Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Postulates & Questions

Expand Messages
  • Catherine Friedl
    ... a ... to be ... lashing ... erectus ... shore? kj IMO Curiosity...and nothing was stopping them :) ... shallow ... also in ... coast, ... IOW, there ... --
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In AAT@egroups.com, "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@v...> wrote:
      > >> >> [PR] Erectus fossils have been found in places that they
      > >> >> could only have got to by crossing a stretch of ocean. For
      > >> >> those who have Erectus still aquatic at that time, this isn't
      a
      > >> >> problem (they swam),
      > >> > [KJ] I don't think any hominid ever was a long distance swimmer
      > >> > for transportation.
      > >>
      > >> Marc's post has it as *only* 19km, and elephants (also thought
      to
      be
      > >> ex-aquatic) also made it, so why not? Myself, I don't think
      lashing
      > >>a few logs together would be such a big deal to Erectus.
      > >
      > >Agreed. But I'd believe accident rather than plan. Why would
      erectus
      > >decide to head out for that barely visible (if visible at all)
      shore? kj

      IMO Curiosity...and nothing was stopping them :)
      >
      > They were primarily beach-combers (perhaps women & children in
      shallow
      > water, more wading, small prey, just as Oceanic peoples today; men
      also in
      > deeper water, thicker bones = deeper dives...). They knew (visible
      coast,
      > birds...) there were beaches at the other side of Flores Street,
      IOW, there
      > was food (I get hungry when I think of oysters & shrimps & coconuts
      -- I'm
      > trying to lose a few pounds these days...). No doubt they went
      there,
      > rafting or swimming. Not by accident IMO.
      >
      > Marc

      We still see competitive behaviours in swimmers today. Examples can
      easily be found - channel swimmers, great lake swimmers, and even
      just
      regular folk racing each other to the *point* or the *far off island*.
      Perhaps males would race one another in a competitive way, thus
      demonstrating their *reproductive* fitness. IMO diving challenges
      would also be part of it, seeing who could go the deepest, and
      who could stay down longer. This can be seen at any pool or
      beachside today, and I see no reason for this not to have occured
      in our swimming ancestors.
      (Just a thought)
      Catherine
    • bobml
      ... The Black Crested Macaque of Sulewesi also appears to have crossed Wallace s Line, and interestingly, has no tail, or at least no visible tail. Stephen.
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        ----------
        > From: Elaine Morgan <elaine@...>
        > To: AAT@egroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Postulates & Questions
        > Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:31 AM
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
        > To: AAT@egroups.com <AAT@egroups.com>
        > Date: Sunday, July 02, 2000 9:45 AM
        > Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Postulates & Questions
        >
        >
        > >>> > [KJ] I don't think any hominid ever was a long distance swimmer
        > >>> > for transportation.
        > >>>
        > >>> Marc's post has it as *only* 19km, and elephants (also thought to be
        > >>> ex-aquatic) also made it, so why not?
        >
        > And pigs made it, according to A.R. Wallace
        >
        > Elaine

        The Black Crested Macaque of Sulewesi also appears to have crossed
        Wallace's Line, and interestingly, has no tail, or at least no visible
        tail.

        Stephen.

        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
        > http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/8/_/372036/_/962557425/
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Community email addresses:
        > Post message: AAT@onelist.com
        > Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
        > Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
        > List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
        >
        > Shortcut URL to this page:
        > http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
      • bobml
        ... in ... there ... I m ... It could have been either IMO. No doubt they were capable of swimming 19kms (modern humans can) and perhaps they did work out that
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          ----------
          > From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
          > To: AAT@egroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Postulates & Questions
          > Date: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:48 PM
          >
          > >> >> [PR] Erectus fossils have been found in places that they
          > >> >> could only have got to by crossing a stretch of ocean. For
          > >> >> those who have Erectus still aquatic at that time, this isn't a
          > >> >> problem (they swam),
          > >> > [KJ] I don't think any hominid ever was a long distance swimmer
          > >> > for transportation.
          > >>
          > >> Marc's post has it as *only* 19km, and elephants (also thought to be
          > >> ex-aquatic) also made it, so why not? Myself, I don't think lashing
          > >>a few logs together would be such a big deal to Erectus.
          > >
          > >Agreed. But I'd believe accident rather than plan. Why would erectus
          > >decide to head out for that barely visible (if visible at all) shore? kj
          >
          > They were primarily beach-combers (perhaps women & children in shallow
          > water, more wading, small prey, just as Oceanic peoples today; men also
          in
          > deeper water, thicker bones = deeper dives...). They knew (visible coast,
          > birds...) there were beaches at the other side of Flores Street, IOW,
          there
          > was food (I get hungry when I think of oysters & shrimps & coconuts --
          I'm
          > trying to lose a few pounds these days...). No doubt they went there,
          > rafting or swimming. Not by accident IMO.
          >
          > Marc

          It could have been either IMO. No doubt they were capable of swimming 19kms
          (modern humans can) and perhaps they did work out that there were plentiful
          resources accross the sea (which undoubtedly there were). They might have
          followed birds? or dugongs? or turtles? or some other animals? or the rain?
          They may also have used logs or other objects to hold on to for rest and/or
          to place objects on (food? water? babies?). Maybe one of these floating
          devices might have been taken out with the current? Perhaps they sheltered
          in Palm trees, like Hugh Harries says, and were swept out to sea and onto
          other islands accidently due to flash floods? IOW, I see no reason why such
          a crossing could not have ocurred accidently (as with macaques? pigs?) or
          deliberately, though a deliberate crossing would imply higher cognitive
          abilities.

          Stephen.

          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
          > Host your next egroup meeting live on Firetalk.
          > Click here!
          > http://click.egroups.com/1/5478/8/_/372036/_/962527554/
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          > Community email addresses:
          > Post message: AAT@onelist.com
          > Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
          > Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
          > List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
          >
          > Shortcut URL to this page:
          > http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
        • Catherine Friedl
          ... isn t a ... swimmer ... to be ... lashing ... erectus ... shore? kj ... shallow ... men also ... (visible coast, ... IOW, ... coconuts -- ... there, ...
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 4, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In AAT@egroups.com, "bobml" <mlbob@c...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > ----------
            > > From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@v...>
            > > To: AAT@egroups.com
            > > Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Postulates & Questions
            > > Date: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:48 PM
            > >
            > > >> >> [PR] Erectus fossils have been found in places that they
            > > >> >> could only have got to by crossing a stretch of ocean. For
            > > >> >> those who have Erectus still aquatic at that time, this
            isn't a
            > > >> >> problem (they swam),
            > > >> > [KJ] I don't think any hominid ever was a long distance
            swimmer
            > > >> > for transportation.
            > > >>
            > > >> Marc's post has it as *only* 19km, and elephants (also thought
            to be
            > > >> ex-aquatic) also made it, so why not? Myself, I don't think
            lashing
            > > >>a few logs together would be such a big deal to Erectus.
            > > >
            > > >Agreed. But I'd believe accident rather than plan. Why would
            erectus
            > > >decide to head out for that barely visible (if visible at all)
            shore? kj
            > >
            > > They were primarily beach-combers (perhaps women & children in
            shallow
            > > water, more wading, small prey, just as Oceanic peoples today;
            men
            also
            > in
            > > deeper water, thicker bones = deeper dives...). They knew
            (visible
            coast,
            > > birds...) there were beaches at the other side of Flores Street,
            IOW,
            > there
            > > was food (I get hungry when I think of oysters & shrimps &
            coconuts --
            > I'm
            > > trying to lose a few pounds these days...). No doubt they went
            there,
            > > rafting or swimming. Not by accident IMO.
            > >
            > > Marc
            >
            > It could have been either IMO. No doubt they were capable of
            swimming 19kms
            > (modern humans can) and perhaps they did work out that there were
            plentiful
            > resources accross the sea (which undoubtedly there were). They
            might
            have
            > followed birds? or dugongs? or turtles? or some other animals? or
            the rain?
            > They may also have used logs or other objects to hold on to for
            rest
            and/or
            > to place objects on (food? water? babies?). Maybe one of these
            floating
            > devices might have been taken out with the current? Perhaps they
            sheltered
            > in Palm trees, like Hugh Harries says, and were swept out to sea
            and
            onto
            > other islands accidently due to flash floods? IOW, I see no reason
            why such
            > a crossing could not have ocurred accidently (as with macaques?
            pigs?) or
            > deliberately, though a deliberate crossing would imply higher
            cognitive
            > abilities.
            >
            > Stephen.

            IMO it happened both ways. I like your idea of following other
            animals. Since Stegadon made it to Flores about the same time,
            perhaps it is a likely candidate for erectus to follow. I know that
            H. erectus has a relatively larger brain that the homo species which
            went before, so he must have been using it for something....any idea
            when domestication of animals occured? I know it did not happen over
            night, and I keep thinking of the close relatins between elephants
            and
            thier Indian *masters*. If this relationship goes back into
            prehistory, which I believe it does, then I vote for Stegadon to have
            been leading the *troops*. :)
            Catherine
            >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > > Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
            > > Host your next egroup meeting live on Firetalk.
            > > Click here!
            > > http://click.egroups.com/1/5478/8/_/372036/_/962527554/
            > >
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > >
            > > Community email addresses:
            > > Post message: AAT@onelist.com
            > > Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
            > > Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
            > > List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
            > >
            > > Shortcut URL to this page:
            > > http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
          • Pauline M Ross
            ... Dogs were the earliest domesticated animal - around 100-125kya (or thereabouts) according to DNA differences from wolves, although it s not known whether
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 4, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              > From: Catherine Friedl <cfriedl@...>
              >
              > IMO it happened both ways. I like your idea of following other
              > animals. Since Stegadon made it to Flores about the same time,
              > perhaps it is a likely candidate for erectus to follow. I know that
              > H. erectus has a relatively larger brain that the homo species which
              > went before, so he must have been using it for something....any idea
              > when domestication of animals occured? I know it did not happen over
              > night, and I keep thinking of the close relatins between elephants
              > and
              > thier Indian *masters*. If this relationship goes back into
              > prehistory, which I believe it does, then I vote for Stegadon to have
              > been leading the *troops*. :)

              Dogs were the earliest domesticated animal - around 100-125kya (or
              thereabouts) according to DNA differences from wolves, although it's not
              known whether the original domesticators were Neandertals or early Sapiens
              (usually assumed to be Sapiens, naturally!). Why dogs, I wonder? Other than
              that, it was all less than 10kya - sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, water
              buffalo, etc. and later horses. Strictly speaking, elephants are not
              *domesticated* (ie bred in captivity), they are always taken from the wild
              and tamed. I can't find out when that first happened, but at least by Roman
              times (Hannibal).

              It's an interesting idea, though - Erectus was very mobile, s/he managed to
              spread from end to end of the old world, so obviously very adaptable. Maybe
              some of them were following prey animals (although that implies a strong
              dependence on meat and hunting). I think Erectus was certainly capable of
              seeing what an animal was doing and thinking 'Hmmm, that's an interesting
              idea...'

              Pauline Ross
            • Elaine Morgan
              ... From: bobml To: AAT@egroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Postulates &
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 4, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Original Message-----
                From: bobml <mlbob@...>
                To: AAT@egroups.com <AAT@egroups.com>
                Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 4:19 AM
                Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Postulates & Questions


                >
                >>
                >> >>> > [KJ] I don't think any hominid ever was a long distance swimmer
                >> >>> > for transportation.
                >> >>>
                >> >>> Marc's post has it as *only* 19km, and elephants (also thought to be
                >> >>> ex-aquatic) also made it, so why not?
                >>
                >> And pigs made it, according to A.R. Wallace
                >>
                >> Elaine
                >
                >The Black Crested Macaque of Sulewesi also appears to have crossed
                >Wallace's Line, and interestingly, has no tail, or at least no visible
                >tail.

                >Stephn

                -That is interesting. The other tailless macaque is half a world
                away -the"barbary ape"

                Elaine
                >
              • Marc Verhaegen
                ... I agree crossings could have happened accidentally, but every coastal omnivore would know that at an island he saw in the distance (or the flocks of birds
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 4, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  >It could have been either IMO. No doubt they were capable of swimming 19kms
                  >(modern humans can) and perhaps they did work out that there were plentiful
                  >resources accross the sea (which undoubtedly there were). They might have
                  >followed birds? or dugongs? or turtles? or some other animals? or the rain?
                  >They may also have used logs or other objects to hold on to for rest and/or
                  >to place objects on (food? water? babies?). Maybe one of these floating
                  >devices might have been taken out with the current? Perhaps they sheltered
                  >in Palm trees, like Hugh Harries says, and were swept out to sea and onto
                  >other islands accidently due to flash floods? IOW, I see no reason why such
                  >a crossing could not have ocurred accidently (as with macaques? pigs?) or
                  >deliberately, though a deliberate crossing would imply higher cognitive
                  >abilities. Stephen.


                  I agree crossings could have happened accidentally, but every coastal
                  omnivore would know that at an island he saw in the distance (or the flocks
                  of birds that flew above) there would probably a lot of food. No doubt he
                  was capable of crossing that distance (IMO they were extremely skilled
                  swimmers & divers), so why not go there (probably swimming) & have a look?

                  Marc
                • Marc Verhaegen
                  ... Yes. Interesting. I believe the Gibraltar macaque (Barbary ape) has even less tail vertebrae (0) than hominoids (3-5 AFAIK). Marc
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 4, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >> >>> > [KJ] I don't think any hominid ever was a long distance swimmer
                    >> >>> > for transportation.
                    >> >>>
                    >> >>> Marc's post has it as *only* 19km, and elephants (also thought to be
                    >> >>> ex-aquatic) also made it, so why not?
                    >>
                    >> And pigs made it, according to A.R. Wallace. Elaine
                    >
                    >The Black Crested Macaque of Sulewesi also appears to have crossed
                    >Wallace's Line, and interestingly, has no tail, or at least no visible
                    >tail. Stephen.


                    Yes. Interesting. I believe the Gibraltar macaque (Barbary ape) has even
                    less tail vertebrae (0) than hominoids (3-5 AFAIK).

                    Marc
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.