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."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)