Re: the Out-of-Indian hypothesis

Mark wrote

> I wouldn't call it "aquatic": too much opposition from

paleoanthropologists

> (they're right the term "aquatic" is not the best one). Just

"semiaquatic"

> or "amphibious" or perhaps "coastal". But I like "Out-of-Indian

hypothesis".

> After all, early Homo fossils (perhaps even the first ones) have been

found

> on Java.

Whilst early Homo erectus have been found on Java, it is not as early
as the African Homo habilines, nor the H.ergaster that bridges between
them and erectus. To get us originating in this part of the world we
have to get Australopithecines out of Africa, and there is no evidence
that they travelled much beyond Bahr el Gazzali in the West, Hadar in
the North or south eastern South Africa in the South.

John