Op dinsdag 5 juli 2005 om 13:59:33 UTC+2 schreef John Roth:
> "JAE" <j...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:1120548410.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> >> People left traces of their presence in the sediments of a shoreline
> >> Human settlers made it to the Americas 30,000 years earlier than
> >> previously thought, according to new evidence.
> >> British scientists came to this controversial conclusion by dating human
> >> footprints preserved by volcanic ash in an abandoned quarry in Mexico.
> >> They say the first Americans may have arrived by sea, rather than by
> >> foot. ...
> >> Ms Gonzalez says the tracks show that the first colonies may have arrived
> >> on water.
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4650307.stm

> > It's always a little disturbing when something like this gets reported
> > in popular press before anything reviewed gets out. I've no way to
> > really judge if there's anything remotely worthwhile in their study or
> > not, though the various news stories indicate that the prints were
> > dated by a mammoth tooth in a nearby deposit. Again, this sort of
> > report doesn't really tell me if the dates are worth anything. It's
> > curious though that if the 40kybp date is for real, people stayed more
> > or less completely invisible in the archaeological record for thousands
> > of years afterwards. Much skepticism is still warranted.

> The news report I've seen:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7627
> was quite specific on the kinds of dating used over the two year
> time period they did the study.
> A good deal of skepticism is indeed warrented - skepticism of
> people who jump to conclusions based on their preconceptions
> without checking to see whether there are other information sources
> availible.
> BTW Marc - the idea that they followed the coast is pure guesswork
> at this point. The fact is nobody has any idea of how they got there.
> Following the coast is a reasonably guess, but there is no support
> whatsoever that I've heard. John Roth

Biology. We've always followed coasts + rivers. Humans need aquatic nutrients.
At least 8 *independent* facts show Pleistocene H.erectus were semi-aquatic:
• Archaic Homo's atypical tooth-wear was caused by "sand and oral processing of marine mollusks", Towle cs 2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24500
• H.erectus s.s. typically?always fossilized in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto: barnacles + corals, Trinil: Pseudodon + Elongaria (edible shellfish), Sangiran-17: "brackish marsh near the coast".
• Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by H.erectus, Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
• Ear exostoses (H.erectus & H.neand.) develop after years of cold(er) water irrigation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
• Pachy-osteo-sclerosis is only seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus’ parietal bone is 2x as thick as in gorillas.
• Brain size in erectus (2x apes/australopiths) is facilitated by aquatic food, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish… cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia.
• Late-Pleistocene descendants or relatives colonized islands far oversea (fossils Flores 100–50 ka, Luzon 67 ka) https://www.academia..edu/36193382/Coastal_Dispersal_of_Pleistocene_Homo_2018
• Homo’s stone tool use & dexterity is typical for molluscivores, e.g. sea-otters.

BTW, it's time the "old" anthropologists (African savanna believers) stop boycotting & refusing our MSs on Homo's waterside evolution.
Human DNA (absence of African retroviral DNA) shows our Pliocene ancestors were not in Africa: IMO they were following S-Asian oasts --> Java Mojokerto etc.