Re: Brideshead and paleo anthropology revisited

On 10.9.2024. 0:04, JTEM wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

         There is so much wrong in what you've written.

 The only thing "Wrong" is that I was bothering to reply to you.
 

         Lets start with new world monkeys. It is obvious that they separated very early, judging by nostrils.

 You'd have to define "Early."
 

In fact, obviously, it can even be before they became monkeys.

 The oldest monkey fossils are New World monkeys.
 

Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates.

 Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.
 So you see the issue:  Dugout Canoes are not necessary.

The dating, of course, doesn't give you the ultimate number. How old is the second oldest? 50 mya? So, if they didn't find the 70 mya, they would think the date is 50 mya.

         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.

 Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...
 Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.
 So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.

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

         Regarding Roman times, you don't have the slightest idea, of course they went to open waters

 You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly
every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely
to ever materialize.
 What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks"
of their day:  Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port.
 There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water,
do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.
 Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!

It is you who doesn't understand the piracy problem at all. Even today we have piracy in some passageways, like Singapore Strait, off the coast of Peru, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea, South China Sea.

         "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."

 Oh! I keep forgetting you're retarded!
 You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
 From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination
part is.
 But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.

They found traces of Minoans in Norway, "The Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the Phoenicians sailed around the British Isles on their way to the tin mines of Cornwall.".