So, Australia and the Kow Swamp People.

They're either very, Very, VERY late erectus
or they were a population of moderns who
were extremely different from Australian
aborigines yet for some reason taken away
from science and handed over to the
aborigines...

But it gets weirder.

A very similar group of burials was found in
New Zealand, described as "Big," and their
skulls would likewise have to be the result of
efforts to intentionally deform them... or they
were erectus.

Did erectus modify their skulls?

Maybe, when interbreeding with other humans,
intentionally modified the "Ugly" skulls of babies
who looked more like so called moderns than
erectus?

Maybe erectus had been modifying their skulls
all along, intentionally or not? Some sort of
cultural practice...

Or maybe these skulls at Kow swamp were
modified but, why did people want to look like
erectus? Does this mean they knew what erectus
looked like? What possible benefit could there
have been?

And the final "Maybe" here is maybe they didn't
modify their skulls. Maybe they were the last
vestige of erectus, or the last Denisovans...

Google:

Kow Swamp People

: Many of the skeletons have a greater skeletal mass, more
: robust jaw structures and larger areas of muscle
: attachment than in contemporary Aboriginal men. The
: female skeletons from this region also show similar
: differences when compared with modern Aboriginal women.

Coobool Creek

: The remains date from 9000 to 13,000 years old and are
: significant because of their large size when compared
: with Aboriginal people who appeared within the last 6000
: years. They are physically similar to Kow Swamp people

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-spread-of-people-to-australia/

Again, they HAVE TO conclude that they engaged in the
practice of skull modification. As a matter of fact this
cite states it as fact. This was a latter day "Fix" though.
It was proposed long after the Kow Swamp find.

Don't mistaken controversy for fact.

But, if you do want to accept it as fact, that does leave
us with many VERY interesting questions...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695938043272724480

Op donderdag 22 september 2022 om 22:57:05 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

Intentional skull modifictions?
When Hs (or another Homo) reached an island rich in littoral foods, they could always (re)develop erectus-like features: pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, supraorbital torus, bigger nose, shorter tibias, flatter feet etc., so it's difficult to know whether these are ancient or else newly developed features.

> So, Australia and the Kow Swamp People.
> They're either very, Very, VERY late erectus
> or they were a population of moderns who
> were extremely different from Australian
> aborigines yet for some reason taken away
> from science and handed over to the
> aborigines...
> But it gets weirder.
> A very similar group of burials was found in
> New Zealand, described as "Big," and their
> skulls would likewise have to be the result of
> efforts to intentionally deform them... or they
> were erectus.
> Did erectus modify their skulls?
> Maybe, when interbreeding with other humans,
> intentionally modified the "Ugly" skulls of babies
> who looked more like so called moderns than
> erectus?
> Maybe erectus had been modifying their skulls
> all along, intentionally or not? Some sort of
> cultural practice...
> Or maybe these skulls at Kow swamp were
> modified but, why did people want to look like
> erectus? Does this mean they knew what erectus
> looked like? What possible benefit could there
> have been?
> And the final "Maybe" here is maybe they didn't
> modify their skulls. Maybe they were the last
> vestige of erectus, or the last Denisovans...
> Google:
> Kow Swamp People
> : Many of the skeletons have a greater skeletal mass, more
> : robust jaw structures and larger areas of muscle
> : attachment than in contemporary Aboriginal men. The
> : female skeletons from this region also show similar
> : differences when compared with modern Aboriginal women.
> Coobool Creek
> : The remains date from 9000 to 13,000 years old and are
> : significant because of their large size when compared
> : with Aboriginal people who appeared within the last 6000
> : years. They are physically similar to Kow Swamp people
> https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-spread-of-people-to-australia/
> Again, they HAVE TO conclude that they engaged in the
> practice of skull modification. As a matter of fact this
> cite states it as fact. This was a latter day "Fix" though.
> It was proposed long after the Kow Swamp find.
> Don't mistaken controversy for fact.
> But, if you do want to accept it as fact, that does leave
> us with many VERY interesting questions...

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Op donderdag 22 september 2022 om 22:57:05 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
> Intentional skull modifictions?
> When Hs (or another Homo) reached an island rich in littoral foods, they could always (re)develop erectus-like features: pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, supraorbital torus, bigger nose, shorter tibias, flatter feet etc., so it's difficult to know whether these are ancient or else newly developed features.

The Kow Swamp people are WAY more recent than Mungo Man, described as
anatomically modern, and the Coobool Creek people are no older then, perhaps
thousands of years younger than the Kow Swamp people...

Upn cursory examination it appears we're looking at two different populations,
a robust group (kow swamp & coobool) and a gracile group (mungo man).

But anything is possible.

But I'll tell you, I love the idea of these people modifying their skulls in order
to make themselves appear more archaic! That is the conclusion. That is the
official narrative... thus likely wrong but none the less interesting for it's
possibilities.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695422920318681089

Op vrijdag 23 september 2022 om 00:31:44 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Intentional skull modifictions?
> > When Hs (or another Homo) reached an island rich in littoral foods, they could always (re)develop erectus-like features: pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, supraorbital torus, bigger nose, shorter tibias, flatter feet etc., so it's difficult to know whether these are ancient or else newly developed features.

> The Kow Swamp people are WAY more recent than Mungo Man, described as
> anatomically modern, and the Coobool Creek people are no older then, perhaps
> thousands of years younger than the Kow Swamp people...
> Upn cursory examination it appears we're looking at 2 different populations,
> a robust group (kow swamp & coobool) & a gracile group (mungo man).
> But anything is possible.
> But I'll tell you, I love the idea of these people modifying their skulls in order
> to make themselves appear more archaic! That is the conclusion. That is the
> official narrative... thus likely wrong but none the less interesting for it's
> possibilities.

I don't know enough of the comparisons & details of these "archaic" features in these populations (the terms "gracile" & "robust" are usu.used for australopiths). In some populations there were apparently intentional skull modifications, but in some populations, some "archaic" changes (POS, platycephaly...) might be due to shallow diving?