Ksar Akil response paper out

Our reply to the Bosch et al. paper in PNAS has been published. You can access it here. In it we draw attention to the inherent problems in the Bayesian modeling and archaeological assumptions in that paper, in particular the parts that appear to support an age for the Ethelruda fossil in excess of 46,000 years, as well as a false assumed age for the other fossil (Egbert).

As already outlined in our previous posts on this there are significant errors in the original paper which we draw attention to. In addition to statistical mistakes basic archaeological misunderstandings mean that the two excavation sequences (1937-38 and 1947 digs) cannot be easily correlated.

As we note in our response, caution is advised... Let us not continue the well-established theme of "Ksar Akil, the site where everything published is true"...