Thread: Human deep sea fishing 42000 year ago

It almost as remarkable by what we don't know than what we know about human pre-history. In this case, evidence than humans were deep sea fishing more than 40000 years ago. I wonder what types of water craft they were using. How much of this kind of evidence was obliterated by our high sea levels or remains to be found hundreds of feet underwater (the last interglacial was ~120,000 years ago).

" They discovered 38,000 fish bones from 23 different taxa, including tuna and parrotfish that are found only in deep water. Radiocarbon dating revealed the earliest bones were 42,000 years old. Amidst the fishy debris was a broken fish hook fashioned from shell, which the team dated to between 16,000 and 23,000 years. "This is the earliest known example of a fish hook," says O'Connor. Another hook, made around 11,000 years ago, was also found."


Deep sea fishing for tuna began 42,000 years ago - life - 24 November 2011 - New Scientist

Interesting. I've long had the notion that we've had an affinity for the sea for a very long time. (Let's not make this another Aquatic Ape thread though.) I suspect our dispersal around the planet has been facilitated by sea transport. Certainly I think that there has been much more trade between ancient peoples than we conventionally believe. I don't want to argue about specific cases, but the possible presence of marijuana, a plant from the americas, in Egyptian mummies is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

Clearly the examples you give are almost an order of magnitude earlier, but it ties in nicely with the concept. If you can go deep sea fishing you can potentially cross oceans - Thor Heyerdal springs to mind.

This almost motivates me to do the research for a book on the subject - something I've been considering for years. On the other hand, perhaps I'll just have some fish and chips.

I was just reading an article last night about how one of the routes from Asia to the Americas seems to have been the coastal route (evidence of marine diets, etc). Don't remember the dates off the top of my head; 15-18,000 years ago, maybe?

There have been multiple waves of migration into the Americas. I don't recall what the current thinking is as to specific dates and timings. I think the consensus is that all were via the Bering Straits, probably when sea levels were lower and a land route was available. However, I think it plausible that the move could have been made by boat, perhaps by sea nomads moving along the coasts.

Why just along the coasts? Polynesians were a preliterate, stone age people but quite competent mariners on long ocean voyages. With adequate fishing gear they could forage as effectively at sea as others did on land.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Why just along the coasts?

Because the current interpretation of the evidence, as I understand it, is that the Americas were populated from the north in a southerly direction. If deep sea crossings were being made we would expect there to be at least pockets of earlier settlement that leapfrogged that progressive movement.

And there are none? What is the linguistic evidence for this point of view?

Polynesians were a preliterate, stone age people but quite competent mariners on long ocean voyages. With adequate fishing gear they could forage as effectively at sea as others did on land.

Most of the sea is barren of food, and all of it is without drinking water. One doesn't cross open ocean in a large group by foraging, routinely.

When Polynesians set out to colonize, they did so with supplies etc. toward a place they had some idea of - ahd visited in exploration, maybe - or in desperation. It isn't impossible that they could have made landfall on the Americas, but not very likely as colonists - especially if the coasts were inhabited first by the coastline followers.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

And there are none?

None that I am aware of, but my interest in this field is that of an amateur. When I post with amateur level knowledge, unsupported by literature searches, I restrict myself to current consensus views. Hence my reference to 'along the coasts' was quite deliberate. I speculate that oceanic migrations may have occured, but I don't place much value on speculation from ignorance and so avoided any mention of it.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

What is the linguistic evidence for this point of view?

I should be surprised if linguistic data could show the necessary granularity. One would be much better of looking for genetic markers. I have a vague recollection that such research as has been done on this tends to support the conventional view.

Edit: I am surprised: it looks as if linguistics could provide sufficient granularity, but it also appears - thus far - that the genetic, linguistic and dental evidence support the conventional view. However, Greenberg et al (The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of the Linguistic, Genetic and Dental Evidence, Current Anthroplogy Vol. 27 No. 5 1986) make this pertinent observation: "There is however one source of bias that needs to be taken into account. If an investigator in one field is aware of the conclusions prposed in another, he or she may be influenced by this knowledge in developing a theory."

I watched a few documentaries over the last few days. There were colonies of humans deep into South America by at least 14500 years ago*. Genetic evidence also suggests a coastal migration all the way along the west coast of the Americas and evidence suggests that the settlers would have had to migrate along the coast straight after crossing the Bering Strait (probably having to circumnavigate by see around areas where the glacier reached all the way to the coast), because of the arduousness of having to cross a glacier. Paleo-climate evidence suggests an opening in between glaciers around 12000 years ago*, but evidence of even earlier settlements deep into South America means that it would not have been the main route.

Also, settlers of Australia would have had to have had some level of sea fairing ability to cross at least 150Km of open ocean.

This deep sea fishing evidence is very interesting indeed. It seems we keep underestimating our distant ancestors.

It is such a shame that so much interesting sites must be submerged up to 100m under the ocean.

*I stand to be corrected on those dates (yes, my memory is that randomly selective).

Also, settlers of Australia would have had to have had some level of sea fairing ability to cross at least 150Km of open ocean.

But Torres Strait is 150 km wide at its narrowest point now. If we're thinking of earlier times with higher glaciation you could have walked across from New Guinea.

Though I suppose if we're thinking 40000-60000 years ago it would have been during the glaciation cycle preceding the commonly accepted Bering Strait crossing to the Americas.

Originally Posted by adelady

Also, settlers of Australia would have had to have had some level of sea fairing ability to cross at least 150Km of open ocean.

But Torres Strait is 150 km wide at its narrowest point now. If we're thinking of earlier times with higher glaciation you could have walked across from New Guinea.

Though I suppose if we're thinking 40000-60000 years ago it would have been during the glaciation cycle preceding the commonly accepted Bering Strait crossing to the Americas.

It was a documentary by Alice Roberts, "The Incredible Human Journey". She had a computer program where you can adjust a slide bar to a certain period and have the map change according to the prevailing climate circumstances at the time. With that program, closest ocean crossing to Australia was around 90 miles. I might be remembering it wrong though.

I see what you mean though, so I'll have to check my facts a bit later.

You are remembering it correctly. There is a very deep trench at that point. Lower sea levels during glacial times would have shrunk the distance a little, but not significantly.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Polynesians were a preliterate, stone age people but quite competent mariners on long ocean voyages. With adequate fishing gear they could forage as effectively at sea as others did on land.

Most of the sea is barren of food, and all of it is without drinking water. One doesn't cross open ocean in a large group by foraging, routinely.

When Polynesians set out to colonize, they did so with supplies etc. toward a place they had some idea of - ahd visited in exploration, maybe - or in desperation. It isn't impossible that they could have made landfall on the Americas, but not very likely as colonists - especially if the coasts were inhabited first by the coastline followers.

Rain is frequent in the Pacific. People have survived on liquids squeezed from fish. Flying fish routinely land on decks of even large sailing vessels. The ocean is so abundant that the Polynesians lived on it in large groups for long periods of time. Salt water can be drunk, but not in large quantities. The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water. Polynesians are reported to have come up western Canadian rivers and then down central rivers at least as far as Manitoulin Island in Georgian Bay. Peruvian scientists report a community in Peru 200,000 years old. Australian 'settlers' did not have to come by boat if they lived on Australia at the time the continent separated from Panagea, which is in my opinion a fact. The outer edge fibre from, I believe it is the Yucca plant was made into an amazingly strong and light line. Modern man has forgotten boatloads of knowledge.

Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago, that 195 million years before humans started to evolve......

Do you have a citation for the Canadian Polynesians?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago, that 195 million years before humans started to evolve......

Do you have a citation for the Canadian Polynesians?

I found the Polynesian-Manitoulin Island connection in an old book on the history of the French River at the Dokis Indian Reserve administrative offices library. Dokis is on the French River. I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

I disagree that Pangea broke apart that long ago. We don't have a clue when it happened. I have heard that Geologists and Physicists are at great odds about timing.

I have heard that Geologists and Physicists are at great odds about timing.

You either heard wrong or exaggerating minor disagreements about the details.

Oth I thing , there is masses of evidence that the 200 mya date is correct

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

Oh for goodness sake, Aristarchus in Exile, please stay out of this thread. As usual you have no idea what you are talking about and I don't want this thread to turn into another one where we have to constantly correct you, while you refuse to listen. Just stay out please.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Polynesians were a preliterate, stone age people but quite competent mariners on long ocean voyages. With adequate fishing gear they could forage as effectively at sea as others did on land.

Most of the sea is barren of food, and all of it is without drinking water. One doesn't cross open ocean in a large group by foraging, routinely.

When Polynesians set out to colonize, they did so with supplies etc. toward a place they had some idea of - ahd visited in exploration, maybe - or in desperation. It isn't impossible that they could have made landfall on the Americas, but not very likely as colonists - especially if the coasts were inhabited first by the coastline followers.

They were pretty good navigators and Aristarchus is right about catching rain and fish to stretch available provisions. They colonized the entire Pacific basin. Other societies may have had this ability, particularly with good equipment.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

So until proof of either of our statement comes along this boils down to 'I said" versus "you said." I don't need the proofs though because I was there in both places, I spoke with those people, I saw. This is called empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Oh for goodness sake, Aristarchus in Exile, please stay out of this thread. As usual you have no idea what you are talking about and I don't want this thread to turn into another one where we have to constantly correct you, while you refuse to listen. Just stay out please.

Quite an open minded example of free discussion you espouse there Kalster.

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by iceaura

Polynesians were a preliterate, stone age people but quite competent mariners on long ocean voyages. With adequate fishing gear they could forage as effectively at sea as others did on land.

Most of the sea is barren of food, and all of it is without drinking water. One doesn't cross open ocean in a large group by foraging, routinely.

When Polynesians set out to colonize, they did so with supplies etc. toward a place they had some idea of - ahd visited in exploration, maybe - or in desperation. It isn't impossible that they could have made landfall on the Americas, but not very likely as colonists - especially if the coasts were inhabited first by the coastline followers.

They were pretty good navigators and Aristarchus is right about catching rain and fish to stretch available provisions. They colonized the entire Pacific basin. Other societies may have had this ability, particularly with good equipment.

Thank you Arthur. But we only need to return to 1947, the Kon Tiki expedition, to prove immense long distance ocean voyages by primitive people are not only doable but comfortably so even by modern people who have forgotten some of the basics. If Hyerdhal had known about steeing boards the Kon Tiki would have been steered in the lagoon instead of wrecking on the reefs. Hyerdhal's son repeated the trip with steering boards. I'm thinking of paddling around the world in my 16' canoe. I think it's doable.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Genesis 10:25 KJV - And unto Eber were born two sons the - Bible Gateway

Other evidence is likewise only evidence to those who believe it to be evidence.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Genesis 10:25 KJV - And unto Eber were born two sons the - Bible Gateway

Other evidence is likewise only evidence to those who believe it to be evidence.

Correct, that is not evidence that holds up to any sort of scrutiny. A single bible passage does not trump multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Again you have no evidence of this just your personal interpretations of selected bible passages.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Genesis 10:25 KJV - And unto Eber were born two sons the - Bible Gateway

Other evidence is likewise only evidence to those who believe it to be evidence.

Correct, that is not evidence that holds up to any sort of scrutiny. A single bible passage does not trump multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science.

Absolutely. Multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science does not hold up to scrutiny of the scripture. However .. I am coming to believe these discussions while interesting, are not condusive to the best use of time and energy .. if I disappear from the forums, please be understanding and not rejoicing .. although rejoice if you will, I wish you joy.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Again you have no evidence of this just your personal interpretations of selected bible passages.

You don't see it as evidence because you don't believe the bible true. To me it is evidence because I see the bible true. It explains many thing that science does not explain, like the two million year old tool using culture in Siberia which seems to say man came out of Siberia and migrated to Africa instead of the other way around. Continental drift explains that.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Genesis 10:25 KJV - And unto Eber were born two sons the - Bible Gateway

Other evidence is likewise only evidence to those who believe it to be evidence.

Correct, that is not evidence that holds up to any sort of scrutiny. A single bible passage does not trump multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science.

Absolutely. Multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science does not hold up to scrutiny of the scripture. However .. I am coming to believe these discussions while interesting, are not condusive to the best use of time and energy .. if I disappear from the forums, please be understanding and not rejoicing .. although rejoice if you will, I wish you joy.

No the bible does not trump science and you are wll aware of that. Allegory doe not overrule physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Again you have no evidence of this just your personal interpretations of selected bible passages.

You don't see it as evidence because you don't believe the bible true. To me it is evidence because I see the bible true. It explains many thing that science does not explain, like the two million year old tool using culture in Siberia which seems to say man came out of Siberia and migrated to Africa instead of the other way around. Continental drift explains that.

What 2mya tool using culture, and where is siberia mentioned anywhere in the bible to support that assertion.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Genesis 10:25 KJV - And unto Eber were born two sons the - Bible Gateway

Other evidence is likewise only evidence to those who believe it to be evidence.

Correct, that is not evidence that holds up to any sort of scrutiny. A single bible passage does not trump multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science.

Absolutely. Multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science does not hold up to scrutiny of the scripture. However .. I am coming to believe these discussions while interesting, are not condusive to the best use of time and energy .. if I disappear from the forums, please be understanding and not rejoicing .. although rejoice if you will, I wish you joy.

No the bible does not trump science and you are wll aware of that. Allegory doe not overrule physical evidence.

For me the bible is physical evidence which outweighs any other form of evidence while confirming the furthest evidences of evidence. Jesus walking on water for instance .. supported by quantum mechanics. Several other examples. However, without sharing my faith you cannot possibly understand my faith. I understand your inability to understand though because I spent the first 30 years of my life sharing your lack of faith.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

I understand your inability to understand though because I spent the first 30 years of my life sharing your lack of faith.

And was it a single cranial impact, or multiple ones that led to the change?

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

you have supplied no evidence that contradicts the geophysical data that Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago.

Genesis 10:25 KJV - And unto Eber were born two sons the - Bible Gateway

Other evidence is likewise only evidence to those who believe it to be evidence.

Correct, that is not evidence that holds up to any sort of scrutiny. A single bible passage does not trump multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science.

Absolutely. Multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science does not hold up to scrutiny of the scripture. However .. I am coming to believe these discussions while interesting, are not condusive to the best use of time and energy .. if I disappear from the forums, please be understanding and not rejoicing .. although rejoice if you will, I wish you joy.

No the bible does not trump science and you are wll aware of that. Allegory doe not overrule physical evidence.

For me the bible is physical evidence which outweighs any other form of evidence while confirming the furthest evidences of evidence. Jesus walking on water for instance .. supported by quantum mechanics. Several other examples. However, without sharing my faith you cannot possibly understand my faith. I understand your inability to understand though because I spent the first 30 years of my life sharing your lack of faith.

it is your personal need to have the bible trump the actual evidence that leads you to be blinkered to the truths and wonders of the universe that God supposedly created. You are not the determiner of what is correct, the actual evidence (such as quantum physics NOT supporting walking on water) that rules the day.

AiE, this an official warning now. Stay out of the science sections. Your faith in the Bible and it's use as evidence is not a valid angle of discussion. It is not scientific. Any further contraventions will result in a temporary ban.

PS: I hope you don't mind if I rejoice when you decide leave us.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

I understand your inability to understand though because I spent the first 30 years of my life sharing your lack of faith.

And was it a single cranial impact, or multiple ones that led to the change?

Several blows to the head .. several to the heart .. several to the body .. it takes a lot for some people to realize they need a change in their life. Best Wishes, John .. Kalster says I'm on my way out.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Polynesians wove cloth .. cloth can filter salt out of water.

That will stand for the rest of that paragraph.

It's bollocks. Try it.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

I have also been in Hawaii and on Manitoulin, have met natives from both places, I am sure that if genetic tests were done some of them would be the same people.

Tests have been done. They aren't.

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Again you have no evidence of this just your personal interpretations of selected bible passages.

You don't see it as evidence because you don't believe the bible true. To me it is evidence because I see the bible true. It explains many thing that science does not explain, like the two million year old tool using culture in Siberia which seems to say man came out of Siberia and migrated to Africa instead of the other way around. Continental drift explains that.

What 2mya tool using culture, and where is siberia mentioned anywhere in the bible to support that assertion.

For heaven's sake, Siberia is not mentioned in the bible. Where did you get that idea?

I can't recall where I read about the Siberia culture .. I read a wide variety of science magazines. Like any other idea that doesn't originate in the 'western' world the evidence is considered unscientific by some westerners, but I guess they've never heard that Russia has science, like Sputnick for example, like Russian boosters being required to get th ISS in orbit. etc.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

AiE, this an official warning now. Stay out of the science sections. Your faith in the Bible and it's use as evidence is not a valid angle of discussion. It is not scientific. Any further contraventions will result in a temporary ban.

PS: I hope you don't mind if I rejoice when you decide leave us.

Masked man, shouldn't your warning read, "Keep religion out of the science sections?" However, I do have support for some of my views on science and the realities of our physical world, including in this thread. Oceanic migration has been a favourite topic with me since reading Kon Tiki at 14 years, then the Ra Expeditions, etc, and on and on. To deny the forum my vast wealth of knowledge in this thread would be immensely irresponsible .. reprehensible even. Nevertheless, for the sake of peace all around I think I'll absent myself. I really don't enjoy an environment were freedom is not valued .. and anything I know about oceanic migration can be found by people who really want to learn, who love to read, so I'm not necessary here .. and the religious threads devolve into whirlpools of nay yea nay yea nay yea .. best wishes to all.

Masked man, shouldn't your warning read, "Keep religion out of the science sections?"

The answer is no. We have no desire to keep religion out of the science sections--the part we want to keep out is purely faith based claims that have no scientific evidence and claims from religious literature which are weighed wildly out of proportion to their worth measured by a scientific yardstick. That leaves quite a bit from religion to talk about its psychology, development, place name history, role in past present and future societies and many other things.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Masked man, shouldn't your warning read, "Keep religion out of the science sections?"

masked man ? like in "highway man" ?

tbh i think the warning should read "people should realise when they've outstayed their welcome", and a good indication of that situation is when a number of mods start to sound cheesed off with the person in question

Yeah, pissing off all the mods is never a good way to stick around...

Originally Posted by aristarchus

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Woven cloth, however fine, cannot remove dissolved salt from seawater by "reverse osmosis" or any other procedure.

And the Pacific islanders had no woven cloth.

Has any trace of Pacific Islander food, technology, language, or genetics been found among the reds of the pre-Columbian Americas?

There is also a basic problem with the time line, in that the far eastern Pacific islands were settled last and apparently long after the settlement of the entire American continent north to south.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Masked man, shouldn't your warning read, "Keep religion out of the science sections?"

The answer is no. We have no desire to keep religion out of the science sections--the part we want to keep out is purely faith based claims that have no scientific evidence and claims from religious literature which are weighed wildly out of proportion to their worth measured by a scientific yardstick. That leaves quite a bit from religion to talk about its psychology, development, place name history, role in past present and future societies and many other things.

The first difficulty with your reasoning is that religions are called "faiths" for a reason. You also reject the history of a document, the bible, which is thoroughly established by scientific research (used to find the burried city of Babylon as one example.) Your views are based on pure scientific hypocriscy.
I find it difficult to allow such hypocriscy remain unanswered. And, just for your own maturing, Kalster, I will let you know that I not only have read very extensively on oceanic migration, I have made solo canoe expeditions of up to 750 miles on some of North America's largest rivers and lakes, including Lake Huron and Georgian Bay .. those expeditions beginning while in poor health at the age of 57. If a modern man such as I raised far from the sea or large body of water can do such things in a 16' open fibreglass craft it is obvious that people did not have to have "extensive seafaring skills" while using unsinkable dugout catamarrans to cross 150 miles of ocean in an area dotted by islands. I have also fished the Pacific from a canoe and kayaked near Alaska. Irish monks have crossed the North Atlantic in leathe skinned cockles. The mid Atlantic has been crossed by rowing by about 20 women in modern times. Seafaring is essentially a simple thing if you go at the right time of year using the intelligence and materials God gave mankind.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by aristarchus

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technolgy is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

Woven cloth, however fine, cannot remove dissolved salt from seawater by "reverse osmosis" or any other procedure.

And the Pacific islanders had no woven cloth.

Has any trace of Pacific Islander food, technology, language, or genetics been found among the reds of the pre-Columbian Americas?

There is also a basic problem with the time line, in that the far eastern Pacific islands were settled last and apparently long after the settlement of the entire American continent north to south.

I absolutely disprove your statement that Pacific Islanders had no woven cloth.

http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/docume...C_p_229-243/p1


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapa_cloth

As well, salt can be filtered out of salt water by almost any kind of cloth, and simply by using sand .. one technique is to dig a hole in sand by the seashore. You may still have a taste of salt, but the water is greatly reduced in salt content.


Thor Hyderdhal proved South American-Pacific colonization. When James Cook 'discovered' the Pacific Islands he found caucasians with red and yellow hair and beards there. These caucasians were the people who escaped the overthrow of their former South AMerican empires by 'spreading their cloak over the waters' .. by building fleets of balsa rafts and drifting to Polynesia. These people were the same Mediterranean people who colonized Norway and who became the Vikings .. 'the people of the sea foam.' Polynesian contact of North America is proven by totem poles similar to American northwest coast totems built by the Poloynesians in New Zealand.

There is some thought the the Easter Islanders who denuded their islands of trees for use in moving the big stone heads around migrated at least in part to North America's Pacific northwest where they became one of only two tribes engaged in whaling.

Polynesians sailed in large groups as they colonized, growing food as they sailed and having babies, transporting species of plants to foreign environments. The first people colonizing Hawaii were pygmies, Menehuen, who were nearly wiped out by the second wave of immigrants, the Polynesians. Remnants of that people and their culture survive. They were almost certainly originally African pygmies, compare certain tribal music from Uganda with true Polynesia music.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Masked man, shouldn't your warning read, "Keep religion out of the science sections?"

masked man ? like in "highway man" ?

tbh i think the warning should read "people should realise when they've outstayed their welcome", and a good indication of that situation is when a number of mods start to sound cheesed off with the person in question

Read into it whatever you like, Marnix; reading into posts things not written is very common on these forums, especially by moderators with the perception they are protecting the innocent.

I realized I had outstayed my welcome when I used the word "bible" the first time.

How many so-called knowledgable posters here know the Americas had the wheel long before Columbus? Terrain made the wheel of little use in Southa nd Central America except outside of children's toys, but those toys exist. How many know ears of corn were depicted in stone on temples in India a thousand years before Columbus. How many know that regular trans-Atlantic trade existed a thousand years or more befor Columbus, evidenced for one small thing by the existance of cocaine in Egyptian mummies. Books are wonderful things. They can be an education.

http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book

I reject your unsupported statement about woven cloth not removing salt

Reverse osmosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Microfiltration removes particles of 50 nm or larger. "Ultrafiltration" removes particles of roughly 3 nm or larger. "Nanofiltration" removes particles of 1 nm or larger. Reverse osmosis is in the final category of membrane filtration, "hyperfiltration", and removes particles larger than 0.1 nm.", "The membranes used for reverse osmosis have a dense layer in the polymer matrix where most separation occurs. In most cases, the membrane is designed to allow only water to pass through this dense layer, while preventing the passage of solutes (such as salt ions). This process requires that a high pressure be exerted on the high concentration side of the membrane, usually 2–17 bar (30–250 psi) for fresh and brackish water, and 40–82 bar (600–1200 psi) for seawater, which has around 27 bar (390 psi)[3] natural osmotic pressure that must be overcome."

Now, how in the hell could they have created a system that could meet those requirements? They couldn't and you have no evidence they could. Now, are you going to stop talking about leaving and actually leave, or do you find joy in pissing us off as much as you can?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Yeah, pissing off all the mods is never a good way to stick around...

Especially when you reveal ignorance, however diplomatically.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I reject your unsupported statement about woven cloth not removing salt

Reverse osmosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Microfiltration removes particles of 50 nm or larger. "Ultrafiltration" removes particles of roughly 3 nm or larger. "Nanofiltration" removes particles of 1 nm or larger. Reverse osmosis is in the final category of membrane filtration, "hyperfiltration", and removes particles larger than 0.1 nm.", "The membranes used for reverse osmosis have a dense layer in the polymer matrix where most separation occurs. In most cases, the membrane is designed to allow only water to pass through this dense layer, while preventing the passage of solutes (such as salt ions). This process requires that a high pressure be exerted on the high concentration side of the membrane, usually 2–17 bar (30–250 psi) for fresh and brackish water, and 40–82 bar (600–1200 psi) for seawater, which has around 27 bar (390 psi)[3] natural osmotic pressure that must be overcome."

Now, how in the hell could they have created a system that could meet those requirements? They couldn't and you have no evidence they could. Now, are you going to stop talking about leaving and actually leave, or do you find joy in pissing us off as much as you can?

What does you industrial age education teach you about coconut fibre and bark fibre? By the way, I never said "totally remove" salt from sea water. Even unfiltered sea water CAN be consumed as long as too much is not drunk. As a long distance canoe tripper I have studied these things. Does your industrial age education include survival manuals? I came back to disprove some bunk. I simply can't stand bunk. How about you?

Please show us how coconut husks can produce a pore size of 0.1nm. Are you serious? Yes you are and that is the problem. You are a deluded individual.

Even unfiltered sea water CAN be consumed as long as too much is not drunk.

You can drink it, a little at a time, but the salt content means that you actually dehydrate faster! Seawater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Accidentally consuming small quantities of clean seawater is not harmful, especially if the seawater is taken along with a larger quantity of fresh water. However, drinking seawater to maintain hydration is counterproductive; more water must be excreted to eliminate the salt (via urine) than the amount of water from the seawater itself."

Now will you admit that you were talking out of your pooper? Of course you won't! How are we supposed to respect you when you conduct yourself like this?

Thinking you know stuff and actually knowing them is not the same thing. Just because something is written in a book, does not mean it is true. Your level of self delusion is obvious to everybody apart from yourself.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Please show us how coconut husks can produce a pore size of 0.1nm. Are you serious? Yes you are and that is the problem. You are a deluded individual.

Even unfiltered sea water CAN be consumed as long as too much is not drunk.

You can drink it, a little at a time, but the salt content means that you actually dehydrate faster! Seawater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Accidentally consuming small quantities of clean seawater is not harmful, especially if the seawater is taken along with a larger quantity of fresh water. However, drinking seawater to maintain hydration is counterproductive; more water must be excreted to eliminate the salt (via urine) than the amount of water from the seawater itself."

Now will you admit that you were talking out of your pooper? Of course you won't! How are we supposed to respect you when you conduct yourself like this?

Thinking you know stuff and actually knowing them is not the same thing. Just because something is written in a book, does not mean it is true. Your level of self delusion is obvious to everybody apart from yourself.

You won't even take time to do a little research before making your statements. I have provided a few urls this morning, have you clicked on any? The Wiki article on salt does not contradict what I said even in its imperfection. You made a snap judgement that I knew nothing about oceanic migration and now you're peeved that I've shown I've studied it. The entire basis of your science is faith in your own limited exposure to knowldge. Did you even click on the Polynesian cloth urls? Almost certainly not. I've studied this stuff for 50 years, you seem to have watched one television program and consider yourself an expert so knowledgeable that even books are trash. Very sad.
You almost certainly don't know that seabirds filter salt out of water and spit it out .. and we modern humans have extremely myopic views of what our bodies are capable of. Please do some reading.

I didn't say they didn't have cloth, I said cloth can't filter out seawater. The salt molecules are too small. I don't care for how long you have been studying this, you are still wrong and incapable of even thinking twice about the quality of your knowledge. Filter paper can't even do it. They simply didn't have the technology to create a filtration system with small enough pores, not to mention the technology to put the seawater under enough pressure to enable reverse osmosis. The requirements for reverse osmosis are scientific facts, yet you claim to know better and we are supposed to just take your word for it because you have "studied" these things for a long time? Get real.

Sure there are animals that can drink salty water, but we can't. And people are not simply assuming as much, they are researched medical facts. How many people have died from having only seawater to drink?

Books can be trash, even books claiming to be authoritative. That you don't know this is just a testament to your complete inability to think about things in a scientific manor and for being gullible enough to believe everything you read. Again, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you display such a poor standard of acquiring knowledge? I did not make a snap judgement. The complete nonsense you keep posting tells everyone that you are deluded. Sad indeed.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The first difficulty with your reasoning is that religions are called "faiths" for a reason. You also reject the history of a document, the bible, which is thoroughly established by scientific research (used to find the burried city of Babylon as one example.) Your views are based on pure scientific hypocriscy.

(shrugs). There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting statements of pure faith in a absence of hard empirical evidence--that is science.

Furthermore your Babylon example is a damn poor one. If you'd actually read the memoirs of Claudius Rich, who discovered the city, you'd realize he got very little meaningful out of the bible and instead writes extensively about the writings of Herodotus, Diodorus and other non-Hebrew or Christian writers. Also many of the most beloved stories from the bible run completely counter to archeological and other scientific evidence including the global flood myth and exodus from Egypt. If the big events aren't true, than the small events in particular any of the extraordinary ones are nearly impossible to believe.
--

Now getting back to the thread:

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technology is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

I doubt there's any evidence that ancient peoples of any kind developed reverse osmosis technology. Filtration sure, but that can't be used to separate sodium or chloride ions from salt water to make it fresh.

If you have any evidence of ancients having such technology in a peer-review scientific paper than please post it.

I'd expect that drinking water was collected by condensation from fog, or just ordinary water vapour, on sails. I was originally thinking fog nets, but that would be a bit superfluous when you already had a sail.

Originally Posted by adelady

I'd expect that drinking water was collected by condensation from fog, or just ordinary water vapour, on sails. I was originally thinking fog nets, but that would be a bit superfluous when you already had a sail.

I suppose they could have done that, but how much water can really be gotten that way? I wonder how much water one would need per day to survive, especially when exposed on the open ocean and with a whole bunch of people having to drink from it.

I can't imagine that it could do any more than top up an initial or rainwater fed storage on board. But if that means you're 2 or 3 days better off in avoiding dying of thirst, that's pretty good. Though if you started out with a good quantity of coconuts on board, there's a good source for drinking as well.

I can't find the you-beaut story I thought I'd saved, with pictures!, about fog nets on western South American hillsides. But these 2 give the general idea. (Though the second one seems to imply that this is some new-fangled idea that has only recently arisen - I very much doubt that.)

Fog collection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fog fence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does look promising, though I imagine one would need a large sail and a large boat to store all this water and coconuts. I don't think there is evidence of that level of boat building that far back. Though a crossing of 150km would not have been impossible , even with the use of simple canoes, which is probably what they did IMO.

Crossing the Pacific is another matter entirely. :/

I imagine one would need a large sail and a large boat

I'm more inclined to think of several smaller components assembled into the size needed for the journey in question. After all, rope making and similar forms of lashing were highly competent.

Maybe some form of outrigger? Outrigger canoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When you get where you're going, you don't have to build new vessels for fishing, you just disentangle the boat you came in.

And the other thing that everyone overlooks or turns away from. Exactly how many such journeys were attempted compared to those that succeeded. Many would have turned back if things went wrong. Many just disappeared. How many? Who knows.

Just as many people have died along the way to discovering which plants were edible and which were poisonous, many people have died on migrations along with those who successfully completed their journeys.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I didn't say they didn't have cloth, I said cloth can't filter out seawater. The salt molecules are too small. I don't care for how long you have been studying this, you are still wrong and incapable of even thinking twice about the quality of your knowledge. Filter paper can't even do it. They simply didn't have the technology to create a filtration system with small enough pores, not to mention the technology to put the seawater under enough pressure to enable reverse osmosis. The requirements for reverse osmosis are scientific facts, yet you claim to know better and we are supposed to just take your word for it because you have "studied" these things for a long time? Get real.

Sure there are animals that can drink salty water, but we can't. And people are not simply assuming as much, they are researched medical facts. How many people have died from having only seawater to drink?

Books can be trash, even books claiming to be authoritative. That you don't know this is just a testament to your complete inability to think about things in a scientific manor and for being gullible enough to believe everything you read. Again, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you display such a poor standard of acquiring knowledge? I did not make a snap judgement. The complete nonsense you keep posting tells everyone that you are deluded. Sad indeed.

Your attitude is too immature for me to want to deal with.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The first difficulty with your reasoning is that religions are called "faiths" for a reason. You also reject the history of a document, the bible, which is thoroughly established by scientific research (used to find the burried city of Babylon as one example.) Your views are based on pure scientific hypocriscy.

(shrugs). There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting statements of pure faith in a absence of hard empirical evidence--that is science.

Furthermore your Babylon example is a damn poor one. If you'd actually read the memoirs of Claudius Rich, who discovered the city, you'd realize he got very little meaningful out of the bible and instead writes extensively about the writings of Herodotus, Diodorus and other non-Hebrew or Christian writers. Also many of the most beloved stories from the bible run completely counter to archeological and other scientific evidence including the global flood myth and exodus from Egypt. If the big events aren't true, than the small events in particular any of the extraordinary ones are nearly impossible to believe.
--

Now getting back to the thread:

Oh? Ever heard of reverse osmosis? Ancient people could weave cloth so fine that modern technology is only beginning to catch up. Same with medicines.

I doubt there's any evidence that ancient peoples of any kind developed reverse osmosis technology. Filtration sure, but that can't be used to separate sodium or chloride ions from salt water to make it fresh.

If you have any evidence of ancients having such technology in a peer-review scientific paper than please post it.

Sorry Lynx, your responses show as much maturity as the masked man's. I just have to ignore them.

Originally Posted by adelady

I imagine one would need a large sail and a large boat

I'm more inclined to think of several smaller components assembled into the size needed for the journey in question. After all, rope making and similar forms of lashing were highly competent.

Maybe some form of outrigger? Outrigger canoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When you get where you're going, you don't have to build new vessels for fishing, you just disentangle the boat you came in.

And the other thing that everyone overlooks or turns away from. Exactly how many such journeys were attempted compared to those that succeeded. Many would have turned back if things went wrong. Many just disappeared. How many? Who knows.

Just as many people have died along the way to discovering which plants were edible and which were poisonous, many people have died on migrations along with those who successfully completed their journeys.

Adelady you are one of the few assets here.

Excellent defense of your assertions

If you don't want to discuss science, or reasoning based on scientific methods, than why do you come here?

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Your attitude is too immature for me to want to deal with.

Not for the first time you have made an assertion that is incorrect, yet you refuse to acknowledge that it was incorrect. You claim that the Pacific peoples were able to weave cloth so fine that it could desalinate sea water by reverse osmosis. I am prepared to consider this as a possibility, but ask you to provide citations that demonstrate it is something more than your imagination. Alternatively admit that your mistaken. Your third, and as far as I can see your last option, is to continue to ignore the call for validation and be recognised, for a further time, as dishonest and unethical. Which route will you choose this time.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Excellent defense of your assertions

If you don't want to discuss science, or reasoning based on scientific methods, than why do you come here?

I simply believe my science is science and yours s not. Could you do us a favour, put me on hold so I don't get any more mssages from this site. I'll look in in a while and see if I feel like getting involved again. I just don't need the frustration, and maybe you feel the same, but our views of what science is just don't allow amiable discussion when you moderators hold the keys, the threat key, the banned key, you know, the POWER that you abuse so regularly with yur insults and accusations. I haven't been able to find a way to suspend or quit my membership from this end. It's been somewhat enjyable here, but far too much ungentlemanly conduct.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

That does look promising, though I imagine one would need a large sail and a large boat to store all this water and coconuts. I don't think there is evidence of that level of boat building that far back. Though a crossing of 150km would not have been impossible , even with the use of simple canoes, which is probably what they did IMO.

Crossing the Pacific is another matter entirely. :/

Read Kon Tiki. Another example of books being an education. And please, I don't want to be banned, just remove my membership, please.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Excellent defense of your assertions

If you don't want to discuss science, or reasoning based on scientific methods, than why do you come here?

I simply believe my science is science and yours s not. Could you do us a favour, put me on hold so I don't get any more mssages from this site. I'll look in in a while and see if I feel like getting involved again. I just don't need the frustration, and maybe you feel the same, but our views of what science is just don't allow amiable discussion when you moderators hold the keys, the threat key, the banned key, you know, the POWER that you abuse so regularly with yur insults and accusations. I haven't been able to find a way to suspend or quit my membership from this end. It's been somewhat enjyable here, but far too much ungentlemanly conduct.

The majority of ungentlemanly conduct has been from you each time you're asked to actually support one of your assertions. you resort to obfuscation and deflection to hide that you can't actually support the positions you take.

Kon Tiki is a good book I read when I was much younger. While it was a fantastic adventure it doesn't' show some of the things discussed here--he used modern water cans to hold hundreds of gallons of fresh water. I've spend quite a bit time learning Polynesian culture and technology when I was in Hawaii--nothing close to reverse osmosis. I think you just have reverse osmosis confused with filtering.

And please, I don't want to be banned, just remove my membership, please.

Not possible at our level. Just become a lurker for a while if you're having trouble fitting in.

Read Kon Tiki. Another example of books being an education. And please, I don't want to be banned, just remove my membership, please.

Again, I did not say all books are not a source of education, I said you can't assume a book is correct just because it is a book. Your "science" has been coming from some of the books you have been reading and have contained obvious flaws, flaws you REFUSE to admit to, no matter how much the contrary is proved. Now what are we supposed to think about that? Can you answer that question?

It is fine to make mistakes, but at least have the character to admit them and move on. Instead you stubbornly refuse to budge an inch. You don't even seem to be able to see this problem in the way you have been conducting yourself, so there isn't much hope for your contributions on this forum to improve. Why should we keep you around? This thread is a prime example: A legit, interesting topic of conversation is opened and people start to engage, but then you arrive and in one post make a series of ridiculous claims. Suddenly the thread devolves into the rest of us having to deal with your assertions, which inevitably means you provide no credible source for your claims, often even refusing to try. Instead, you call us immature and shut down. What do you expect us to do? Just let you run wild? And as you might have noticed, it is not just me that have called you on this behaviour.

As you yourself have said, we have shown unusual restraint. You would have been banned in short order on many other science forums. Why do you think that is? Please reply to this post in an acceptable manner.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus

Woven cloth, however fine, cannot remove dissolved salt from seawater by "reverse osmosis" or any other procedure.

And the Pacific islanders had no woven cloth.

Has any trace of Pacific Islander food, technology, language, or genetics been found among the reds of the pre-Columbian Americas?

There is also a basic problem with the time line, in that the far eastern Pacific islands were settled last and apparently long after the settlement of the entire American continent north to south.

I absolutely disprove your statement that Pacific Islanders had no woven cloth.

http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/docume...C_p_229-243/p1


Tapa cloth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tapa cloth is not woven. The Pacific Islanders had no weaving, no looms, none of that technology.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

As well, salt can be filtered out of salt water by almost any kind of cloth, and simply by using sand .. one technique is to dig a hole in sand by the seashore. You may still have a taste of salt, but the water is greatly reduced in salt content.

Utter bullshit. People die of thirst on desert islands, and not because they can't dig a hole in the sand along the shore, or forgot to bring any cloth with them.

Originally Posted by aristarchus

Thor Hyderdhal proved South American-Pacific colonization. When James Cook 'discovered' the Pacific Islands he found caucasians with red and yellow hair and beards there. These caucasians were the people who escaped the overthrow of their former South AMerican empires by 'spreading their cloak over the waters' .. by building fleets of balsa rafts and drifting to Polynesia. These people were the same Mediterranean people who colonized Norway and who became the Vikings .. 'the people of the sea foam.' Polynesian contact of North America is proven by totem poles similar to American northwest coast totems built by the Poloynesians in New Zealand.

There is some thought the the Easter Islanders who denuded their islands of trees for use in moving the big stone heads around migrated at least in part to North America's Pacific northwest where they became one of only two tribes engaged in whaling.

Polynesians sailed in large groups as they colonized, growing food as they sailed and having babies, transporting species of plants to foreign environments. The first people colonizing Hawaii were pygmies, Menehuen, who were nearly wiped out by the second wave of immigrants, the Polynesians. Remnants of that people and their culture survive. They were almost certainly originally African pygmies, compare certain tribal music from Uganda with true Polynesia music.

OK, I'm curious now - where on God's green internet are you finding this stuff? You can't have made it all up on your own.

Originally Posted by adelady

I can't find the you-beaut story I thought I'd saved, with pictures!, about fog nets on western South American hillsides.

The key aspect being "hillside", a factor notably missing from the thousands of kilometers of open ocean between any South Pacific island and the nearest landfall on the Americas.

Not even the enormous sail acreage of the 19th Century clippers, sailing through the colder and foggier northern seas on journeys of mere weeks with lean crews, was enough to provide water in that fashion. They had to bring tons of water with them, at great expense and inconvenience, and drink that stagnant stuff or die.

OK, I'm curious now - where on God's green internet are you finding this stuff? You can't have made it all up on your own.

I recognize most of them as ideas kicking around long before the internet. The Kon Tiki was done to prove it was at least possible for South Americans to have populated the Pacific with reed boat technology for example. Easter Island was denuded, it was throught by mostly stupid humans, until the past fifteen years, until more current thinking showed it was mostly not the people but their rat passenger's varacious appetite for tree seeds that killed the already low natural reforestation.

One huge advantage the Polynesians had was the fastest large boats of the world until the invention of steam engines making their trips shorter in time and thus their water requirements a bit lower--assuming they found their island.

The key aspect being "hillside",

Well if you're stuck on land, the only way to extract anything from moving air is to position yourself according to reliable currents so that the air rather than the object moves. A boat doesn't have such problems, it moves through the air.

As for water collection and storage, my own suspicion is that Pacific Islanders would have 'made their move' during the wet season to ensure fairly regular rainwater. I can't find a nice piece I came across a few weeks ago postulating that the island by island occupation of the Pacific was periodic. Waiting for and relying on suitable changes in the prevailing winds in different years depending on the ENSO cycle. Though that made no reference to water availability, only to favourable sailing conditions.

Originally Posted by adelady

The key aspect being "hillside",

Well if you're stuck on land, the only way to extract anything from moving air is to position yourself according to reliable currents so that the air rather than the object moves. A boat doesn't have such problems, it moves through the air.

You need the hillside to lift the wet air to condensation temperatures and pressures. On boat in the ocean you would need a large temperature difference between land and water, and great height to get out of the salt spray (or a dead calm).

Originally Posted by adelady

As for water collection and storage, my own suspicion is that Pacific Islanders would have
'made their move' during the wet season to ensure fairly regular rainwater.

Assuming they could predict the weather on the open ocean 1500 klicks away, that would have been the storm season as well. Are they bringing the women and children along, in this colonization of an unknown and unseen land some unknown distance away? It would not have been necessary - there were people in the Americas already.

I doubt very much colonization would have been done in mass without significant exploration and scouting before hand.

there were people in the Americas already.

The Americas?!! We've been talking at cross purposes. Pacific Islanders by and large were just looking for another island to exploit.

Many of them would have had no idea that 'land' was anything but bigger or smaller islands. Their experience was of large expanses of ocean interrupted by occasional islands or reefs. The notion of gigantic continents may have come as a big surprise to many of them.

Originally Posted by lynx

I doubt very much colonization would have been done in mass without significant exploration and scouting before hand.

Some accounts (see Jared Diamond describing customary population limitation on one island, apparently a familiar consideration) point to desperation as an occasional factor.

The prudence of careful exploration and scouting is another mark against the idea of colonization o the Americas from Pacific island sources - the distances are huge, return trips circuitous, multiple scouting trips and so forth even less likely than lucky voyages of last resort.

Originally Posted by adelady

The Americas?!! We've been talking at cross purposes. Pacific Islanders by and large were just looking for another island to exploit.

And the big one they found would have been inhabited already, in all probability.

And the big one they found would have been inhabited already, in all probability.

Well, New Zealand was certainly not occupied until fairly 'recently'. Meaning less than 2000 years ago.

And there are lots of Pacific Islands. Lots. In just 25 million sq km around the equator there are hundreds of the things. And that's only going as far as Tahiti. Draw a few imaginary lines. Rabaul to New Caledonia, east to Tahiti, up to Kiribati then west to Palau and home to Rabaul. http://www.kiritours.com/Data/maps/pacific.jpg


Most are probably just reefs, uninhabitable for family or village living, but perfectly suitable as a base for fishing or sheltering on your way to another island while you do boat maintenance and the like.