looks like a dragon?

Ishtar wrote:

rich wrote:Actually the pic of the boat John pointed out would really be good but it's hard to find anything on it but that one pic and a reference to an expedition they made. But the more the better anyways. Why use a flyswatter to kill a fly when you can smash it into total oblivion with a good ol' rock!

Don't you think the figures in the boat look a bit strange though? The two on the left are barely discernible as human. The one second from left looks like some odd animal. And are those arms or oars ... and why are they in such odd positions?



Or am I just not seeing it right?

This is an interesting pic. The prow of the boat (and it is a boat) is on the left. The three figures there are facing away from the prow with their arms behind them. This indicates that they are rowing in standard rowboat fashion (and this a shock, for that time period), and the figure to the far right has a symbol coming from his mouth that makes me think he is giving orders to the rowers.

The one figure would have to be an ancient kangaroo I imagine, since it's from Australia. The rest are unidentifiable to me but are probably more iconographic representations.

I don't see how that kind of rowboat would be present at that time. I'll study it some more....and expect me to steal it to another of our forums sometime in the future. John, are you sure of that dating?

You're welcome, Beags. Get it out there.

Beagle wrote:

Ishtar wrote:

rich wrote:Actually the pic of the boat John pointed out would really be good but it's hard to find anything on it but that one pic and a reference to an expedition they made. But the more the better anyways. Why use a flyswatter to kill a fly when you can smash it into total oblivion with a good ol' rock!

Don't you think the figures in the boat look a bit strange though? The two on the left are barely discernible as human. The one second from left looks like some odd animal. And are those arms or oars ... and why are they in such odd positions?



Or am I just not seeing it right?

This is an interesting pic. The prow of the boat (and it is a boat) is on the left. The three figures there are facing away from the prow with their arms behind them. This indicates that they are rowing in standard rowboat fashion (and this a shock, for that time period), and the figure to the far right has a symbol coming from his mouth that makes me think he is giving orders to the rowers.

The one figure would have to be an ancient kangaroo I imagine, since it's from Australia. The rest are unidentifiable to me but are probably more iconographic representations.

I don't see how that kind of rowboat would be present at that time. I'll study it some more....and expect me to steal it to another of our forums sometime in the future. John, are you sure of that dating?

Beagle -

Nevermind the identities of the various animals and people actually rowing

The boat. The shamanic implications, however, are sublime.

What you have, on the left, is a high prow,

A wave breaker.

This is characteristic of open water boats; it sheds water from

An oncoming sea.

Keeps you from having a "wet boat."

What you have at the stern is the same,

But from a following sea.

The truly, incredibly interesting item on the right,

At the bottom of the boat

Is the rudimentary keel.

Holy Shit, Batman,

They had keels figured out a long, long, time ago.

A keel keeps any boat tracking its course

In any kind of water, and,

Bigtime reduces the physical effort to propel

The craft to its intended course.

And, provisionally, yes

Regarding the dating.

What it tells me is that the antecedents of

The Aussie Aboriginals

Had seaworthy open rowing boats which

Probably started off small,

Say 18'-20'

And grew to bigger stuff,

Say 30'-40'.

Whether skin on frame or

Plank on frame I don't know,

But either would have served the purpose.



Now, I don't know why Graham is being so coy about actual pictures - I emailed his site last night.

No answer.

Nonetheless, I'll keep at it.



hoka hey



john

John - found this -

He found two paintings of ocean-going boats, one with 23 people on board, the other 29. "They are massive boats, totally alien. By the types of figures in them, they are more than 17,000 years old. Australian Aboriginal people didn't have boats, period. (They) can show people had this great navigation ability that long ago."

And just like that, Walsh is transformed from harmless boffin to dangerous radical. Suddenly we enter the treacherous territory where he has made influential enemies: mainstream academics who have accused him of racism and being a tool of political conservatives. "I've stood up for what I believe in more than most people, so you expect to make enemies," he says, rubbing his knuckles at the asymmetrical clump of grey hair on his head.

From http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... m=storyrhs

Found a few other things too but seems like they've been giving him a helluva hard time.

Walsh is a highly controversial figure because of his assertion that the type of Kimberley paintings known as the Bradshaws (named after the first European to see them) were painted by non-Aborigines, possibly at a time pre-dating Aboriginal occupation.

If his theory is true, it could have major implications for Aboriginal land claims. Unsurprisingly, parties from pastoralists to the Citizen's Electoral Council have seized on it as a potential stick with which to beat land claimants.

rich wrote:John - found this -

He found two paintings of ocean-going boats, one with 23 people on board, the other 29. "They are massive boats, totally alien. By the types of figures in them, they are more than 17,000 years old. Australian Aboriginal people didn't have boats, period. (They) can show people had this great navigation ability that long ago."

And just like that, Walsh is transformed from harmless boffin to dangerous radical. Suddenly we enter the treacherous territory where he has made influential enemies: mainstream academics who have accused him of racism and being a tool of political conservatives. "I've stood up for what I believe in more than most people, so you expect to make enemies," he says, rubbing his knuckles at the asymmetrical clump of grey hair on his head.

From http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... m=storyrhs

Found a few other things too but seems like they've been giving him a helluva hard time.

Walsh is a highly controversial figure because of his assertion that the type of Kimberley paintings known as the Bradshaws (named after the first European to see them) were painted by non-Aborigines, possibly at a time pre-dating Aboriginal occupation.

If his theory is true, it could have major implications for Aboriginal land claims. Unsurprisingly, parties from pastoralists to the Citizen's Electoral Council have seized on it as a potential stick with which to beat land claimants.

Rich -

So

We've got another Clovis/Pre Clovis Argument going on.

Yes?

The symmetry is hard to avoid.

But what we all need is

Pictures, actual pictures,

of the boats.



hoka hey


john



ps:

I realize that this is a monstro step; however, applying the Clovis/pre-Clovis methodology to Australia, with boats attached, is to me, absolutely valid.


Comment 'ca?


john

I'd say even more than valid. If those pics could be validated and the date lines validated - it would be the clincher. Any pics or rock carvings that would validate boats back then would be perfect proof.
The doc that Ish gave provided pics of fish-bone type bones with antler stuff but not sure what dates they would be either.

I'm still trying to find more on Walsh's collection, but may have to buy the book - if I can find it around here. Be nice to see the other pics of the boats. If I do maybe I'll scan em and put them in.

So .... a kangaroo rowing a boat...

You don't see that every day, do you?

Not in this reality, anyway .... but maybe, in another one like, say, an altered reality?

Now I wonder what Mr Bednarik and Mr Hodgson will make of that!