Various authors have claimed over the years that Homo erectus had language. Since there is no direct evidence about the matter, this claim represents the conclusion of a multi-step composite inference drawn from putative non-linguistic attributes of the species. Three maritime behaviours are central among these attributes: crossing open seas to get to insular islands such as Flores in the Indian ocean and Crete in the Mediterranean; building complex watercraft for the crossings; and undertaking navigation in making the crossings. Dubbing it the ‘Seafaring Inference’, the present article reconstructs and appraises the way in which Barham and Everett use the Seafaring Inference to build a case for the claim that Homo erectus had language. This composite inference starts from certain lithic objects found on Flores and ends, via six simple inferences, with the conclusion that Homo erectus had a form of language. The main finding of the article is that this composite inference is flawed in including a simple inference which is unsound and, accordingly, cannot be used to make a strong case for the claim that Homo erectus had language. There is a less well-developed variant of the Seafaring Inference which proceeds from the recovery of lithic objects on Crete. This variant is found to be multiply flawed, there being several simple unsound simple inferences among its components.

中文翻译：

---

直立人有语言吗？航海推论

多年来，许多作者声称直立人有语言。由于没有关于此事的直接证据，这一主张代表了根据该物种假定的非语言属性得出的多步骤综合推论的结论。三种海上行为是这些属性中的核心：穿越公海到达印度洋的弗洛勒斯岛和地中海的克里特岛等岛屿；为过境点建造复杂的船只；并在过境时进行导航。本文将其称为“航海推论”，重构并评价了巴勒姆和埃弗雷特使用航海推论为以下主张建立案例的方式：直立人有语言。这个综合推论从弗洛勒斯岛上发现的某些石器开始，通过六个简单的推论结束，得出结论：直立人有一种语言形式。这篇文章的主要发现是，这种综合推论存在缺陷，因为它包含了一个不合理的简单推论，因此不能用来为以下主张提供有力的证据：直立人有语言。航海推理有一个不太发达的变体，它是从克里特岛的石器回收中得出的。该变体被发现存在多重缺陷，其组件之间存在一些简单的、不合理的简单推论。