On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:40:12 -0500 Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You're convinced that humanity developped in a coastal environment.
>
> It's undoubted that, the coastline is a place where gatherers can find
> something. Especially seeweed and mussels or crabs.
> But think that a coastline, even in rich waters, has only a limited capacity
> to sustain humans (per mile).

I think, in the early days, there would have been very few of humans anyway.
Also, no one specified any margin on the coast.  They didn't just sit on the
shore, they used all resources at least within walking distance along the
coastlines.
>
> We know that until recently they didn't have fishhooks and assume that they
> didn't have nets.
> It would be hard to catch fish, standing on the shore with a sharp stick.
>
> Please explain what you suppose these hominids ate.

You stated yourself, seaweed, mussels, crabs, and I will add clams,
lobsters, fish and bird eggs, insects and insect eggs, small mammals
(including sea mammals, often easy to kill), fruits, vegetables, roots,
nuts.  Probably more things I'm not aware of.

As for weapons, the blow dart is common among fishermen, and clubs are
useful but in many cases no weapon is required, see below.

In saying "It would be hard to catch fish, standing on the shore with a
sharp stick" you are obviously ignoring the fact that humans can swim and
dive and have no need to be fixed to the shore.  Also, no doubt they used
primitive water craft made of logs.  Humans are ingenious.

From Weston Price's book: The native Maori in New Zealand, used large
quantities of foods form the sea, wherever these were available.  Even in
the inland food depots, mutton birds were still available in large
quantities.  These birds were captured just before they left the nests....At
this stage, the flesh is very tender and very fat from the gorging that has
been provided by their parent....vegetables and fruits grew
abundantly....large quantities of fern root were used...they selected with
precision certian shell fish because of their unique nutritive value." P.
261-262.

The Maori children would at lunch time ruch for the beach where "while part
of the group prepared bonfires, the others stripped and dived into the sea,
and brought up a large species of lobster.  The lobsters were promptly
roasted on the coals and devoured with great relish."  P. 262.

"The native diet of the tribes living in the islands north of Australia
consisted of liberal quantities of seafoods.  These were eaten with a
variety of plant roots and greeen, together with fruits which grew
abundantly in that favorable climate.....The fish in the water at times form
such a dense mass that they can be scooped into the boats directly from the
sea.  Fishermen wading out in the surf and throwing their spears into the
schools of fish usually impale one or several."  P.  262.

"In many of the pimitive tribes living by the sea we found emphasis on the
value of fish eggs.." which are easily gathered,  P. 263.

In discussing natives of the high Sierra in South America, he noted "it was,
accordingly, a matter of great interest that these Indians used regularly
dried fish eggs from the sea" as well as kelp, traded in land.  P. 265.

Coastline also includes land along rivers and lakes.  "The native tribes of
Africa have depended to a great extent on fresh water fish from the numerous
lakes and rivers...After being dried in the sun these fish are carried long
distances into the interior.  The Nile perch grows frequently to a weight of
150 pounds.  The natives of Africa know that certain insects are very rich
in special food values at certain seasons, also that their eggs are valuable
foods.  A fly that hatches in enormous quantities in Lake Victoria is
gathered and used fresh and dried for storage.  They also use ant eggs and
ants."  P. 147
>
> There a several traits of australipithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus
> ramapithecus, earlier primates we can see in the developement of the human
> species.
> Please explain for which of them you see on the coastline (only).
> Or is it annother, none of them?
> And for which time do you assume an aquatic adaption?
>
None.  Crawford and Marsh state:  "It makes more sense to say that, like the
dolphins, one branch of the hominids found that the sea offered a wealth of
food and a way of life that was congenial, much in the way we enjoy the
seaside today.  This species would have taken to the shores of the
freshwater lakes and rivers as well, and the adoption of an aquatic habitat
would not have cut them off from other suplies of food, for the coastal
regions, with their high humidities and ample rainfalls, offer equable
climates and a rich growth of fruits and other vegetation.  The estuaries
would have been sites of particular value because it is here that the marine
food chain begins in earnest....

If man never went up trees, and there is no good reason why he should, there
is also no reason to believe that he was wholly aquatic.  He most probably
evolved at the land-water interface.  At different times it is likely that
he would have explored inland regions, and in this way various side shoots
may have developed with some, like Australopithecus, suffering as a result."
P. 163-164.
>
> For example you cite:
>
>> "Perspiration is not a technique the savannah
>> animals employ:  it is too expensive, except for an animals like the
>> hippopotamus which does sweat ..
>
> Which advantage would have sweating in the water?

No advantage.   Who said that sweating gave an advantage in water?  The
point is that man loses water easily, not a good trait for an animal in an
arid region.

> Sweating, the almost unique human cooling system allows a human to stay
> active even in the heat. When the lions sleep.
>
> Thats a big evolutionary advantage.
> It requires humans to have access to fresh water (to sweat out).
> I would say that's "expensive" may be, but it pays.
> Humans are capable to aquire water even in the driest landscapes
> (like the aboriginals in the outback of Australia).
> Kiosan do well in todays savannah of africa.
> It wasn't such dry as it is today. It developed from woodlands.

You are grasping at straws.  Yes man has found ways to exploit arid regions,
and also polar regions.  But that does not mean that man's original, native
habitat was arid or polar.   These adaptations are the exceptions.

If humans were native to the savannahs, you would expect them to gravitate
to inland savannah habitats.  So why are most people in the world settled on
the coasts, not in the savannahs?  In America, the least populated, and
least desired areas are the high savannahs in areas like Wyoming and
Montana--the most populated and desired are the coastal areas.  And when
people do move to the deserts, they create lakes.
>
> Ok, I'm not going through all, just one more
>
>> 7.  "There is plenty of evidence that the oldest human settlements were at
>> the margins of water...."
>
> Which ones you mean? Chauvet cave? Egypt? Theben? Jericho? Euphrat/Tigris
> area? Indus area?
> Not you couldn't find some. The coast has many advantages.
> But not all are at the coast. There is plenty inlands.

Here is a partial list of main cities by the sea, many of them very old:
Abu Dhabi, Alexandria, Amsterdam, Athens, Auckland, Bahia Blanca, Bombay,
Cairo, Calcutta, Casablanca, Copenhagen, Dar-es-Salam, Edinburgh, Gdansk,
Genoa, Glasgow, Helsinki, Hania, Ho Chi Minh, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Kuala
Lumpur, Leningrad, Lisbon, London, Marseille, Melbourne, Oslo, Rangoon,
Rome, Sebastapol, Seoul, Sidney, Singapore, Stockholm, Tokyo, Vancouver and
Venice.

Others such as Berne, Geneva, Khartoum, Kampala, Paris, and Vienna have
grown up around inland lakes and rivers.

In addition I will add that many studies have shown that consuming fish is
beneficial to health, and that fishermen (coastal) are generally healthier
than farmers (savannah).  Of particular interest to you may be that fish
diets have been shown to be more heart-healthy than vegetarian diets:

BLOOD PRESSURE IN FISH VERSUS VEGETARIAN DIETS:  In evaluating 622 fish
consuming villagers and 686 vegetarian villagers, the frequency of
hypertension was lower in the fish-consuming group versus the vegetarian
group.  The mean fish-consuming blood pressure was 123/72 versus 133/76 mm
Hg in the vegetarian group.  The fish-consuming group had lower levels of
total cholesterol, triglycerides and lipoprotein (a).  The omega-3 to
omega-6 fatty acid ratio was nearly 4 times higher in the fish-eating than
in the vegetarian group.  "Blood Pressure and Atherogenic Lipoprotein
Profiles of Fish-Diet and Vegetarian Villagers in Tanzania:  The Lugalawa
Study," Pauletto, Paolo, et al, The Lancet, September 21, 1996; 348:
784-788.

Another comparison of coastal and inland people:

In evaluating 2 groups of men, 1 living in a fishing village and the other
in a farming village, it was found that daily fish consumption was 10 times
greater in the fishing village than in the rural village group.  The
mortality from ischeic heart disease in the rural village was 4 times
higher.  Serum concentrations of EPA and DHA were significantly higher in
the fishing village group; serum concentrations of arachidonic acid (AA)
were much lower; and the ratio of EPA: AA was twice that of the rural group.
Serum triglyceride and total cholesterol levels were significantly lower in
the subjects from the fishing village than in the rural village.  "Study of
Dietary Fish Intake on Serum Lipids and Lipoproteins in Two Populations With
Different Dietary Habits," Torres IC, Mira L, Ornelas CP, Melim A, Br J
Nutr, 200; 83: 371-379.

JAMA 2001; 285: 304-12.  A review of the diets of almost 80, 000 women over
a 14 year period resulted in the following conclusion:  Consumption of fish
and omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a reduced risk of total strokes
among non-aspirin users.  (Aspirin users were excluded because aspiring
reduces platelet aggregation, and use may obscure the effects of fish or
omega 3 consumption).

The International Society for Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) has
issued the following statement as an official position:  "Consumption of
long chain omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

The ISSFAL is comprised of over 300 of the leading fatty acid researchers in
the world.  This is only the third of approved statements issued by ISSFAL
since its inception.

In fact, aside from poisoned fish, or fish allergies,  I know of no study
showing that fish consumption increases risk for any degenerative disease;
rather it is the inverse.  (For example, coastal dwelling fish eaters in
Northern Europe have a very low incidence of MS, in comparison to a high
incidence among inland dwelling eaters of grains and dairy and meat.) This
makes perfect sense if humans originated as coastal dwelling, fish eaters.
(In contrast, eating red meat from land animals has in many studies been
related to degenerative diseases. Yes modern meat is different, but even
wild red meat is different from fish.)


Don