Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.

Paul Crowley <dsfdsfdsfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

J.LyonLayden wrote:

Name a coastal site older than 2.6 million years. Why do stupid people
refuse to read the archaeological record?

I don't agree w/ Marc.......but Lee...c'mon.

How can you have a coastal site over 2.6 million
years when all coasts adjacent to human habitation
that existed before 2.6 mill are now underwater as
of 16,000 to 8,000 ybp?

Other things being equal, coastal sites of
2.6 mya should be at about sea level now.
BUT other things are rarely equal. Firstly
the sea advanced and retreated hundreds or
thousands of times during hominid occupation
(before and around 2.6 mya, and in recent
times). When seas advance, wave action rips
up the ground. Go to any coast and note the
difference between the ground above the water
and that below (i.e. that which you can see
when the tide goes out).

Lots and lots of sediment. Ideal for preservation. Marine sediments
provide the best fossil record.

So we would not expect coastal sites to
survive. But occasionally they do. Of
course, those of >2.6 mya will be in Africa.
The best hominid sites found in Africa are
found close to paleo-coasts:

No, they're not. Get some better information on the geology of the
Afar triangle and try to understand the difference between a rift
valley and coast. And what about Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Bahr el
Ghazal, Koobi Fora?

Gerrit
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast