The recent misleading reconstruction of the allegedly most ancient 35,000 years old European from Carpathian Mountains


By Dr of Anthropology (Florence) and Palaeontology (Prague) Nickos A. Poulianos


Initially Mail Online (, on May 4th and 5th 2009 (followed by Greek and other newspapers, with a programmed show on BBC2 at 9.30 pm on May 10th), spread the news that scientists reconstructed, on the basis of bones from a Carpathian cave (Peştera cu Oase), the face of the first European 35,000 years old, which indicates a close kinship mainly with African and other ancestors, although the same scientists admit that its gender or skin color are unknown. Noteworthy that in the title of Daily Mail The first European” is reported, while inside the article is written: “The head is based on remains of one of the earliest known anatomically modern Europeans”.


Concerning the above, the following observations are reported:


1. First of all the earliest till now europaeoid is the 700,000 years old Archanthropus (= archaic Homo sapiens) from Petralona – Khalkidhiki (Macedonia-Greece), with its closest morphologically descendants in Europe Sarakatsani (surviving at least for 35,000 years), who belong to the continental anthropological type. In general lines “so spake” starting with his Ph.D. (Moscow 1962), the “evergreen” Anthropology professor Aris N. Poulianos. Unfortunately for Greek and foreign universities or state (mainly archaeological) agencies, this scientific knowledge is «officially stuck», although essentially not rejected, but neither promoted further, obviously wronging science and the co-respective Hellenic contribution. This is so simply because by tragic usually guided methods, it is not the mutual aid that prevails, primarily in favor of the public interest, but an unconfined individualism and the consequent incapability, often resulting into useless studies finance and the economic world bleeding without practically any benefit.

2. The skull fragments found in Romania indicate to be indeed ~35,000 years old, but they are not the only ones in Europe of this period, as perhaps for greater impression it is entitled in the corresponding literature. E.g. there is the Cro-Magnon man, with apparent europaeoeid features. There are also, among other places, in Greece Palaeolithic tools discovered by Dr Nina Kiparissi (Ministry of Culture) at the Theopetra cave (to the south of Meteora) 45,000 years old or even earlier artefacts from the highlands of Smolikas mountain, found by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki professor Nikos Eustratiou and P. Biagi, indicating that it is a matter of time for their manufacturers to be unearthed.

 3. Based on the specific Carpathian fragments (nota bene: from three different human skulls), it is impossible to achieve a realistic face reconstruction. Moreover, subjective factors may lead also to very different results, e.g. other for women, other for men etc.

4. The only obvious traits concern the large teeth, the slightly wide nose, large vertical mandibular ramus, as well as an almost absence of alveolar prognathism. However these features do not indicate an intercontinental inbreeding of European, African and Asian traits, as Mail’s publication alleges (revealing even a prefabricated approach to theoretical models of Pleistocene migrations). Thus, these features rather stand in favor to what was first announced in 2002 by the Washington University professor Erick Trinkaus and collaborators ( - announcement that on May 5th is apparently blanked over), that humans of this period received yet strong - or at least more than nowadays - influence of the Neanderthal genes. Excluding however the above parameters, finally the reconstruction with a thinner, i.e. europaeoid nose, and lesser alveolar prognathism is ignored. Thus, the Mail’s reconstruction touches even an exaggerated (unreal) accentuation of the co-respective traits. 

 5. In the 5th of May publication is also supported that:the skin is likely to have been darker than modern white Europeans”. Obviously with no data similar rumors just mislead the public, either scientists or not.

6. In a general scheme the fact is that anthropologists agree on the knowledge of the biological life evolution, and therefore of the humankind as well. Because of millions relative fossils this knowledge does not imperils. In those cases that yet vacuums (missing links) in the chain of evolution exist, different views are eventually advanced, often rightful and beneficial for the science. On the contrary it is neither rightful, nor beneficial when groups of scientists are formed, and do not even accept the discussion on arguments that are coming from other teams. Besides the above mentioned, various other examples exist on the subject, such as those regarding the Archanthropuses from Boxgrove and Petralona (confront,  or the climatic changes (  

It is more and more evident that the lack of open dialog in such cases has a hidden political-economical substratum, as prompter of views, which however in this way cease to be independent from analogous influences. I.e. the financed by relative interests views prevail, which are also promoted for “informative” consumption. Thus, the independence of scientific community and research, being under such custody, becomes a puppet and not anymore a lever of scientific knowledge and independent contribution to the public. Recently it was claimed that, the more people chew, the cleverer they become. In extension, the ever-masticating antelopes or goats may be considered cleverer than lions or wolves, which devour the herbivores.

7. It is known that Africans 35,000 or 60,000 years ago had also developed a Palaeolithic culture, and therefore analogous intelligence. Thus, those who claim that Africans were always immigrating, haven’t they ever wondered that Africans had no reason to leave the beautiful, warm, under-populated and rich in autarky food Africa or crossing vast deserts to arrive to the frozen glaciers of Europe? So, while fossilized skulls (Beijing, Petralona, Tanzania) show that for about 1 million years (or even more) human evolution until today occurs basically according to the different environmental adaptations in every continent, as far as for the so known Homo habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens, finally is promoted what Daphne Poulianou in 2006 named as the “theory of continuously repeated exodusing”, which is rather similar to religious beliefs than to scientifically established knowledge (cf. her book – “Reversals”…, p. 535 and   

8. Just a few decades ago, many considered Africans and other people as inferior beings. Does the same reasoning or guilty past blur the judgment and push certain writers to still consider Africans to be incompetent before 35,000 or 60,000 years ago to know that more to the north the cooler the climate is?

9. Apparently it is quite different the issue of populations trapped in Europe or Asia when the various glaciations (ices) were gradually expanding, i.e. as concerns those human groups that either were slowly adapted to the new cold conditions or had not an easy outlet to the south. Some probably migrated, some others managed to survive in very harsh climatic conditions. Thus, even the latish view that “modern” humans, after the “mysterious” disappearance of the previous ones, “conquered” from Africa the North during one of the last two interglacials (100,000 or 200,000 years ago) is again groundless, not based on some data, but similar to the aforementioned “suspicions” of dark-skinned Europeans.

10. Assuming even that allegedly African “immigrants-ancestors” of “modern” people were not inbreeding with Neanderthals, then how is it possible to even half-whiten once just arrived in Europe (in this connection the Carpathians), when it is known that at the same time neither the Asian origin American Indians (South and North), nor the autochthonous South-Africans and Australians (living for more than 50,000 years in temperate climates) or the so called Afro-Americans (for the past 500 years) became ever whites?

In sum, the greatest judge is the common sense, which, when violated leads to confusion and misunderstanding at worst, often with very negative consequences for matters of common (and therefore any kind of personal) benefit.


Note: A. The first relative reports were given to the NET Hellenic TV channel on May 6th 2009, also published in You Tube. B. The present article is uploaded on the Internet May 9th 2009 and sent, among other recipients, to Mail Online and BBC-2. C. Besides the aforementioned, further bibliographical data may be found in the following Internet addresses:


Baker J. R. (about Cro-Magnon) -


Eustratiou N. & P. Biagi (concerning Smolikas mountain research) -


Kyparissi N. (on Theopetra cave) -


Poulianos A. (regarding Sarakatsani, Hellenes and Petralona cave) -


The following selected - best rated - comments from Mail Online, are quite informative as concerns the public opinion as well:

- It seems to me that this result was not modelled on actual human remains. But rather on the image the Ministry of Truth has on what a modern European OUGHT to look like. Regards, Snouck, Amsterdam, 05/5/2009 11:19

- Yet more lefty (?) brainwashing. Theory presented as fact. Utter rubbish. D. Shaw, Derby. England, 05/5/2009 11:09

- They can't tell what sex the human is, but they can reconstruct the whole face from a few bone fragments, complete with the colour of it's eyes and skin? Simon, London, 4/5/2009 14:09

- So they don't even know what sex it is but they know the skin-color? Sounds like more feel-good revisionist history to me. Joe, London, 4/5/2009 17:06

- How the bony structure was determined is clear, but how did they determine the colour of the skin from the bone fragments? Ginger, Luton, UK, 4/5/2009 17:14

- Has anyone ever considered that there may be more than one birth place of man? ... The races are obviously different enough to suggest that man kind probably started in more than one location at around the same period. Frank, Chicago, IL, 4/5/2009 13:41