NavList:

   

Reply

Home with a sick child so I have time to dally on the Nav list today....

I too, have pondered on this problem and in fact may have brought it up on
the list.

I tend to get cocky about myself and look down on the GPS crowd but when all
is said and done, I depend heavily upon the vast technology required to
produced the nautical almanac, sight reduction tables, $25 Texas Instruments
calculator that I use for sight reduction, and my Seiko Quartz watch.

An argument could be made that a mechanical watch makes things more
"traditional" but I disagree. In fact, mechanical watches are very complex
items and required almost equally complex and involved technologies to
produce the miniature wheels and springs required to make it work. Ditto for
the sextant.

Traditional navigation?  Hmmmm. I don't think so. I believe that we are all
deluding ourselves if we believe we've stuck to the basics. We've all chosen
to hang on to a method that requires more steps and drudgery and while it is
more "basic" than GPS, it certainly ain't simple and did require a
tremendous amount of technology to make it happen.  On the other hand, once
we do have the almanac, tables and a decent watch we do have more
independence than GPS users, but it is only a matter of to what degree we
are independent.

Living where I do, I have had the honour and pleasure to witness, first
hand, the amazing navigational capabilities of the Eskimo, or as they refer
to themselves as: Inuit. I've travelled with old hunters in near blizzard
conditions and was astounded at how they are able to find their way across
vast trackless, and seemingly featureless lands. How they do it is nothing
mystical or supernatural, although it may appear that way to the plodding,
dumbfounded white man. Simply put, they have amazing memories, developed
through years of travel, and can remember every rock, hill and geographic
feature they encounter. In ancient days, budding young hunters were taught
to memorize these things for getting lost was pretty near as deadly as not
having enough food. They are also able to read snowdrift patterns, wind
direction and even use the stars as a guide (they have names for most of
them). Inuit have mastered their skills through centuries of experience
handed down through the generations. Sadly, these skills are quickly
vanishing for in order to learn them cold, one must spend most of one's time
travelling and living on the land; something which few, if any, Inuit do
full time anymore. I have never once, seen an older Inuk lost. Sometimes
they get turned around but if that happens, they stop, look around and
almost invariably, they will recognize little nuances that are invisible to
outsiders but which, in the mind of an Inuk, stand out like a racon on a
radar screen. Ask them how they do it, and you will seldom get a clear
answer. They just shrug their shoulders and give you a vague answer because
to them, navigation comes as naturally as walking and breathing. Inuit
navigation is a combination of hundreds of separate and seemingly innocuous
bits of information which collectively direct them to where they want to go.

I am guessing that the Polynesians' skills were along similar lines.

cheers,

Robert




> What I am trying to do is to provoke some thought.  Some on this list
> might say celestial navigation is "traditional" and "electronics free."
>
> Is that really true when I take a sight, glance at my electronic watch
> to get the time, look up body information in my computer-generated
> nautical almanac and, eschewing sight reduction using a pocket
> calculator, instead do "traditional" sight reduction using
> computer-generated tables?
>
> Lu Abel

   

Reply