Atholl Anderson's comment (above) on the recent finds from Jerimalai draws attention to the dangers of over-interpreting the wider significance of marine resources present in Pleistocene coastal sites without careful evaluation of at least three variables: (1) the accurate identification of the species represented and hence of their behaviour and accessibility to capture; (2) the actual quantities and rates of accumulation of the marine food remains; and (3) local ecological and oceanographic conditions. To these I would add a fourth variable: the bathymetry and submerged topography of the marine environment adjacent to the sites in question—the physical structure of what one might call the 'offshore catchment'—and changes resulting from relative sea level variation (including eustatic and isostatic/tectonic effects).