After
20+ years blogging with highly intelligent Human Rights based content
and groundbreaking scientific revelations, with thousands of postings
and images, Google still has monumental problem finding Peter Klevius -
while Gimp, Duckduckgo etc. easily find him.
UPDATE: Chinese researchers reported in February 2024 that the Liujiang skull is contemporary with Cro-Magnon, i.e. younger than previously reported. However, do realize it doesn't alter Peter Klevius overall theory at all, but in fact puts extra strength to it because of its modern Chinese look, yet possessing an archaic bun.
Peter
Klevius asks whether there has ever been a more laughable "theory" than
the silly "out of Africa" one? Flat Earth (supported by the Vatican)
and NASA hiding our second Sun, come close though. And if any African
takes offence for this Western pseudoscience, then it just proves that
no one is safe against fake science. When does Klevius get accused of
"out of Africa-phobia"?
Homo
naledi was thought to have had shut up for some millions of years but
sadly turned out to be a very recent fellow. The fact is that Africa
(like Europe) lies in the wrong end of the Afro-Euroasiatic continent,
and African "diversity" is similar to what you expect to find in a dump -
not in a factory.
Why is our real* ancestor "mother" from SE Asia called a sick hobbit
while an African ape fossil was named Lucy (actually a quite appropriate
name for this LSD fog) and the "mother" of humankind?
*
As Klevius has always argued since he knew about it (2004), Homo
floresiensis on Flores was stuck behind the Wallace line and therefore
not directly connected as such. However, Klevius point is that she
represents an evolutionary stage that was widespread on both sides of
the Wallace line but where those to the north developed further thanks
to repeated contact and hybridization with mainland Asia. A scenario
where Lucy swims to Flores over the Wallace line and there develops to a
fire using, tool making skilled hunter with a globular brain and modern
teeth is completely out of question for any sensible mind - except
apparently for "out of Africa" sectarians. But for Homo
floresiensis-like creatures to the north of the Wallace line there has
been many possibilities to reach Africa without crossing water. The
whole of primate evolution is centered in SE Asia from the very scratch.
And as the volatile SE Asian archipelago seems to have been the perfect
evolutionary laboratory for primates - you don't really need Klevius
intelligence to connect the most obvious dots, do you. Try to imagine an
evolutionary volatile island world, repeatedly connected and
disconnected with each other and with the mainland. Spice it with
climate changes that keep it tropical but also offers a range of
different elevations due to existing mountain slopes etc. Then add
repeated island dwarfing, extended bipedalism and hybridization. And if
you still didn't get the picture, at least you may realize the
complexities and evolutionary niches and opportunities it offers - quite
the opposite to the African (or other) continent. Whereas true
evolution needs protected niches, hybridization dilutes through gene
flow. So Homo floresiensis got a better organized brain due to island
evolution - but needed to come out from it so to be able to spread the
brain gene(s) to its previous kins who had already become better
bipedals precisely because of previous land connections. In fact,
Klevius thinks this evolutionary pattern has been going on throughout
most (maybe all) primate evolution to monkeys/apes/hominines. The
pattern in Africa fits perfectly in Klevius out of Eurasia theory.
Klevius admits being embarrassingly stupid because of how long he tried
to cling to the African savannah and bipedal apes scenario. He should
have skipped it already 2004 when he first heard about Homo
floresiensis. There you see how even intelligent and free scientists can
be trapped in an overwhelming bias fog - only excuse being Klevius
scientific method of bias hunting sometimes causes severe allergic
reactions. So in summary, whereas the oldest (and "puzzling") out of
"Africa "evidence" is based on fossils on the corner closest to Asia and
DNA from now living mongoloid African natives, SE Asia offers a
non-puzzling relief.
A multi-regional Wallacea-Sundaland may explain a lot.
The
Orangutan is earlier on the ape tree than any African ape, and possesses
many dental etc. traits pointing towards more flexible relatives when
it comes to environment.
The
Makassar Straits opened sometimes during mid Eocene. Phylogenetic
analysis suggests that Afrasia and Afrotarsius are sister taxa within a
basal anthropoid clade designated as the infraorder Eosimiiformes.
Current knowledge of eosimiiform relationships and their distribution
through space and time suggests that members of this clade dispersed
from Asia to Africa sometime during the middle Eocene, shortly before
their first appearance in the African fossil record. Crown anthropoids
and their nearest fossil relatives do not appear to be specially related
to Afrotarsius, suggesting one or more additional episodes of dispersal
from Asia to Africa. Hystricognathous rodents, anthracotheres, and
possibly other Asian mammal groups seem to have colonized Africa at
roughly the same time or shortly after anthropoids gained their first
toehold there. Also compare India colliding with Asia.
The
oldest hominids in Africa were all near the Bab el Mandeb land bridge
to Asia - except for the oldest (Toumai) which died in what is now
mid-Sahara but back then a rich valley connected to Europe over a then
dry Mediterranean.
Toumai was actually a later copy of similar European fossils.
And
why is it that Peter Klevius has had the best adapted and published
analyses about human evolution since 1992 (see below), and that his
views always have been contrary to the field although they have later
always been confirmed? Although Peter Klevius* would love to lick it up
as due only to his intelligence, the fact is that this intelligence
would have meant nothing was it not for Peter Klevius* lucky position of
not being bound by bias to the same extent as others in the field.
Although
Peter Klevius* would love to lick it up as due only to his
intelligence, the fact is that this intelligence would have meant
nothing was it not for Peter Klevius* lucky position of not being bound
by bias to the same extent as others in the field.
*
Peter Klevius writes 'Peter Klevius' precisely so to remind all
citation fantasts about the fact that they can cite Peter Klevius and
therefore contribute to enlighten some dark corners of the field who
would otherwise have no idea about the existence of better analyses. And
always remember, Peter Klevius is a defender of your Human Rights and
against those who try to protect islamofascism from scrutiny and
criticism. So don't let a fascist "islamophobia" smear campaign against
Human Rights divert you.
However, the very fact that the Piltdown hoax was created by a
specialist in the field and that it corresponded to wishful thinking
among "scholars", should be taken very seriously as a warning. Out of
Africa is a similar hoax although it's even more "patched" by stretching
concepts over their limits, using quantity and lack of quantity as
proof, using modern DNA as proof of evolution in Africa hundreds of
thousands and millions of years ago, political correctness, muslim oil
money etc. - plus a bit of what could be described as essentially racist
pity for a backward Africa that was devastated by 1,400 years of
islamic slave raiding and trading.
The area of exposed land in Sundaland has fluctuated considerably during the past recent 2 million years.
Greater portions of Sundaland were most recently exposed during the last
glacial period from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. When sea
level was decreased by 30–40 meters or more, land bridges connected the
islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula and
mainland Asia. Because sea level has been 30 meters or more lower
throughout much of the last 800,000 years, the current state of Borneo,
Java, and Sumatra as islands has been a relatively rare occurrence
throughout the Pleistocene. In contrast, sea level was higher during the
late Pliocene, and the exposed area of Sundaland was smaller than what
is observed at present. During the Last Glacial Maximum sea level fell
by approximately 120 meters, and the entire Sunda Shelf was exposed.
The
skulls found in Europe (Iberia/Sima de los Huesos) are more than
100,000 years older than the Moroccan fossils - which moreover are on
the "wrong side of Africa".
In the face of "out of Africa" sectarians: The so called "oldest
anatomically modern human" (Irhoud, Morocco) was actually quite
primitive.
In contrast to their partially modern facial morphology, the Irhoud crania
retain a primitive overall shape of the brain-case and endocast, that
is, unlike those of recent modern humans.
There exists no genetic evidence whatsoever that supports "out pf
Africa" - simply because we lack old enough DNA from sub-Saharan Africa.
Oldest African DNA came from Eurasia.
It's all circumstantial and centered around its initial out of Africa presumption, i.e. not scientific at all.
Moreover,
Africans with the oldest DNA, the Khoisan (e.g. San people), are
light-skinned and cold adapted, i.e. mongoloid, and the oldest
sub-Saharan skull is unrelated and younger than Eurasian globular
skulls. Also compare the remarkable Liujiang skull (see below).
However, cold adaptation makes much more sense in Eurasia.
Afro-centrism
is all over the place. So for example, is it said that monkeys swam or
rafted some 1,800 km to South America rather than taking the natural way
between South and North America. We don't know when or how this could
have happened exactly, but we do know for sure that it would have been
much easier. And the lineage to monkeys was certainly already there.
And
no one knows anything about the evolution of African apes - yet they
are constantly used as "evidence". So out of Africa random cherry
picking ought to be contrasted with Klevius smaller quantity but much
more crucial findings (Jinniushan, Liujiang, Homo floresiensis,
Denisovan etc.) perfectly located in an overarching theory.
Good
scientific theories ought to be able to predict future finds. Klevius
"mongoloid" line of theory since 1992 seems to have fulfilled this
criterion quite well, and probably even more so in the future. As
Klevius stated some ten years ago
What puzzles Klevius
right now is how to place Pygmies and Negritos relative to Khoisan,
Shompen and South American natives. However, Klevius will be back when
he gets just a little more info from the secretive rooms of
anthropology.
However, what puzzles Peter Klevius even
more is the silence from the field. Have they found more stuff in line
with Klevius analysis and don't know how to present it?!
Btw, here's
Demand for Resources (
Resursbegär
1992, ISBN 9173288411), recommended reading for Greta Thunberg and all
her supporters. It's originally written in Swedish and published in
Sweden. If you can't find it anywhere else, then ask the Royal Library
in Stockholm.
Why trust Peter Klevius?
No financial ties. No academic ties.
No religious ties. Super intelligent. Best analysis on "consciousness",
sex segregation, human evolution, and Human Rights - not to mention that
Peter Klevius was the first to correctly analyze the
origin of Vikings
as a bilingual "Finland-Swedish" phenomenon triggered by the
establishment of the Abbasid slave caliphate and its hunger for white
sex slave girls - so to keep their lineages lighter than the non-Arab
"infidel" Africans. The only one on the planet that can show an
uninterrupted line of the, in retrospective, best possible published
analyses after new discoveries - and much less "surprises" than the
"mainstream academic field" seems to be filled with. Never heard about
Peter Klevius? No wonder because he's rarely cited. And that should
worry you. University research and news media are biased in line with
their political and/or religious sponsors. So when Wikipedia demands
"citations", and adds that they should be from "news media" or
"scholars", then you're practically excluded from really good unbiased
information. Moreover, serious scientific analysis outside these
channels then often gets deliberately pushed to a domain filled with
alien hunters and creationist nut heads - making it even harder for you
to find relevant info.
Klevius could continue
elaborate on his theory for you but he's lazy and not paid, so why not
ask in comments. The way this posting is shaped has all to do with
targeting deep bias in the field while simultaneously spread some
relevant facts to people with less understanding of the problems - and
therefore an easy target for PC fake academic "science" - not to mention
alien conspiracy "alchemists" etc.
This pic has since 2012 always come up top on a 'klevius' search on Google. Back then Peter Klevius still cowardly hesitated to skip the African savanna from the formula.
Klevius wrote:
Acknowledgment: Dear reader,
as you're already more than accustomed with Klevius laziness, you're
probably not surprised to hear that this posting was meant to be more
thorough and elaborated but failed again. So have patience, any month
now Klevius patch it via proofreading and updates. So chew on this in
the meantime and blame Klevius - others do. And as usual, Klevius
doesn't take any responsibility - except for the intellectual content
behind the rubbish, of course.
The genetic myth about "out of Africa" is entirely based on mongoloid
San DNA (non ancient) whose physical appearance in fossil records in
sub-Saharan Africa is very recent and differs from the oldest "modern"
skull ever found in sub-Saharan Africa (36,000bp Hofmeyer). This means
that the old part of San DNA came from somewhere else. Together with
mongoloid features (cold adaptation) this clearly points to the north.
The ~260,000bp incipient "mongoloid" Jinniushan from northern China - a
corner stone in Peter Klevius' published theory on human evolution since
1992.
Klevius question in his 1992 book (ISBN 9173288411) was twofold:
1 How come that there was a "mongoloid" big brained skull in northern
China two ice age cycles before present, yet nothing really happened
before ~50,000bp?
2 How come that the oldest modern Africans are "mongoloids" - but much younger in Africa than the China fossils?
Since then it has emerged that Jinniushan was actually female, hence making her even more remarkable.
While continental Africa is and always has been an evolutionary dead end
(no secure and longterm evolutionary hiding places), South East Asian
archipelago has always constituted an evolutionary hotbed with its
volatile island/mainland fluctuations.
Peter Klevius evolution tutorial - and the misleading term "anatomically
modern humans" - and the silence about Denisovan's brain connection to
truly modern humans.
Unlike most PC genetists/anthropologists today, Klevius shares with
Svante Pääbo (is someone holding Svante back?) the view that what
happened before the events represented by the findings in the Denisova
cave, the pace of development among Homos were extremely slow. No matter
how much Neanderthalphils and Afrocentrists try to induce "human like"
meaning in more general Homo behavior. Neanderthals mixing and scrawling
with ochre or using tree resins to affix stone points to wooden shafts
doesn't prove anything re. their intelligence compared to the bracelet
etc. in the Denisova cave, and how this new sophistication among modern
humans then rapidly spread over Eurasia (compare the Lion Man 41,000bp
in Europe and the Sulawesi rock painting 35,500bp). And burying the dead
just tells about missing a loved one. And regular scratches on
different materials have been around since at least half a Million
years.
Klevius reminder to the reader: In
Demand for Resources (1992
ISBN 9173288411) Klevius not only set the foundation of the so far best
theory on consciousness and how the brain works, but also connected the
big brained 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China with the mongoloid
features of the oldest Africans - and asked: Why didn't Jinniushan
people go to the Moon., after all, they had several iceages time to do
so with a brain size exceeding modern humans. In 2004, after the
discovery of Homo floresiensis Klevius immediately told the world that
here was the "missing brain link". Whe six years later Denisovan was
found, Klevius theory was proven correct in everything except details.
John Hawks and many others seem to have combined their own ethnocentrism
with Afrocentrism by 1) in a racist way "comforting" "Africans" that
they are the "cradle" while simultaneously trying to lift up the
"European" Neanderthal to be included in the "human family". Ironically,
reality seems to prefer the very opposite.
The most important anthropological discovery ever, Homo floresiensis,
doesn't fit in their view and is therefore either called "sick" or a
"hobbit".
Chris Stringer in an interview 2018: "The heartland of Denisovan might
have been in South East Asia." Peter Klevius (who was the first to say
it publicly on the web 14 years before Stringer) agrees. However,
there's much more to it. Denisovan 2 (two lineages discovered) was the
one that had got a better packed brain through island dwarfing in SE
Asia.
Primate evolution started and continued in SE Asia
Klevius
is of the strong opinion that the individual to the right on the pic below possesses a
higher IQ, i.e. intelligence than the one to the left. And when it comes to intellect, the difference is even higher.
Chris
Stringer, who is a lovely lecturer who seriously tries to be scientific
and PC at the same time, and therefore particularly dangerous for
contaminating students with bias, is no stranger to fancy "theories". At
one point he told the world (via fake news BBC, of course) that
Neanderthals were less social than humans because they needed so much of
their big brain for vision so that they lacked social skills. Peter
Klevius answered (2013)
this nonsense with the above pic (Tarsiers have smaller brains than
their eyes - and they live in social groups as well as single) and
reminded Stringer about the fact that there is no specific "visual brain
area" which has been proven by studying individuals who were born blind
and still had a functioning "visual brain area" now used for other
tasks. Chris Stringer is also notorious for his lame excuses for having
for so long clung to the most extreme out of Africa "theories". When
will he again alter his Africa view - and preferably get it out of
Africa?!
True scientist Peter Klevius has come out of Africa - when will Chris Stringer and other PC scientists come out of Africa?
Klevius respects Stringer, there are much worse out of Africa fanatics
out there than him, but they aren't even worth mentioning. Chris ought
to feel honored.
The Out of Africa mantra is a neo-colonialist insult against people
living in Africa. A double one, considering the divisive effect it also
has on "immigrants" to Africa.
Should they just be racially abused? PC people, in their blindness, are
supporting divisive and racist movements in Africa. Many of these
"immigrants" may even be seen as "Africans" because they look "negroid",
and many non-"negroids" who have long roots in Africa may be seen as
non-Africans.
There are no Africans, Asians, Europeans or Americans. We are all
bastards. The reason why Klevius (since 1992) always has emphasized
"mongoloids" is precisely to 1) underscore
that the least favoured "race" may be the main key to understanding
modern humans, and to 2) undermine the racial bias against North and
East Eurasians.
The fear of talking about intelligence but not about e.g. beauty etc.,
is an obstacle to science and scientists like Svante Pääbo and Peter
Klevius, who both have no problem seeing the selfevident, namely that
there must have been a huge jump in at least some humans intelligence
based on what we now know from the Siberian Denisova cave.
Yes, there are more people with lower IQ in sub-Saharan Africa and
Australia. So what?! There are also geniuses - and most people there are
just average as everywhere else. Why would it be a problem that
intelligence isn't exactly equally distributed? Underlying such an
approach is pure racism against e.g. retarded (by birth or accident
etc.) or less intelligent people.
Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia were dead ends when it came to human
evolution. As was South America which only differed in that it didn't
collect "evolutionary garbage" - there's little difference between e.g.
Shompen in SE Asia and indigenous South Americans, but a huge genetic
diversity in Africans and Australians.
Primate evolution has since its start come out from SE Asia. And the
reason for this is the evolutionary volatile SE Asian archipelago.
However, modern humans got their "mongoloid" features in the cold north
(see Klevius theory below).
In all ends (except Australia) of the world natives look mongoloid.
The world during and after the dinosaurs
The modern human Homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) brain setup, according to
Peter Klevius (2012), evolved in three main steps: 1. head shrinking
without losing processing power, 2. filling up bigger skulls, 3.
entering HSS.
100 Ma: The southern continent has just cracked up.
60 Ma six million years after the "big bang" in Yucatan killed most
insects and therefore altered evolution for many species. After this
period we see the emergence of Teilhardina.
Omomyid haplorhine Teilhardina is known on all three continents in
association with the carbon isotope excursion marking the
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5 Ma. Relative position within the
carbon isotope excursion indicates that Asian Teilhardina asiatica is
oldest, European Teilhardina belgica is younger, and North American
Teilhardina brandti and Teilhardina americana are, successively,
youngest. Analysis of morphological characteristics of all four species
supports an S-E Asian origin and a westward Asia-to-Europe-to-North
America dispersal. High-resolution isotope stratigraphy indicates that
this dispersal happened in an interval of ≈25,000 yr. Rapid geographic
dispersal and morphological character evolution in Teilhardina are
consistent with rates observed in other contexts.
50 Ma
40 Ma:
10 Ma: Bipedal apes in Eurasia.
Sea-level changes can act as “species pumps” (compare what Klevius, back
in 2003, wrote about how climate changes "pumped" genes through central
Asian "arteries").
Sea-level changes during the Paleocene–Eocene and Plio–Pleistocene
played a major role in generating biodiversity in SE Asia and
contributed to recent divergence of many species. The timing of one
early divergence between Indo-Burmese and Sundaic species coincides with
late Paleocene and early Eocene high global sea levels, which induced
the formation of inland seaways in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. Subsequent
lowered sea levels may have provided a land bridge for its dispersal
colonization across the Isthmus of Kra.
Do consider that the Manot skull is very small (1,100cc) compared to
the much older Liujiangs skull (1567cc) from Southeast China
>68,000bp. Do also understand that early reports about "sapiens teeth
and jaws" in Israel don't prove anything about the crania.
Here Manot is compared to a female from Europe 36,000bp.
These skulls were found in
Northwestern Africa (300,000bp) and Southwestern Europe (430,000bp)
respectively. However, the "African" skull is called modern human
whereas the "European" skull is called Neandertal, despite the fact that
neither has anything to do with truly modern humans.
Klevius theory on human evolution has tightly followed new findings
without being locked to a doxic out-of-Africa mantra. That's why this
image has come first for some six years on a Google search.
Peter Klevius 2012 updated human evolution map.
Whereas sub-Saharan Africa is an evolutionary dead end, Mediterranean
and SE Asia constituted archepelagos with intermediate mainland
connections - i.e. perfect evolutionary labs. Mediterranean may have
played an important role in early hominid evolution (5.7 Ma footprints
on Crete, 7.2 Ma Australopithecus at Rhine etc.), and SE Asia in the
Floresiensis and Denisovan development. According to Peter Klevius
(2004, 2008, 2010, 2012), a better packed brain evolved in island SE
Asia isolation from where it later entered mainland Asia during lower
sea level, and genetically spread to other Homos, e.g. the big skulled
ones in Altai/Siberia.
The fact that FOXP2-E distal is similar in humans and Denisovans, but
differs in Neandertals is just one of a multitude of anomalies that
neatly supports Peter Klevius theory, which is pretty much the very
opposite to the mainstream out-of-Africa thought trap gospel.
Svant Pääbo shares Peter Klevius view that something particular must
have happened with the human brain at that time. However, whereas Pääbo
seems to think this happened similarily to al modern humans, Klevius
thinks it was strongest in the region around the Denisova cave and then
became diluted while modern humans spread towards more populated areas.
As a consequence of this view the Denisovan's genius gene(s) had its
strongest and longest concentration in the sparsely populated Siberia.
Out of Africa PC babblers' main argument, i.e. diversity, is actually the best evidence against them.
Why would the most adventurous hominids always stop evolving or just get extinct when they have come out of Africa?
Sub-Saharan Africa has been a cul-de-sac museum for archaic hominid genes - therefore diversity.
Just like modern humans could mix with Neandertals, equally they could
mix with other archaic Homos that had been trapped in the sub-Saharan
genetic appendice.
The very basis for what is called "the human lineage" is the result of
tracing back in evolutionary time features that we ourselves possess -
or lack. And the most general of these features is our "timid" physical
appearance (no good teeth, no good runners, not especially strong etc.)
combined with an ability to reach and live in all sub-Saharan African
environments. A big but poorly equipped rat.
So how could such a creature possibly evolve undisturbed in an assumed
isolated group? Moreover, if somehow possible, how then could such an
evolved Homo get out from its alleged African evolutionary isolation
without loosing its speciation through hybridization/gene flow with its
surrounding relatives?
Only if the population was very big, or more importantly for this
example, if it possessed some genetic advantage (e.g. intelligence),
would it successfully survive hybridization. However, this should have
happened before such intelligence appeared and this genetic clash would
leave traces of increased genetic diversity due to mixing with archaic
relatives surrounding the isolate population. But the problem is that no
such isolation is to be found in the sub-Saharan cul-de-sac, whereas in
SE Asia there were plenty of them - with gates that closed and opened
perfectly for evolutionary purpose.
Genetic diversity increases when gene flow with other populations occur.
Geographic isolation leads to allopatric speciation through reproductive isolation.
Fruit fly larvae in isolation starts speciation because populations are prevented from gene flow via interbreeding.
Populations don't have to be geographically isolated from one another
for speciation to occur. Speciation occurs when there is little or no
inter-breeding (gene flow) between the two groups. Therefore we can say
speciation is the result of reproductive isolation.
Klevius wrote:
The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory
The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no
contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we
know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time.
Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations"
started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the
only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact!
According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient
brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until
meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who
later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo
erectus was most probably involved as well.
Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory
Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly
modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000
ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.
Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)
If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and
other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer
2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:
The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139
000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis
remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has
ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words,
we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000
years
after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at
approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of
70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.
Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs
completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains
have been kept out of further research because of stupid*
"Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more
"special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the
ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the
Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you
can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have
come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like
anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from
Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated
stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of
modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull
Mungo man had a much smaller brain.
* There's no way anyone can state who
was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no
way of making any meaningful connection to now living people.
In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about
human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable
Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton
of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable
because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo
erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo
sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain
volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may
therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more
sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Updated map
Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear
by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South
East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations
needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary
isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to
shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland
kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence
that such has happened there.
Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March
2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a
juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote
Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also
been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe
bone belonging to different members of the same population have since
been reported.
Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone
showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and
modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this
specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with
Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that
they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day
modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and
Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain
suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where
Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with
the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant
local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the
Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with
an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe
bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two
teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an
unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013,
mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain,
which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was
found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.
Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans,
since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone,
two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone.
The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the
variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female,
indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in
build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares
no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An
initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the
suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid
individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was
inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking
at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced
hybrids with Denisovans.
Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These
includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary
remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human
evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian
Neanderthals".
Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans
Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa
Google does its utmost to suppress/belittle Peter Klevius groundbreaking science - hence also blocking it from others. Ususally Google suppress all of Peter Klevius' important images and postings etc. However, after it in 2024 was reported that the Liujiang skull is same age as Cro-Magnon, i.e. much younger than previously reported, Google immediately started pushing out Peter Klevius Eurasian art track image with the old dates. However, here's a corrected update.
In
Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter
about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the
remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean
border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000
years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume
(1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time
and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The
anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and
appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that
big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior
(Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been
produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens
still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo
floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan
instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius
was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy
program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of
exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.
In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and
African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in
appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are
heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to
cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be
related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had
moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so
called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had
previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.
So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human
remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search
really paid off.
This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai.
Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about
mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more
than a decade.
Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However,
Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although
it's female.
Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004
and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased
supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu,
1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial
skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China
as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China
are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very
distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a,
1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese
Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H.
erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most
clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff
et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of
anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the
maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced
frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some
of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf
Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for
instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in
Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe.
Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin
fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously
considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the
Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011)
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html).
However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from
palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the
Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how
this plays out over the next decade, or so.
Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!
For a background to Klevius' theory see previous postings and
Out of Africa as Ape/Homo hybrids and back as global Mongooids
First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500
years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempouy in
France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9
Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad
cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.
From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon
Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempouy made because she
looked so different from Cro Magnon? Was she kept as a pet or something
by her Cro Magnon captors?
There were certainly completely different looking modern humans living
in Eurasia side by side some 26,000 years ago. And the only way to make
sense of these enormous differences is Klevius hybridization theory,
i.e. that the modern brain came from small ape-like creatures (compare
the "scientists" who didn't believe that the small Homo floresiensis
brain could be capable of tool-making, fire-making etc..
Debbie Martyr (an Orang Pendek* researcher): "the mouth is small and
neat, the eyes are set wide apart and the nose is distinctly humanoid"
* Orange Pendek is the most common
name given to a small but broad shouldered cryptid ceature that
reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on Sumatra.
Venus of Brassempouy, one of the world's oldest real portrait
(this one slightly retouched by Klevius)
The
Red Deer Cave people, discovered in southern China and who lived some
14,300-11,500 years ago had long, broad and tall frontal lobes behind
the forehead, which are associated with personality and behavior.
However, they also express prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones,
flat upper face with a broad nose, jutting jaws and lack a humanlike
chin. Their brains were smaller than modern humans and they had large
molar teeth (just like Denisovan), and short parietal lobes at the top
of the head (associated with sensory data). According to Curnoe, "These
are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of
years ago".
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people include a strongly curved
forehead bone, broad nose and broad eye sockets, flat and wide cheeks
and wide and deep lower jaw joint to the skull base.
Klevius comment: Compare this description to Venus of Brassempouy
on the pic, one of the world’s oldest portrait/sculpture of a human
made some 25-26,000 years ago in what is now France.
This Cro Magnon could have been the captor of Venus of Brassempouy.
Compare e.g. his protruding chin with the retracting one on Venus of
Brassempouy. And keep in mind that the human chin has been an elusive
and quite recent feature in human evolution. The delicate features we
used to attribute to anatomically modern human while simultaneously
attributing high intelligence may, in fact, not be connected at all.
Slender and delicate skeletal features are not always connected with
high cultural achievement. Quite the opposite when looking at skeletal
remains outside the Aurignacian area..
In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a portrait of an almost modern Cro
Magnon is now scientifically dated to at least 29,000 BP. The
performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when
considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years,
and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in
Africa or Mideast.
Klevius comment: Consider the circumstances. Small population
and, at some stage, no previous "teachers". This northern part of the
Aurignacian struck almost out of the blue unles you also consider the
Denisova bracelet.
This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the
ape-like "non-human(?) Denisovan hybrid in Siberia >40,000 years ago
by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines,
according to the researchers who found it.
Professor Ji Xueping ( Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and
Archeology): “Because of the geographical diversity caused by the
Qinghai-Tibet plateau, south-west China is well known as a biodiversity
hotspot and for its great cultural diversity”.
Klevius comment: Compare what was said already 2004 (before the presentation of Homo floresiensis) on the web(and 1992 in book form): Genes
were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same (Central-Asian)
geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting
speciation but encouraging local "raciation".
According to Klevius' theory we got our modern brain intelligence from
hybridization with apes (Pan?). These creatures were small and apelike
although bipedal. When they moved north they encountered cold adapted
Homos with large skulls. This combination created the most intelligent
people ever on the planet. However, when this extremely small population
began expanding it dissolved with the big headed but stupid Homos hence
empowering their intelligence while diluting its own. The mix became
today's humans.
Homo floresiensis on Java (i.e. north of the Wallace line as opposed to
thise found on Flores) may be, and the Denisovans in Siberia are
variants on this hybrid path.
"Racial" distribution in accordance with Klevius' "Out of Siberia and
back to Africa" theory (aka "Out of Africa as pygmies and back as
global mongoloids"
Mongoloids and Australoids are the races most distant from each other
because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids
Australia due to its location came to be less involved. This is also why
the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what
in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the grey area on
the map).
The senseless Mideastern "creation out of nothing" ideology got
popular only because it boosted patriarchal sex apartheid (Adam created
by "god" and woman created from Adam).
The incredibly stupid (see postings below) "Out of Africa" term only
competes with the equally misleading and stupid "Big Bang" term - see
Klevius new blog on the Origin of Universe (note that there's no 'the' in front of universe).
M130
Genetic traces of Denisovan
Klevius' human evolution formula from hot to cold
Chimp/Homo hybridization (FOXP2 variant) + meeting/mixing with Eurasian
Homos = Denisovan (Floresiensis?) and leaves an early but misleading
genetic Africa label due to the back and forth movement between Eurasia
and Africa.
Denisovan (Floresiensis?) gets a better packed brain in island Indonesia
through sea level isolation. Later on the opposite effect releases some
of them into Asian mainland.
In summary, the oldest African genes are not human, and the later ones are just the result of mixing from back migration.
When Klevius in the 1980s got in contact with African aborigines he
immediately was struck by their mongoloid appearance. Why on earth would
African aborigines have traces of cold adaptation? Today we have the
answer in Siberia.
.
