DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Ape Theory: Early Humans Modern Humans First Lived in an Aquatic Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Ape Theory: Early Humans Modern Humans First Lived in an Aquatic Environment !"#$"#%& Evolution of Modern Humans •! Savannah theory: early humans lived on the dry plains of the African savannah •! Aquatic Ape theory: early humans Modern Humans first lived in an aquatic environment By Land or by Sea? •! Mosaic model: early humans Exploring the hypothesis of the evolution of Homo Sapiens evolved from other land mammals http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/ weirdscience/assets_c/2010/10/ cavemen-food-nutrition- thumb-450x301.jpg Megan Carlton, Alysia Brengman, An Le, Helen Wiltsey Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) •! Sir Alister Hardy suggested this •! early ancestors of apes and humans were theory in 1960 aquatic to some capacity ! in response to the Pliocene drought •! varying degrees of the theory are ! circulated in scientific community !!resided in the Afar Triangle shown in the figure •! most accepted theories involve the prehominid ape in a semi-aquatic existence •! the most drastic theories attempt to use parts of the theory to prove existence of mermaids, not accepted in the scientific community http://longandluxe.com/2013/10/11/ of-mermaids-secrets/ Evans, P. 1992. “The paranasal sinuses and other enigmas: an aquatic evolutionary theory”. The journal of larynology and otology 106: 214-225. Traits in Support of AAT Traits in Support of AAT •! bipedalism •! bipedalism •! loss of body hair, •! loss of body hair, subcutaneous fat subcutaneous fat •! excess of sweat and •! excess of sweat and sebaceous gland sebaceous gland •! large brains •! large brains Evans, P. 1992. “The paranasal sinuses and other enigmas: an Verhaegen, M., Puech, P., Munro, S. 2002. aquatic evolutionary theory”. The “Aquaboreal Ancestors?”. TRENDS in Ecology journal of larynology and otology and Evolution 17(5): 212-217. 106: 214-225. #& !"#$"#%& AAT Conventional Inadequacies The Savannah Theory •! Evolution due to climatic and behavioral •! bipedalism: climbing/suspensory complex bridges gap changes toward human bipedalism •! Loss of forest habitat and extension of •! loss of body hair, subcutaneous fat: situational savannahs application of thermoregulation strategies (just-so stories) •! Changes in behavior due to changes in diet •! excess sweating not necessary in an aquatic environment •! Transition to bipedal hominids http://askwhy.co.uk/dinosauroids/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/ • large brains: balance of fatty acids can be obtained from ! !!Scan for prey bipedal_skeleton0.jpg other sources besides a marine diet !!Gathering and foraging The Savannah Theory cont… Mosaic Model & others •! Criticisms: •! Mosaic Model: a few large changes at a time, evident in !!Advantages temporary many other species ! No other primates or savannah ! •! Variability selection hypothesis: High amounts of historical mammals have developed constraint, lots of environmental change bipedalism for similar reasons Why not all models? !!Ill-suitedness of man to life on •! the savannah !! Phenotypic expression of advantageous traits !! Use of tools, not genes, to supplement adaptations http://historyplanet.files.wordpress.com/ !! Habitat-specific explanations 2010/03/aa5.jpg don’t account for all changes http://unmaskingevolution.com/images/ evolution.gif In Conclusion Discussion Questions •! 1. What process of creating phylogenies to determine evolutionary trends does this model directly conflict with? •! These three models attempt to explain evolution of modern humans •! 2. Since species evolve by adapting to changing •! Both savannah and aquatic ape models have been environments, why is it that humans have supposedly criticized due to … evolved in this way from aquatic ancestors while other aquatic species living in the same time period and •! While certain human traits can be explained by the environment did not adapt and evolve in the same way? aquatic ape theory and Savannah theory, possible alternative explanations include convergent evolution •! 3. How can we avoid “just-so stories” and subsequent theories when talking about the evolution of the modern •! Mosaic model is most commonly accepted among human? scientists '& !"#$"#%& References •! Evans, P. 1992. “The paranasal sinuses and other enigmas: an aquatic evolutionary theory”. The journal of larynology and otology 106: 214-225. •! Langdon, J. 1997. “Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”. Journal of Human Evolution 33: 479-494. •! Potts, R. 1998. “Environmental hypotheses of hominin evolution”. Am J Phys Anthropol 27:93-136. •! Verhaegen, M. 1991. “Aquatic Ape Theory and Fossil Hominids”. Medical Hypotheses 35: 108-114. •! Verhaegen, M., Puech, P., Munro, S. 2002. “Aquaboreal Ancestors?”. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 17(5): 212-217. !&.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defining the Genus Homo
    Defining the Genus Homo Mark Collard and Bernard Wood Contents Introduction ..................................................................................... 2108 Changing Interpretations of Genus Homo ..................................................... 2109 Is Genus Homo a “Good” Genus? ............................................................. 2114 Updating Wood and Collard’s (1999) Review of Genus Homo .............................. 2126 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 2137 Cross-References ............................................................................... 2138 References ...................................................................................... 2138 Abstract The definition of the genus Homo is an important but under-researched topic. In this chapter we show that interpretations of Homo have changed greatly over the last 150 years as a result of the incorporation of new fossil species, the discovery of fossil evidence that changed our perceptions of its component species, and reassessments of the functional capabilities of species previously allocated to Homo. We also show that these changes have been made in an ad hoc fashion. Criteria for recognizing fossil specimens of Homo have been outlined on a M. Collard (*) Human Evolutionary Studies Program and Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Department of Archaeology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK e-mail: [email protected] B. Wood Center for the Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Habilis
    COMMENT SUSTAINABILITY Citizens and POLICY End the bureaucracy THEATRE Shakespeare’s ENVIRONMENT James Lovelock businesses must track that is holding back science world was steeped in on surprisingly optimistic governments’ progress p.33 in India p.36 practical discovery p.39 form p.41 The foot of the apeman that palaeo­ ‘handy man’, anthropologists had been Homo habilis. recovering in southern Africa since the 1920s. This, the thinking went, was replaced by the taller, larger-brained Homo erectus from Asia, which spread to Europe and evolved into Nean­ derthals, which evolved into Homo sapiens. But what lay between the australopiths and H. erectus, the first known human? BETTING ON AFRICA Until the 1960s, H. erectus had been found only in Asia. But when primitive stone-chop­ LIBRARY PICTURE EVANS MUSEUM/MARY HISTORY NATURAL ping tools were uncovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Leakey became convinced that this is where he would find the earliest stone- tool makers, who he assumed would belong to our genus. Maybe, like the australopiths, our human ancestors also originated in Africa. In 1931, Leakey began intensive prospect­ ing and excavation at Olduvai Gorge, 33 years before he announced the new human species. Now tourists travel to Olduvai on paved roads in air-conditioned buses; in the 1930s in the rainy season, the journey from Nairobi could take weeks. The ravines at Olduvai offered unparalleled access to ancient strata, but field­ work was no picnic in the park. Water was often scarce. Leakey and his team had to learn to share Olduvai with all of the wild animals that lived there, lions included.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Precarious Earth and Its Biosphere
    I. The Environment 1 The Earth’s Biosphere: Our Life Support System Our common shared biosphere is our planet’s life support system, capturing light via photosynthesis, conserving energy and matter, and obeying the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics. These laws are fundamental, governing all occurrences in the universe. All biological systems must abide by them. We must function within their confines. In spite of the universality of these laws, problems arise because of humans and their activities. There are simply too many of us for our planet. We are consuming too many irreplaceable resources and causing long-lasting planetary damage. This last problem is tremendously enhanced by human greed and a disregard by many for the biosphere. When our numbers were much smaller, our impact could be absorbed. This is not so today. Because we operate within the confines of the universal laws, we cannot continue to squander resources as we have in the past. Consider the following question: How much damage is caused to the natural environment in order to make a profit from the sale of a consumable item? Consider that many of the consumables produced are dispensable and often of minimal value. Realize that valuable resources must be used for their production. Moreover, these products ultimately become waste that must be disposed of, often in a manner that harms the environment. Why allow the continuation of activities that damage our common life support system? We already know that much of this damage cannot be repaired without a human population decrease. Why allow an increase in our population, recognizing that the consequence will be immense human suffering? Why allow resource consumption, pollution and global warming when we know that their continuance will prevent us from solving global problems and meeting the immense challenges that lie before us? We behave as though we have no regard for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Paranthropus Boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Biological Sciences Faculty Research Biological Sciences Fall 11-28-2007 Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A. Wood George Washington University Paul J. Constantino Biological Sciences, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Wood B and Constantino P. Paranthropus boisei: Fifty years of evidence and analysis. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 50:106-132. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 50:106–132 (2007) Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard Wood* and Paul Constantino Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 KEY WORDS Paranthropus; boisei; aethiopicus; human evolution; Africa ABSTRACT Paranthropus boisei is a hominin taxon ers can trace the evolution of metric and nonmetric var- with a distinctive cranial and dental morphology. Its iables across hundreds of thousands of years. This pa- hypodigm has been recovered from sites with good per is a detailed1 review of half a century’s worth of fos- stratigraphic and chronological control, and for some sil evidence and analysis of P. boi se i and traces how morphological regions, such as the mandible and the both its evolutionary history and our understanding of mandibular dentition, the samples are not only rela- its evolutionary history have evolved during the past tively well dated, but they are, by paleontological 50 years.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Modern Human We Probably All Carry Genes from Archaic Species Such As Neanderthals
    COMMENT NATURAL HISTORY Edward EARTH SCIENCE How rocks and MUSIC Philip Glass on Einstein EMPLOYMENT The skills gained Lear’s forgotten work life evolved together on our and the unpredictability of in PhD training make it on ornithology p.36 planet p.39 opera composition p.40 worth the money p.41 ILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTIAN DARKIN CHRISTIAN BY ILLUSTRATION What makes a modern human We probably all carry genes from archaic species such as Neanderthals. Chris Stringer explains why the DNA we have in common is more important than any differences. n many ways, what makes a modern we were trying to set up strict criteria, based non-modern (or, in palaeontological human is obvious. Compared with our on cranial measurements, to test whether terms, archaic). What I did not foresee evolutionary forebears, Homo sapiens is controversial fossils from Omo Kibish in was that some researchers who were not Icharacterized by a lightly built skeleton and Ethiopia were within the range of human impressed with our test would reverse it, several novel skull features. But attempts to skeletal variation today — anatomically applying it back onto the skeletal range of distinguish the traits of modern humans modern humans. all modern humans to claim that our diag- from those of our ancestors can be fraught Our results suggested that one skull nosis wrongly excluded some skulls of with problems. was modern, whereas the other was recent populations from being modern2. Decades ago, a colleague and I got into This, they suggested, implied that some difficulties over an attempt to define (or, as PEOPLING THE PLANET people today were more ‘modern’ than oth- I prefer, diagnose) modern humans using Interactive map of migrations: ers.
    [Show full text]
  • Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All Biologists Use a Single Naming System That Essentially Follows the Practice O
    Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All biologists use a single naming system that essentially follows the practice of Linnaeus. Taxa are always given Latin names (or Latinized ones). This is a label and not a definition. (Homo sapiens – wise man) The name of a species always consists of two words – the genus (generic) name followed by the species (specific) name. Grammatically, the genus is a noun and the species is adjective or another noun in opposition. The genus name is always capitalized and italicized. The species name is italicized only. If you used the genus name already you may use the first letter followed by a period. Homo sapiens, H. sapiens In the rare cases where a subgenus name is used it is capitalized, italicized and put in parentheses after the genus. Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus If a subspecies name is used it comes at the end and is italicized only. E.G. Homo sapiens sapiens Categories above the genus level are capitalized but not italicized. They generally have endings that show the level of classification. ini for tribe (Infraorder), oidea for superfamily, idae for family. Above the superfamily the only rule is that the name must be Latin or Latinized. The Latin names are often anglicized by dropping the ending and it is not normally capitalized. Hominidae – hominid. Technically the full name of the taxon should include the name of its inventor and the date but this is only done if the discussion is concerning the taxonomy of the name. Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 Ideally, a taxon should have only one name, but some have been given more than one and there is a disagreement over which one has priority or which one is better.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reflection of an Ape an Aquatic Approach to Human Evolution
    The Reflection of an Ape An Aquatic Approach to Human Evolution A thesis submitted to the Miami University Honors Program in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors with Distinction by Erica Kempf December 2006 Oxord, Ohio Acknowledgements There are a number of people I would like to thank for their help in the production of this story. Linda Marchant was my advisor and provided invaluable data, advice, support, and motivation during this venture. Lynn and Greg Kempf offered helpful feedback throughout, but especially during the early stages of writing. Mary Cayton and Scott Suarez kindly agreed to read the last draft of my project, and gave me final grammatical suggestions to further polish my final copy. I am also grateful to the people whose enthusiasm and moral support throughout the long process of writing this story kept me going: Amanda Zorn, Kait Jones, Ali Wolkin, Ashley Piening, Lindsay Good, Rachel Mount and Jamie Eckert. Special thanks also go to Randy Fiedler for the initial idea to begin this work and for his help in getting started. Table of Contents Introduction viii Map x Kinship Chart xi 1 Meer 1 2 Natte 13 3 Bain 18 4 Welle 22 5 Etang 28 6 Praia 34 7 Lago 39 8 Samman 43 9 Rio 47 10 Alga 51 11 Gens 56 Works Consulted 59 Introduction The study of how humans have come to be what we are has fascinated us for as long as we have written such things down, and for countless generations before that through oral histories. Every human culture has some type of creation myth, a tale of how people came to be on Earth, ranging from molded mud to thrown rocks to drops of deity’s blood and nearly everything in between.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Members of the Genus Homo -. EXPLORATIONS: an OPEN INVITATION to BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
    EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA 2019 Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7 www.explorations.americananthro.org 10. Early Members of the Genus Homo Bonnie Yoshida-Levine Ph.D., Grossmont College Learning Objectives • Describe how early Pleistocene climate change influenced the evolution of the genus Homo. • Identify the characteristics that define the genus Homo. • Describe the skeletal anatomy of Homo habilis and Homo erectus based on the fossil evidence. • Assess opposing points of view about how early Homo should be classified. Describe what is known about the adaptive strategies of early members of the Homo genus, including tool technologies, diet, migration patterns, and other behavioral trends.The boy was no older than 9 when he perished by the swampy shores of the lake. After death, his slender, long-limbed body sank into the mud of the lake shallows. His bones fossilized and lay undisturbed for 1.5 million years. In the 1980s, fossil hunter Kimoya Kimeu, working on the western shore of Lake Turkana, Kenya, glimpsed a dark colored piece of bone eroding in a hillside. This small skull fragment led to the discovery of what is arguably the world’s most complete early hominin fossil—a youth identified as a member of the species Homo erectus. Now known as Nariokotome Boy, after the nearby lake village, the skeleton has provided a wealth of information about the early evolution of our own genus, Homo (see Figure 10.1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Coral Reef Environmental "Crisis": Negotiating Knowledge in Scientific Uncertainty and Geographic Difference Ba#Rbel G
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2010 The Coral Reef Environmental "Crisis": Negotiating Knowledge in Scientific Uncertainty and Geographic Difference Ba#rbel G. Bischof Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & PUBLIC POLICY THE CORAL REEF ENVIRONMENTAL “CRISIS”: NEGOTIATING KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY AND GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCE By BÄRBEL G. BISCHOF A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Geography in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2010 i The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Bärbel G. Bischof, defended on May 7, 2010. !!!!!!_____________________________________________ !!!!!!Philip E. Steinberg !!!!!! Professor Directing Dissertation !!!!!!_____________________________________________ !!!!!!Ronald E. Doel !!!!!! University Representative !!! !!!!!!_____________________________________________ !!!!!!James B. Elsner !!!!!! Committee Member !!!!!!_____________________________________________ !!!!!!Xiaojun Yang !!!!!! Committee Member !!!!!! Approved: ______________________________________________________________ Victor Mesev, Chair, Department of Geography ______________________________________________________________ David W. Rasmussen, Dean, College of Social Sciences & Public Policy The Graduate School has verified and approved the
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoasia Project Series 26 A02 2019年度研究報告書
    表4 表1 「パレオアジア文化史学」 Cultural History of PaleoAsia パレオアジア 文部科学省科学研究費補助金 文 化史学 文部科学省科学研究費補助金 新学術領域研究 （研究領域提案型）2016‒2020年度 新学術領域研究 （研究領域提案型） 2016 計画研究 A02 班 2019 年度 研究報告 Cultural History of PaleoAsia ‒ パレオアジア 2020年度 文 化史学 計画研究 計画研究 A02 班 2019 年度 研究報告 A02班 PaleoAsia Project Series 26 ‒ 2019年度 ‒ 研究報告 ‒ ホモ ・ サピエンスのアジア定着期における行動様式の解明 ホモ・サピエンスのアジア定着期における行動様式の解明 4 4 門脇誠二 編 門脇誠二編 表 2-3 は白 第4回_14.indd 1 2020/03/03 12:21 Cultural History of PaleoAsia パレオアジア 文化史学 文部科学省科学研究費補助金 新学術領域研究 （研究領域提案型）2016‒2020年度 計画研究 A02 班 2019 年度 研究報告 PaleoAsia Project Series 26 ホモ・サピエンスのアジア定着期における行動様式の解明 4 門脇誠二編 第4回_本文 3.indd 1 2020/03/06 10:10 【例言】 ・本書は、文部科学省科学研究費補助金新 学術領域研究（研究領域提案型）2016– 2020年度「アジア新人文化形成プロセス の総合的研究」（領域番号1802「パレオアジア 文化史学」）研究項目A02「ホモ・サピエンス のアジア定着期における行動様式の解明」 （課題番号 16H06409）の2019年度研究報告 である。 ・「パレオアジア文化史学」プロジェクトの概要 や研究体制、活動予定、発表業績などの最新 版についてはパレオアジア文化史学ホーム ページhttp://paleoasia.jp/を参照されたい。 i 第4回_本文 3.indd 2 2020/03/06 10:10 研究報告 はじめに はじめに 本書は、文部科学省科学研究費補助金新学術領域研究「パレオアジア文化史学」2016–2020年度の 計画研究A02「ホモ・サピエンスのアジア定着期における行動様式の解明」の2019年度研究報告書で ある。これまでに引き続き、アジアに新人が拡散・定着した頃の行動様式に関する考古記録の収集 と解析を行った。 遺跡調査： 2019年度もヨルダン（門脇誠二）、モンゴル（出穂雅実）、インドネシア（小野林太郎）、 北海道（中沢祐一）における遺跡調査を予定通りに行い、ホモ・サピエンスがアジアに拡散・定着し た頃の行動様式を復元するためのオリジナルの研究標本を収集した。それぞれの調査の速報が本書 に掲載されている。調査の主な対象は、ホモ・サピエンスが拡散・定着した時期であるが、その時 期の行動様式の特徴を的確に把握するためには、その前後の時期も含めて調査を行い、行動の通時 変化を明らかにする必要がある。また、これまでに得られた資料の研究成果を確認するためにサン プルをさらに増やす必要もある。このように信頼性の高い成果をあげるために、着実な記録収集を 継続している。 また、今年度も調査現場での異分野連携を推進した。ヨルダン調査では、A03班の田村亨が光ル ミネッセンス年代測定のための放射線測量を行い、B01班の池谷和信が水場利用と鳥罠猟の民族調査 を行った。またモンゴル調査に関連して、古気候変動と人類行動の変化の関係を明らかにするため の共同研究を、A03班の長谷川精と共同で進めている。
    [Show full text]
  • Verhaegen M. the Aquatic Ape Evolves
    HUMAN EVOLUTION Vol. 28 n.3-4 (237-266) - 2013 Verhaegen M. The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Miscon- Study Center for Anthropology, ceptions and Unproven Assumptions About Mechelbaan 338, 2580 Putte, the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis Belgium E-mail: [email protected] While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropological disciplines leave little doubt that human ancestors were at some point in our past semi- aquatic: wading, swimming and/or diving in shallow waters in search of waterside or aquatic foods. However, the exact sce- nario — how, where and when these semi-aquatic adaptations happened, how profound they were, and how they fit into the KEY WORDS: human evolution, hominid fossil record — is still disputed, even among anthro- Littoral theory, Aquarboreal pologists who assume some semi-aquatic adaptations. theory, aquatic ape, AAT, Here, I argue that the most intense phase(s) of semi-aquatic Archaic Homo, Homo erectus, adaptation in human ancestry occurred when populations be- Neanderthal, bipedalism, speech longing to the genus Homo adapted to slow and shallow littoral origins, Alister Hardy, Elaine diving for sessile foods such as shellfish during part(s) of the Morgan, comparative biology, Pleistocene epoch (Ice Ages), possibly along African or South- pachyosteosclerosis. Asian coasts. Introduction The term aquatic ape gives an incorrect impression of our semi-aquatic ancestors. Better terms are in my opinion the coastal dispersal model (Munro, 2010) or the littoral theory of human evolution, but although littoral seems to be a more appropriate biologi- cal term here than aquatic, throughout this paper I will use the well-known and common- ly used term AAH as shorthand for all sorts of waterside and semi-aquatic hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • World Prehistory from the Margins: the Role of Coastlines in Human Evolution
    Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology Vol. 1, No.1 (Summer 2004), pp. 39–50 World Prehistory from the Margins: The Role of Coastlines in Human Evolution Geoff Bailey Professor of Archaeology, University of New Castle, U.K. ABSTRACT Conventional accounts of world prehistory are dominated by land-based narratives progressing from scavenging and hunting of land mammals and gathering of plants to animal domestication and crop agriculture, and ultimately to urban civilisations supported by agricultural surpluses and trade. The use of coastlines and marine resources has been viewed as marginal, late in the sequence, or anomalous. This bias is primarily the result of three factors: the removal of most relevant evidence by sea- level change; the bad press given to coastal hunters and gatherers by 19th century ethnographers; and a belief in technological ‘primitivism’. In this paper I will examine the case for treating coastal habitats as amongst the most attractive for human settlement, and coastlines and seaways not as barriers but as gateways to human movement and contact, from early hominid dispersals to the rise of the great coastal and riverine civilisations. Introduction The recent claims of a submerged Harappan city 40m beneath the surface of sea in the Gulf of Khambhat in Northwest India have re-emphasised the impact of sea-level change on the archaeological record, and the potential importance of the now-submerged landscapes and coastlines of the continental shelf. Just what the Khambat finds consist of, and just how much of the material dredged up from the sea bed represents genuine artefacts, let alone evidence of a submerged Harappan city at least 2,000 years older than its counterparts on dry land, will have to await detailed and expert scrutiny.
    [Show full text]