Re: Brideshead and paleo anthropology revisited

On 10.9.2024. 20:22, JTEM wrote:

  Mario Petrinovic wrote:
 

Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.

>
         Still it doesn't matter. There is a fossil record bias, a lot of animals we will never find. We do have the outcome, today's world, and we have to use logic to figure out how today's world emerged, not constrain our thinking solely on fossil record, although fossil record is extremely helpful.

 That's called an "Argument from ignorance."

No, I didn't use ignorance as an argument, I used logic as argument. Per logic, Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line. On which you replied that it is the other way around, and that you have evidence for this. Jesus christ.

         I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse case than South America.

>
Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?

 

         What is the "Wallace line" to you? A lot of animals never cross it. How is Wallace line worse than Atlantic Ocean? In your eyes Wallace line is wide all the way to Mars, while Atlantic Ocean is just a little pond. Hm.

 Typical narcissist...
 "Wallace line? NO!  Everyone is wrong about that! No difference what
so ever. None. And I even said so!"

I don't understand this bubbling.

 

And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.

 

         You really don't know those things.

 A cat sprayed in your mouth, didn't it?
 Just like you spray your narcissism... "No! Can't admit ANYTHING! Can't
back off a single inch or.. or.. OR ELSE!"
 

         Yes, but: "Control of the tin trade seems to have been in Phoenician hands, and they kept their sources secret.". If the source was nearer, it wouldn't be a secret. Probably you can determine the source of unused tin, but what about tin which was smelted into bronze.

 Pulling you back to the conversation:  The issue was never distance.
What you were pretending to be addressing was the fact that the ancients
rarely sailed beyond sight of land. As a narcissist, you can't concede
the point and you can't admit that you're wrong so you had to convince
yourself that it was something else you were claiming... this distance
thing.

So, why they built the Lighthouse of Alexandria?
Here you have a paper where they research Bay of Biscay in Bronze Age. I didn't read the whole paper (it has 828 pages, and it doesn't talk only about maritime trade), I only saw some tables. You can see on page 35 that sailors were going in paddled boats directly from Brittany to NW Iberia by sea crossing, and back from NW Iberia to Brittany following coast (probably you cannot do it by sea crossing in this direction because of winds and currents), the sea crossing from Brittany to NW Iberia took 10 - 12 days.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:50889eba-3a33-4494-93f7-f68d7a85dd46