Recent erectus find north of Johannesburg in South
Africa, and well inland...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
3 Apr 2020

Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
and early Homo erectus in South Africa

"The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with
Homo erectus, whereas the DNH 152 cranium represents
P. robustus. Stratigraphic analysis of the Drimolen
Main Quarry deposits indicates that unlike many
other South African sites, there was only one major
phase of relatively short deposition between ~2.04
million years ago and ~1.95 million years ago. ...
The DNH 134 cranium shares affinities with H.
erectus and predates all known specimens in that
species."

"The DNH 134 Homo cranium has affinities with H.
erectus and extends the species’ temporal range
by ~200,000 to 150,000 years. DNH 134 being older
than A. sediba complicates the likelihood of this
species being ancestral to Homo in South Africa,
as previously suggested. With the oldest occurrence
of H. erectus at the southern tip of Africa, this
argues against a suggested Asian origin for H.
erectus."

"We interpret the occurrence of Homo aff. erectus
at this time in South Africa, and soon after at
Dmanisi (73), as evidence for a major range
expansion of this species (covering at least 8000
km) both out of and within Africa around 2.0 to
1.8 Ma ago."

And from the study on the green Sahara pathway:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01034-7
Low-frequency orbital variations controlled
climatic and environmental cycles, amplitudes,
and trends in northeast Africa during the
Plio-Pleistocene

"We find that there were many periods of more woody
Green Sahara intervals, including a particularly
woody vegetation (over 50% C3) interval at ~2.2 Ma
in the Nile River catchment (Fig. 2a), generally
coinciding with the first dispersal out of Africa. A
large, vegetated area connecting east and northern
Africa may have triggered a pull-type response in
hominins that were now able to survive using larger
cranial capacity79 and move in the lush, ecologically
connected, region of northeastern Africa."

Back in 2020:

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/

What happened is that they found a skull, it was by no means what so ever
an erectus skull and the speculation went like this:

> : the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had previously
> : been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others.

AND THEN A STUDENT decided that it was closest to erectus. Which is
stupid.

Actually, he became a Phd candidate AFTER he made his determination...

Funny how not a one "Expert" saw an erectus skull, but everyone is onboard
with the determination of an undergraduate...

It's just another example of PROPAGANDA being pushed as science.

It's rubbish.

The Out of Africa purity gospels are threatened by Asian finds, so we have
to ignore the Asian finds and invent African finds...

And here you are, rehashing old "Finds" in order to troll for a stupid and
thoroughly refuted theory...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/s6luqxT55zU/m/ajRu2ASmBAAJ

That's just shy of two years old.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737631335431241728

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
\ > Yes, most likely it was a male Au.robustus cf.
> - its cranial capacity (larger than in female robustus, but only half as large as in erectus),
> - no pachyosteosclerosis >< H.erectus:
> only kudu runners think it was their ancestor... :-D

It was a juvenile so as far as I'm concerned: All bets are off!

Could very well be a male, who had yet to develop secondary sexual
characteristics, like a sagittal crest. That's it. Simply posit that this
juvenile isn't an exact replica of a fully grown adult, only smaller, and
this erectus is gone. Completely.

Plus it doesn't look like erectus and nobody claims that it does. That
they claim is that it's CLOSEST TO erectus. In this juvenile form it
looks closer to erectus than some other possibilities. But on in its
juvenile form.

"It looks so much like erectus," the flapping gums assure us, "That it
took an undergrad to notice. Nobody else did. We all saw baboons
and goats, but what do we know? The undergrad said it's closest to
erectus, in this juvenile form, so it must be erectus!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737631335431241728

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> Yes, most likely it was a male Au.robustus cf.
> - its cranial capacity (larger than in female robustus, but only half as large as in erectus),
> - no pachyosteosclerosis >< H.erectus:
> only kudu runners think it was their ancestor... :-D

I should point out:

There is in situ, which means that we have effectively dug up the remains
where they fell, where they were buried. And then there's ex situ, which
means we find the remains elsewhere. The animal died somewhere else
and their remains were transported by some means (water/weathering)
to the location where we find them. This is the issue:

Ex situ remains are very difficult to date. If they're under a layer of million
year old volcanic ash then you can say that they are AT LEAST a million
years old. But they could be three million, or five million or even 10 million.
They didn't die their. The remains were someplace else AND THEN were
transported to this new place where they were eventually covered by
volcanic ash...

The fake "Erectus" skull was an example of ex situ. So it would be found
and associated with remains that are significantly older. This happens
with dinosaur fossils all the time. A much older bone is weathered,
redeposited and trapped in a fossil layer with much younger bones...

Again, this is not unheard of. Even a few million years is plenty of times
to fossilize a bone, weather it out and refossilize it with other bones, while
the dinosaurs all had tens of millions of years for this to happen.

So in addition to all the other massive problems with calling this "new"
find erectus, there's massive issues with dating.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737631335431241728

Op 25-12-2023 om 10:54 schreef Marc Verhaegen:

> Op maandag 25 december 2023 om 00:57:00 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>> Back in 2020:
>> https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/
>> What happened is that they found a skull, it was by no means what so ever
>> an erectus skull and the speculation went like this:
>
>>> : the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had previously
>>> : been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others.
>
>> AND THEN A STUDENT decided that it was closest to erectus. Which is
>> stupid.
>> Actually, he became a Phd candidate AFTER he made his determination...
>> Funny how not a one "Expert" saw an erectus skull, but everyone is onboard
>> with the determination of an undergraduate...
>> It's just another example of PROPAGANDA being pushed as science.
>> It's rubbish.
>> The Out of Africa purity gospels are threatened by Asian finds, so we have
>> to ignore the Asian finds and invent African finds...
>> And here you are, rehashing old "Finds" in order to troll for a stupid and
>> thoroughly refuted theory...
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/s6luqxT55zU/m/ajRu2ASmBAAJ
>> That's just shy of two years old.
>
> Yes, most likely it was a male Au.robustus cf.
> - its cranial capacity (larger than in female robustus, but only half as large as in erectus),
> - no pachyosteosclerosis >< H.erectus:
> only kudu runners think it was their ancestor... :-D

"DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in
overall cranial shape (Fig.4)"

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F4

What's the logic here?
Well, if Mojokerto is H. erectus and DNH 134 is strikingly similar in
overall cranial shape then DNH 134 is most likely also H. erectus.

Pandora wrote:
> Op 25-12-2023 om 10:54 schreef Marc Verhaegen:
>
>> Op maandag 25 december 2023 om 00:57:00 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>>> Back in 2020:
>>> https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/
>>> What happened is that they found a skull, it was by no means what so ever
>>> an erectus skull and the speculation went like this:
>>
>>>> : the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had
>>>> previously
>>>> : been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others.
>>
>>> AND THEN A STUDENT decided that it was closest to erectus. Which is
>>> stupid.
>>> Actually, he became a Phd candidate AFTER he made his determination...
>>> Funny how not a one "Expert" saw an erectus skull, but everyone is onboard
>>> with the determination of an undergraduate...
>>> It's just another example of PROPAGANDA being pushed as science.
>>> It's rubbish.
>>> The Out of Africa purity gospels are threatened by Asian finds, so we have
>>> to ignore the Asian finds and invent African finds...
>>> And here you are, rehashing old "Finds" in order to troll for a stupid and
>>> thoroughly refuted theory...
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/s6luqxT55zU/m/ajRu2ASmBAAJ
>>>
>>> That's just shy of two years old.
>>
>> Yes, most likely it was a male Au.robustus cf.
>> - its cranial capacity (larger than in female robustus, but only half as
>> large as in erectus),
>> - no pachyosteosclerosis >< H.erectus:
>> only kudu runners think it was their ancestor...  :-D
>
> "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in
> overall cranial shape (Fig.4)"
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F4
>
> What's the logic here?
> Well, if Mojokerto is H. erectus and DNH 134 is strikingly similar in
> overall cranial shape then DNH 134 is most likely also H. erectus.
>

From the very start of the paper:

"The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with Homo
erectus..."

Of interest

"DNH 134 comprises a partial neurocranium that
preserves most of the occipital squama, parietals,
and frontal squama, with no evidence of plastic
deformation. The cranial sutures are patent and
at an early stage of fusion, indicating that the
specimen is a juvenile."

"At ~2.04 Ma ago (minimum age 1.95 Ma), DNH 134 is
the most complete and oldest early Pleistocene
Homo neurocranium in South Africa (Fig. 1). DNH 134
is at least 100,000 to 150,000 years older than H.
erectus s.l. specimens from Dmanisi (73) and over
300,000 years older than the KNM-ER-3733 cranium
from Kenya at ~1.63 Ma old (74). ... As such,
DNH 134 represents the oldest fossil with
affinities to H. erectus in the world. Despite
this, we do not assert that the species necessarily
evolved first in southern Africa, especially given
major geological biases in hominin finds across
Africa. However, the dating of the DNH 134 cranium
to >1.95 Ma ago substantially weakens the hypothesis
that H. erectus sensu lato evolved outside of Africa."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> From the very start of the paper:
> "The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with Homo
> erectus..."

Hw long did it take for this these "clear affinities" to become
clear?

Again, "Big picture." You idiots view everything in isolation,
because you need to. You're castrated by context. You
can't deal with facts in relation to any other facts. So you
cling to "Clear Affinities" even knowing that things were
never clear.

> "DNH 134 comprises a partial neurocranium that
> preserves most of the occipital squama, parietals,
> and frontal squama, with no evidence of plastic
> deformation. The cranial sutures are patent and
> at an early stage of fusion, indicating that the
> specimen is a juvenile."

So it's not an adult and we can reasonably expect it
to look different from an example of an adult from
its species...

> "At ~2.04 Ma ago (minimum age 1.95 Ma), DNH 134 is
> the most complete and oldest early Pleistocene
> Homo neurocranium in South Africa

That's circular. You declare it's Homo so it's Homo.

But, Homo is much older than that, so even if we are
are talking Homo, why not habilis? Have you seen the
work ruling that one out? Hmm? And where were the
ancestors of Naledi? They had to live there. They were
found in the exact same area. Right? Maybe not in
the exact same cave but close by.

Or why not the even simpler solution: You're an idiot.

It's all estimates. Funny how all your estimates just
happened to work out in extremes, allowing you to
make some stupid claim about erectus...

It's a juvenile. The sagittal crest hadn't formed yet, and
wouldn't until maturity. Done.

You have to cherry pick from the bottom of the age
range and the top of the cranial capacity in order to
arrive at erectus.

Why bother?

> (Fig. 1). DNH 134
> is at least 100,000 to 150,000 years older than H.
> erectus s.l. specimens from Dmanisi

Is the snowballing invisible to you?

Everything is based on an assumption, and then
you roll from there, snowballing it into a larger &
larger claim... absolutely none of it making a lick
of sense unless you insist on viewing it in isolation.

"Clear Affinities"... that didn't exist for years...

Age and cranial capacity estimates based on your
conclusion instead of drawn on to form a conclusion.

ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE!

You find it along with other other remains that are
NOT erectus, so you conclude that it had to not
belong with them...

There's a pattern here. Evidence is always interpreted
within the context of Out of Africa purity. In fact, it's
manufactured to support that purity.

I mean, how did erectus evolve there? Why would it?
The area was so NOT supplying selective pressure
to evolve Homo that you could still find Naledi
scurrying about more than a million & a half years
later. So how & why erectus?

Oo! There's that lucky isolation you cling to! You
don't have to ask such questions, much less answer
them, so long as you focus like a laser beam on the
headline, refusing to perceive anything else...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737907184184279040