Talk:Crab claw sail

Date of first crab claw sail

The sequence of events and dates given by Horridge are speculative extrapolations from modern times into the past. This is disputed by, for instance: "In its developed form, the Oceanic lateen existed by the early sixteenth century in western Micronesia so if it came from the Mediterranean lateen, taken into the Indian Ocean by the Portuguese, then it did so extremely rapidly. More likely, it had origins in lateen sail types used by Arabian seafarers from at least the fourteenth century." The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) (p. 481). Oxford University Press. This opinion is based on a linguistic analysis of the names for various components of sailing rigs, with lacking commonality between Oceanic languages for components essential for masted rigs.

At the very least, the article should make clear the lack of certainty over the origins of much of the maritime technology of Oceania. Bold, definite statements do not accurately represent the subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

An additional and unrelated source: " However, it is quite possible that most or all boats and rig-types used in prehistoric times in the South-East AsiaPacific region have completely disappeared from the record, and that those recorded by Europeans in the 17th century may have been relatively recent innovations" Peter V. Lape, Sue O’connor & Nick Burningham (2007) Rock Art: A Potential Source of Information about Past Maritime Technology in the South‐East Asia‐Pacific Region, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 36:2, 238-253, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00135.x
This is a further opinion that we just do not know what the prehistoric rig types were (though see the pictures in this article, with a predominance of quadrilateral sails). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Are you proposing that crab claws sails developed recently? LOL. Horridge's evidence is extrapolative, but it is also logical. Unless you're proposing that crab claw sails were magically independently-invented (or borrowed "extremely rapidly" from the Mediterranean lateen) by Austronesians in Remote Oceania, Island Southeast Asia, and Madagascar, which were all more-or-less isolated from each other post-migration. Like how rapidly are you talking about here? Did the ENTIRE Indo-Pacific see a European and then the next day, they were all sailing in brand-new lateen sails? Because that's exactly what Anderson seems to be implying. Never mind that European first-contact galleons were all square-rigged. LOL

Your challenge and the inclusion of an "alternative history" (wtf?) is nonsense and weakly supported.

It's not like we're just talking about sails either. But BOAT TECHNOLOGY in general, which remained consistent throughout the Austronesian expansion. If a technology is shared between cultures isolated since 1500 BCE, then it's logical that it was invented since at least 1500 BCE. Period. Differences in exact configurations from subsequent developments is irrelevant.

Lape et al. isn't talking about anything specific. They're likely talking about the disappearance of the more primitive "double sprit" configuration in western ISEA (the sail I wanted to include in the Square sail article, which you opposed), after the invention of the more efficient fore-and-aft versions of the crab claw sail and the tanja sail. The sparsity of preserved wooden craft in archaeology is expected in tropical environments. Just because there are no preserved boats in Southeast Asia prior to the Iron Age, does not mean we all SWAM to our islands, does it? Austronesians don't have written records, so the absence of records is irrelevant as well.

Anderson's claims are fringe, hence his characterization of mainstream views as "traditionalist". He's doing a Thor Heyerdahl all over again. The European disbelief that "primitives" could sail against prevailing winds and/or had better maritime technologies and thus his wild claim that EUROPEANS introduced it during the colonial era. Based almost solely on inadequate European colonial descriptions of native watercraft, illogical assumptions to fill in gaps in archaeological data, and his insistence that the crab claw sail is actually a lateen sail (despite a clear indigenous and regionally distinct evolutionary progression of various crab claw sail designs). I'm suprised he didn't claim that Austronesian outriggers and multihulls developed from the European tradition of tying dinghies to galleons.

Even just Antonio Pigafetta's description of the sakman (c. 1519-1522) of the Chamorro people during first contact literally contradicts Anderson's claims that Austronesian vessels were "mastless and had no weatherly capability". First you refuse to discuss non-European boat technology in general maritime articles, now you're actively saying these technologies were European all along.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's get this in proportion. First of all, Atholl Anderson has been chosen by a noted academic publisher to put his ideas in that publisher's handbook on Prehistoric Oceania. In that work, he makes clear that the views he challenges (which he calls "traditionalist") are still the predominant view. However, the fact that his alternative viewpoint is presented in a key publication of the region's prehistory challenges any suggestion that it is a "fringe" idea. To suggest that Anderson's views are nonsense is a partisan view that an editor should seek to avoid. Nor are concerns about the traditionalist model new: see McGrail's review of Doran's Wangka: Austronesian canoe origins (Texas A & M University Press. 1981), where you will find the first listed criticism saying: "How relevant to the prehistoric period are the present and relatively recent distribution patterns of boat types, sail types and sailing techniques?" (The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (1982), 11.3: 259-266 ). Anderson has the support of, for instance, Lape and Sue O'Connor, whose careers are not insignificant. I should also point out, just in case you are unaware, that Atholl Anderson is not of European heritage. It is important to quash any "them and us" ethnic thinking in this.

Secondly, I am not proposing that crab claws sails developed recently. I am merely putting in an article the questions raised by academics working in the field. Any proposals comes from the cited sources.

The problem of the lack of meaningful archaeological evidence is not something that should be ignored. Anderson states "The virtual absence of such direct evidence concerning long-distance sailing in Remote Oceania is a severe obstacle to any coherent understanding of the topic and it is in that deficiency of deep historical record that traditionalism continues to flourish." Many parts of maritime history have struggled with the lack of good physical evidence – then suddenly relevant finds start to appear. Timber structures decay sufficiently fast in most European settings for the problem there to be of the same scale as in areas settled prehistorically by Austronesians. Wait many hundreds of years, and the results on most deposits are the same. The difference is in the level of archaeological activity in each region. In the meantime, if there are ideas out there that question an extrapolated theory on prehistoric craft that has no physical evidence and whose linguistics based thinking is now challenged by more discerning work, it would be entirely wrong of Wikipedia to censor that idea. It was presented as an alternative theory (the section that has been arbitrarily deleted is titled: "Alternative history", and it should remain as such. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a fringe idea. He's basically the only proponent of it (and his focus is primarily the Polynesian expansion, not the entirety of Austronesian-speaking regions). WP:DUE applies (Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views). Anderson himself acknowledges his views are in the minority. Wikipedia is not the The Oxford handbook of prehistoric Oceania. You are free to discuss his views on Polynesian sailing ships in his article. But not here or any related pages, because of due weight.

Furthermore, you're doing WP:SYNTHESIS by using two completely different papers, discussing two different topics to create the different conclusion that you put forward in your "Alternative history" subsection. And you're clinging to the WP:weasel words, both yours ("challenged", "disputed") and the authors'. The things the authors specifically say are NOT KNOWN, as evidence for your conclusions. This quote you found from Lape: might be possible that all boats and rig-types used in prehistoric times ... may have disappeared is NOT from Lape, but is also from Anderson. Take note of the use of "might be possible", this is NOT meant to be regarded as a conclusive fact. It's also taken from the Introduction, the establishment of the background of the study, hence the prominent mention of Anderson, as he's pretty much the only one espousing the view that Austronesian ships (Polynesian/Māori ships in particular, which had ZERO contact with "Arab sailing vessels of the 14th century") were incapable of long distance voyaging. Hence fringe, as in not accepted widely.

Now after taking the time to read their paper, the conclusion of Lape et al.'s study is completely different. First off, the East Timor rock art creators were not seafarers (they were hunter gatherers), and thus didn't and couldn't include details of the ships in their depictions. Some of the depicted "sails" may actually be a weird-perspective attempt at depicting outriggers or the roofs of deckhouse structures; especially considering their attachment points, the tall quadrilateral shapes (not tilted or bipod/tripod-"masted", like actual tanja sails), the absence of rigging, and the X-shaped "spars". Secondly, it's possible the depictions are based on other depictions in trade items (like woven cloth or gong decorations), not on actual ships. Thirdly, the depictions are very recent (one is at least post-1500s AD), showing western or Chinese influence in the artistic perspective, as well as showing newer innovations like the central rudder in some vessels (which is Chinese, not Austronesian), and the depiction of a horse. The ships might not even be Austronesian, but depictions of Dong Son culture (Austroasiatic) vessels. Most importantly, nowhere in their conclusion do they support Anderson's view, neither do they ever claim the sails are European. Their paper barely discusses sails, as it is. You took a single sentence specifically referenced to Anderson, and then built YOUR "Alternative history" out of that. You're just grabbing random things from different studies to build YOUR conclusion. As you've been doing in our past "discussions".

I should also note that Lape defines a "square sail" as being perpendicular to the hull, in contrast to fore-and-aft sails. The same as I did when I attempted to include the Austronesian V-shaped square sail in the square rig article. Which you insisted is only for European ships. But that's neither here or there. I'm not touching "your" articles, anymore.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I don't see how his heritage is relevant. But Atholl Anderson IS of European heritage (and Māori). I'm talking about your attribution of non-European technologies to colonizers.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

See my comments on the paper by Irwin et al at Talk:Austronesian_peoples#The "long pause" with a possible maritime technology explanation. The problem that I have with much of the material in Wikipedia on Austronesian maritime technology is that it can be read to say that all this technology arrived in one go as these people moved out of Taiwan. It appears that is not supported by the facts. However, this article boldly states "The crab claw sail was first developed by the Austronesian peoples some time around 1500 BC." That does not appear to be supportable as an absolute statement – it could be true, but there is no clear evidence that it is.

The "long pause" in further eastward settlement into the Pacific is suggestive that further technological steps were needed for the longer distances. This is addressed by Irwin et al. You will realise that the timing of this model allows the innovation to be entirely within the ISEA region. Much technological change requires several developments to happen at the same time for a useful beneficial package to occur. The hull and rig changes appear to be ideal candidates for such a group of changes. As with most of this stuff, we have not a great deal of evidence either way, but I find Irwin's paper persuasive.

I have no particular reason to advocate European influence on this maritime technology – I am simply trying to summarise the various sources. However, we should acknowledge that technological transfer happens in all directions: e.g. the hammock originated in the Caribbean and was essential for the operation of European navies. Boats and ships travel, and seafarers will always latch on to a better idea. Consider McGrail reporting Haddon and Hornell on the replacement of the masthead crutch of Tongan craft (reported as late as 1772) with a European style halyard to the masthead by the early 19th century.(Boats of the World, pg 334-335). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If Atholl Anderson is "fringe" it is very strange that a major academic publisher (OUP) asked him to write a chapter in their (for them) definitive work on the prehistory of Oceania. That hardly fits with how Wikipedia recommends the identification of an RS. It may turn out that he is wrong, but his ideas are given appropriate consideration by others in the field. (See Irwin et al) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait until you write a paper and it gets wildly accepted. You're making your own hypothesis now. Literally. That's not even Anderson anymore. That's just you. Relatively ignorant of the topic, but completely convinced that not only was the crab claw sail a European invention, but that the Austronesian expansion never happened. The "long pause" happened CENTURIES before Europeans arrived, and ONLY IN POLYNESIA. During which time, Austronesians colonized Madagascar on the other side of the planet. And of course, Micronesia had already been colonized long before then. What does Atholl Anderson's paper have anything to do about that? None of what you are saying right now is in any paper you have presented. I repeat. WP:DUE, WP:SYNTHESIS applies.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul and ThoughtIdRetired, thank you both for the scholarship that each of you brings to sailing-related articles in WP. It's difficult to identify an overlap of agreement on this topic from the discussion above, although I'm sure that it exists. I sense that each of you values the importance of reliable sources and thinks about them deeply—perhaps too deeply. I suggest that each of you—in a Talk page subsection—draft a passage for the article that reflects your summary of what the sources say on the topic, including where the sources agree and disagree. Do your best to avoid bringing your own wisdom into the summary, since we should avoid that in our editing. When you have each done that, perhaps it will be clearer how to combine your contributions in a manner that satisfies both of you! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No. He's literally making up his own conclusions independent of his references right now. I refuse to be patronized by yet another editor who doesn't know the subject, but comes from general maritime articles, and thus thinks what we are saying are equally valid. Didn't you tell me a long time ago, that non-European maritime technology have no place in our general maritime articles? Well, this is not a general maritime article. WP:WikiProject Sailing doesn't give a fuck about indigenous watercraft. Unless you're like ThoughtIRetired and want to claim it as European.

I am removing his "alternative history" nonsense. This isn't simply about sailing. This is human migration history. The viewpoint he's trying to insert needs to be widely accepted and coming from the conclusions of a paper. Not made up based on his very limited understanding of the Austronesian expansion. Period. WP:DUE and WP:SYNTHESIS are very clear on what can be included and what can't.

Note that I have no objections whatsoever to his other addition. I even expanded on his addition in the main Austronesian peoples article. He literally admits what he personally thinks about the topic in his last reply, and you're still pretending he's not being WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a viewpoint already formed that he wants to push regardless of the fact that his sources don't reflect what he's saying. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Just trying to be helpful. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I never said, "that non-European maritime technology have no place in our general maritime articles". What I said at Talk:Square rig was, "This is an English-language article about a type of sail that is clearly understood in the English language." I encouraged you to to write an "an article on Austronesian sail plans". My suggestion pertained to the taxonomy of what is mentioned where. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Horridge 2008

Using a later reference from Horridge, we see that he suggests that the triangular sails raised on a prop mast (by which I presume he means the crab claw sail – he does not use that term in either of the two references) were probably invented by the predecessor populations in ISEA, not by Austronesians. You can also find Mahdi suggesting that much of the maritime technology that Austronesians adopted early in their movement out of Taiwan was developed by Negritos (Mahdi defines this term broadly, so this may not coincide with other definitions of this group). Mahdi discusses this in chapter 8 of Spirits and Ships. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)