Re: Brideshead and paleo anthropology revisited

On 9.9.2024. 5:39, JTEM wrote:

  Mario Petrinovic wrote:

         Don't talk BS, there is no way a sane person would go into deep sea with a bark, or skin canoe

 Which did the monkeys use to cross between the old & new
worlds? Hmm?
 The famous Eskimo kayak was made of animal skins on a
frame...
 The first ocean travelers were likely victims of
happenstance:  Natural disasters, storms, unknown
currents. They never wanted to venture into deep waters.
The trip chose them, not the other way around.
 It's extremely unlikely that any archaic humans would have
crossed open waters. Even in roman times ships rarely
sailed out of view of land.
 With sea level much lower, the land much larger and closer
together, the first Australians could probably see the wild
fires even if not the land itself. They knew the land was
there.
 It was less "Venturing into the unknown" and more floating
across a stretch of water.
 A dugout canoe is logic. A tree floats. So, make a place
to sit within it and YOU float... but it's not exactly
efficient.
 Tree bark? Okay. Or animal hide...

There is so much wrong in what you've written.
Lets start with new world monkeys. It is obvious that they separated very early, judging by nostrils. In fact, obviously, it can even be before they became monkeys. In fact, this can even be convergent evolution. Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates. Now, if you take that leaping primates are adapted to trees that have narrow canopy (these are the types of trees that were during dinosaurs), and the monkeys are actually the adaptation to wide canopy trees, you see that this adaptation can happen anywhere. for some reason it didn't happen on Madagascar, but it could have happened in both, Africa and South America, separately. Now, the wide canopy trees covered the world after the extinction of dinosaurs, so after 65 mya. Now, I proved that Mid-Atlantic Rift happened 35 mya, this is the time South America separated from Antarctica. So, when you add everything together, the scenario where monkeys go adrift from Africa to South America is pretty unlikely, especially if you take into account that a lot of individual animals should cross at the same time so the species can survive. This "adrifting" is just another stupid and simple scientific scenario based on available evidence, and refusing to use brain.
Regarding "the first travelers" idea, the emergence of humans in Australia coincidence with the emergence of ground tools. If your idea was right, humans would emerge in Australia anytime in the last 2 million years.
Regarding Roman times, you don't have the slightest idea, of course they went to open waters, this was a must, otherwise they would be attacked by pirates. Trust me, I am from Croatia, Venice had a lot of problems because of Croatian pirates.
"Cornwall and Devon were important sources of tin for Europe and the Mediterranean throughout ancient times and may have been the earliest sources of tin in Western Europe, with evidence for trade to the Eastern Mediterranean by the Late Bronze Age." Phoenicians were the major maritime power in ancient times, see where are their ports. First they were in Levant, then they were in Carthage. In both cases it was open sea in front of them. It has to be that way, because otherwise pirates would attack them.
I agree that they would see the fire from numerous volcanoes that are there, but still I wouldn't go there in a canoe, no way. Yes, they could float on a tree, which they couldn't steer. They didn't have a mean to cut trees, and there are not a lot trees that float around, and you never know which direction they would float, so, forget it, people aren't stupid, they all have families, they wouldn't go there if there isn't a secure way to do it. And especially they wouldn't go there just so that they make stupid paleoanthropologists of 21st century happy.