Archaeologica.org

From a link on Archaeology.org -

http://www.biotechnews.com.au/index.php ... p;2;fpid;1

If Argue is right, H. floresiensis descends from the first hominins to leave Africa, and this might have happened some 2.25 million years ago, around the time when the first, primitive Homo species was emerging in Africa.

And

If so, the hobbits' forebears could have colonised the Indonesian archipelago up to half a million years before the first large hominin species, Homo erectus - Java Man - crossed the deepwater gaps separating Java and Lombok, and Sumbawa and Flores, by means that did not involve swimming.

Considering how primitive HF wrists are supposed to have been this idea seems to work. i really liked the line about

by means that did not involve swimming.

as if the author likes boats as much as we do.

But the author also doesn't yet have a PhD. so nothing by silence or derision from our myopian friends.

You notice she said by means that didn't involve swimming - she didn't say boats. She knows they'll come up with a way that a super-powerful storm wind came up and blew them across All in one big group!!!

Right, but her claim is already going to seem extraordinary to some. If she added the assertion that Australopithecines used boats there would be far less chance that she could convince doubters to change their mines.

Forget boats! Let's say, water craft, immediately this extends man's technology way back.
Any form of man made craft is going to require tools and the knowledge and experience to use them, plus the ability to have a cogent plan, an aim, a target.
That's a big can of worms!

Gentlemen, sorry to distract you from your boats conversation, briefly, but can I direct your attention to the latest post in the Atlantis theory thread which could also be tied into these Indonesian/HF ideas?

http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... 6&start=15

OK, back to the normal transmission.

It's hard to wean us off of our boats, Ish.

Minimalist wrote:It's hard to wean us off of our boats, Ish.

I wouldn't dream of even trying, Min.

Just attempting here to introduce some joined up thinking!

If there is an Atlantean connection to Indonesia then maybe Indonesia also has a connection to Lemuria. i don't know the sources, but i remember reading in several places that the myths about Lemuria described a small, fur -covered cat-like people. i wonder if HF was furry, perhaps like a chimpanzee.

To be serious for a sec, the mineral finds (the damned red ochre that keeps turning up everywhere) and an occasional bone are all that we ever seem to get a handle on. How likely is it that disparate cultures separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles could independently keep coming up with the idea to cover dead bodies with ochre? I mean if you were to seriously assign a probability number to it what would that number be? Mine would be low....in the 1% range. It smacks of the Remote COmmon Ancestor theory that Hancock is so fond of...because he won't use the term "Atlantis."

We can make educated guesses about the boats. If humans reached areas that were cut off by water...deep water.... they either sailed, flew or walked across the surface. I'm willing to go out on a limb and discount the last two options. Clinging to a log and floating over through shark-infested waters of the Sunda Strait seems to be somewhat illogical, as well. The "land-lubber theory" to coin a phrase seems to disregard the fact that there are obstacles to overland travel as well: Mountains, rivers, swamps, jungles, deserts, big nasty cats with large teeth and an attitude, other guys with spears who may not be happy to see you.... In comparison with some of that paddling along the coast seems like an efficient way to travel. Even if you are walking along the coast, sooner or later you are going to come to a broad estuary which requires you to either a) go back from whence you came, b) march upstream 1,000 miles or so to the point where the river can be forded, or c) build a boat/raft to get across. Again, option c seems much simpler.

So we can logically infer boats or at least rafts without having physical remains of them. I can't help wondering what else they may have had that we dismiss because we can't find it. "Archery" is one such thing which would leave no other trace of itself beyond the arrowhead. I wish we could date rocks. It would really help.

Minimalist wrote:To be serious for a sec, the mineral finds (the damned red ochre that keeps turning up everywhere) and an occasional bone are all that we ever seem to get a handle on. How likely is it that disparate cultures separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles could independently keep coming up with the idea to cover dead bodies with ochre? I mean if you were to seriously assign a probability number to it what would that number be? Mine would be low....in the 1% range. It smacks of the Remote COmmon Ancestor theory that Hancock is so fond of...because he won't use the term "Atlantis."

We can make educated guesses about the boats. If humans reached areas that were cut off by water...deep water.... they either sailed, flew or walked across the surface. I'm willing to go out on a limb and discount the last two options. Clinging to a log and floating over through shark-infested waters of the Sunda Strait seems to be somewhat illogical, as well. The "land-lubber theory" to coin a phrase seems to disregard the fact that there are obstacles to overland travel as well: Mountains, rivers, swamps, jungles, deserts, big nasty cats with large teeth and an attitude, other guys with spears who may not be happy to see you.... In comparison with some of that paddling along the coast seems like an efficient way to travel. Even if you are walking along the coast, sooner or later you are going to come to a broad estuary which requires you to either a) go back from whence you came, b) march upstream 1,000 miles or so to the point where the river can be forded, or c) build a boat/raft to get across. Again, option c seems much simpler.

So we can logically infer boats or at least rafts without having physical remains of them. I can't help wondering what else they may have had that we dismiss because we can't find it. "Archery" is one such thing which would leave no other trace of itself beyond the arrowhead. I wish we could date rocks. It would really help.

Minimalist -

"Toto, I have a feeling we are not in Kansas, anymore."

Dorothy - from The Wizard of Oz


hoka hey


john

It just seems that science has gone too far in the direction of insisting on 'hard evidence' and dismissing logic, John. And I agree that any logic which says that A leads to B which leads to C should be ruthlessly examined for logical flaws. But what happens when you use it in reverse?

C in this case = humans are in Australia, 40,000 bp. How did they get there? Then start considering "B" and "A". Hard evidence is wonderful but you can't always expect to find it and dismissing any possibility which may answer the question seems counterproductive.

dannan14 wrote:If there is an Atlantean connection to Indonesia then maybe Indonesia also has a connection to Lemuria. i don't know the sources, but i remember reading in several places that the myths about Lemuria described a small, fur -covered cat-like people. i wonder if HF was furry, perhaps like a chimpanzee.

Danaan, I think you might be remembering a now defunct theory about lemurs, small furry primates that once were thought have come from what is known as Lemuria.

I jsut found this in the FAQs on Santos's website:

Lemuria was originally the name given to a vast hypothetical sunken continent or a landbridge stretching across the Indian Ocean and Indonesia, all the way to the central Pacific Ocean. It was postulated by the naturalists of the past century, in order to explain the presence of the lemur (a small primate) both in Madagascar and in the Indies. But this notion has long ago been superseded in modern geology. By coincidence, the lemurs derive their name from that of the Lemurs (or "Ancestors"), for the Indonesians long knew that man descends from the apes....

john wrote:
Minimalist -

"Toto, I have a feeling we are not in Kansas, anymore."

Dorothy - from The Wizard of Oz

hoka hey

john

John, I've heard that Kansas is over-rated.

John, I've heard that Kansas is over-rated.

Depends on how you feel about wheat fields.