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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html),
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 (http://www.mir.wustl.edu/graphics/assets/media/Focal%20Spot%20Fall%202003-04/FallW%2003_04-Origins.pdf
- 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 http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/boxgrove/aboxgrove.html,
http://www.aee.gr/hellenic/1st%20month/07%20b/070901/070901.htm)
or the climatic changes (http://www.aee.gr/english/99what_new/090110%20Climate.htm).
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 http://www.aee.gr/hellenic/3aee/press/chrono_order/2006-2007.html).
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) - http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_4172878-cro-magnon-man-1868-1968.htm
Eustratiou N. & P. Biagi (concerning Smolikas mountain research) - http://web.auth.gr/hist/news/conferences/aemth/AEMTH_2009.pdf
Kyparissi N. (on Theopetra cave) - http://www.arxaiologia.gr/assets/media/PDF/migrated/739.pdf
Poulianos A. (regarding Sarakatsani, Hellenes
and Petralona cave) - http://www.aee.gr/hellenic/6petrlona/bibliography/bibliography.html
The following selected - best rated - comments from Mail Online, are quite informative as concerns the public opinion as well:
-
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