Homo Erectus' Seafaring Capabilities

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:40 am

Pictures of Timor-Australia + Paper: The First Mariners:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... iner1.html

Pictures of Timor-Australia – report on Bali-Lombok:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... iner2.html

Sumbawa-Komodo crossing (2004):

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/web/ng2004.html

A more academic report by Bednarik, of his 1998 Timor-Australia
crossing, is at:

http://ina.tamu.edu/quarterly/V26%20No1.pdf

(INA Quarterly Journal – go to page 12)

And an earlier article, on his first (1997 - failed) raft crossing
from Timor, is at:

http://ina.tamu.edu/quarterly/V25%20No3.pdf

Go to page 7

Yet another paper, including details of all the experiments, up to
about 2001, is at:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... persal.pdf

The maritime dispersal of Pleistocene humans.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:34 am

Thanks Charlie, I am a fan of Bednarik. I think I first posted some of his discoveries last spring. He is a prominent scholar in Australia.

I don't want to get off-topic but here is another article on him and another Venus figurine from Europe - the earliest I know of that must have begun with Heidelbergensis and persisted with Neandertal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Tan-Tan

Mainstream science has not disputed Bednarik, choosing at this time to remain silent. That pretty much means that this is a solid discovery. H. Erectus navigating the ocean is mind blowing. That event, ca. 800,000 ya makes the findings at Hueyatlaco more readily acceptable.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:52 am

Mainstream science has not disputed Bednarik, choosing at this time to remain silent. That pretty much means that this is a solid discovery.

that often also means that as he hasn't proved anything they're not interested
mainstream science hasn't bothered to dispute Zechariah Sitchin either
you think that hes made any solid discoveries
apart from the gullibility of a certain demographic of the public

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:57 am

you think that hes made any solid discoveries
apart from the gullibility of a certain demographic of the public

Yeah, but look at all his peer-reviewed, published research:

Bednarik, R.G. 1990a. On the cognitive development of hominids. Man and
Environment 15, 1–7.
Bednarik, R.G. 1990b. An Acheulian haematite pebble with striations. Rock
Art Research 7, 75.
Bednarik, R.G. 1990/91. Epistemology in palaeoart studies. Origini 15,
57–78.
Bednarik, R.G. 1992. Palaeoart and archaeological myths. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 2, 27–43.
Bednarik, R.G. 1995a. Concept-mediated marking in the Lower Palaeolithic.
Current Anthropology 36, 605–34.
Bednarik, R.G. 1995b. Untertag-Bergbau im Pleistozän. Quartär 45/46,
161–75.
Bednarik, R.G. 1997a. The role of Pleistocene beads in documenting hominid
cognition. Rock Art Research 14, 27–41.
Bednarik, R.G. 1997b. The origins of navigation and language. The Artefact
20, 16–56.
Bednarik, R.G. 1997c. The earliest evidence of ocean navigation.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 26, 183–91.
Bednarik, R.G. 1997d. The initial peopling of Wallacea and Sahul.
Anthropos
92, 355–67.
Bednarik, R.G. 1998a. An experiment in Pleistocene seafaring.
International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27(2), 139–49.
Bednarik, R.G. 1998b. The australopithecine cobble from Makapansgat, South
Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 53, 3–8.
Bednarik, R.G. 1999a. Maritime navigation in the Lower and Middle
Palaeolithic. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences Paris 328, 559–63.
Bednarik, R.G. 1999b. Pleistocene Seafaring in the Mediterranean.
Anthropologie 37, 275–82.
Bednarik, R.G. 2000. Pleistocene Timor: some corrections. Australian
Archaeology 51, 16–20.
Bednarik, R.G. 2001a. An Acheulian figurine from Morocco. Rock Art
Research
18, 115–16.
Bednarik, R.G. 2001b. The origins of Pleistocene navigation in the
Mediterranean: initial replicative experimentation. Journal of Iberian
Archaeology 3, 11–23.
Bednarik, R.G. 2001c. Replicating the first known sea travel by
humans: the
Lower Pleistocene crossing of Lombok Strait. Human Evolution 16(3–4),
229–42.
Bednarik, R.G. 2002. Palaeoart objects of the African Acheulian. Current
Anthropology (in press).
Bednarik, R.G. & M. Kuckenburg 1999. Nale Tasih: Eine Floßfahrt in die
Steinzeit. Stuttgart: Thorbecke.

___________________________________________________________

Pictures of Timor-Australia + Paper: The First Mariners:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... iner1.html

Pictures of Timor-Australia – report on Bali-Lombok:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... iner2.html

Sumbawa-Komodo crossing (2004):

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/web/ng2004.html

A more academic report by Bednarik, of his 1998 Timor-Australia
crossing, is at:

http://ina.tamu.edu/quarterly/V26%20No1.pdf

(INA Quarterly Journal – go to page 12)

And an earlier article, on his first (1997 - failed) raft crossing
from Timor, is at:

http://ina.tamu.edu/quarterly/V25%20No3.pdf

Go to page 7

Yet another paper, including details of all the experiments, up to
about 2001, is at:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/mariners/ ... persal.pdf

The maritime dispersal of Pleistocene humans. :

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:03 am

Mainstream science has not disputed Bednarik, choosing at this time to remain silent. That pretty much means that this is a solid discovery. H. Erectus navigating the ocean is mind blowing. That event, ca. 800,000 ya makes the findings at Hueyatlaco more readily acceptable.

That's my aim: To research the plausibilty of H. Erectus making a trip from Africa to N.A.

We discussed, in a previous thread, the relative ease of making the ca. 1600 nm trip from the Canary Islands to Brazil...a little bit more for Hueyatlaco.

Cool stuff, Bro.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:12 am

A least it supports what I've always believed Charlie, our ancestors weren't as dumb as we've been led to believe.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:18 am

A least it supports what I've always believed Charlie, our ancestors weren't as dumb as we've been led to believe.

Definitely.

I love Chris Hardaker's statement concerning interpreting the intelligence of our forefathers:

"We don't know enough yet to know what is impossible and what
is not. We are still students of our ancestors."

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:17 am

Digit wrote:A least it supports what I've always believed Charlie, our ancestors weren't as dumb as we've been led to believe.

Their brain capacities were within the range of modern humans. They looked a bit different, but that was about all.

But we tend to conceptualize them within our own cultural standards. No, they couldn't go to the moon, or flip a switch to get light, but if we were thrust backward into their world we couldn't do any better than they did.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:30 am

Their brain capacities were within the range of modern humans. They looked a bit different, but that was about all.

But we tend to conceptualize them within our own cultural standards. No, they couldn't go to the moon, or flip a switch to get light, but if we were thrust backward into their world we couldn't do any better than they did.

I agree. They were true innovators, not having the technological backdrop we enjoy.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:33 am

It is relevant to appreciate that all these maritime accomplishments in the Indonesian-Australian region were by people with pre-Upper Palaeolithic stone tools,

I find this statement oddly misleading. At 800 kya it is safer to say that all that remains is evidence of stone tools. They could have used bone or wood extensively but such organic materials do not have the long term survivability of stone. Hell....they could have smelted iron and it would have rusted away millenia ago, eh Charlie?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:46 am

Minimalist wrote:
It is relevant to appreciate that all these maritime accomplishments in the Indonesian-Australian region were by people with pre-Upper Palaeolithic stone tools,

I find this statement oddly misleading. At 800 kya it is safer to say that all that remains is evidence of stone tools. They could have used bone or wood extensively but such organic materials do not have the long term survivability of stone. Hell....they could have smelted iron and it would have rusted away millenia ago, eh Charlie?

That question's for you Charlie, but let me add that the term "Stone Age" would just as well be called the Wood Age. We know that Neandertal built wood huts, and who knows what else.

Smelting iron? Yeah, true but that's a pretty big leap I think.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:54 am

BTW - there is rock solid evidence of Neandertal mining - for red ochre though.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:59 am

Hell....they could have smelted iron and it would have rusted away millenia ago, eh Charlie?

Certainly plausible, especially the context in which the smelting activities have been observed here in central Texas...the same context as the hand-axes.

We're definitely still students of our ancestors.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:03 am

That question's for you Charlie, but let me add that the term "Stone Age" would just as well be called the Wood Age. We know that Neandertal built wood huts, and who knows what else.

Yeah, it brings to mind the wooden spears we were just discussing a bit back: Dated at 380,000-400,000 B.P. What a rare find

.

How much of the wooden tools and structures have rotted away? I'd guess the vast, vast, vast majority.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:08 am

BTW - there is rock solid evidence of Neandertal mining - for red ochre though.

Right. Not much of a leap to imagine these peeps jacking around the fire with some of the ocher, with a real heavy wind and resultant very high heat. Though it may not have reduced to magnetic iron, I bet some melted, then curiosity kicked in. Again, this stuff is every bit as susceptible to the elements as wood.